Confessions of a Forced Spectator

Michael Hussey and the Myth of Padding Averages

2011-10-03T02:21:00.000-07:00

Disclaimer: This post will be entirely stats-based so anyone who finds them repulsive is better off not reading it.

Just how good is Michael Hussey? He isn't the most talked about batsman in world cricket and after a Bradmanesque start to his test career his test average has settled at a more human 53.26. Having played all his international cricket in an era which has seen an increase in averages and scoring rates, it is a very good but not a great number. What is amazing, though, is that this is still the tenth highest average among batsmen who have played 60 or more tests. Three of the batsmen above him - Kallis, Sangakkara, Tendulkar - have played a lot of their cricket in the same era, so they have benefited just as much as Mr. Cricket. Infact, even with a very generous cut-off of 60 innings in the last 6 years, Hussey has the sixth best average. The 3 batsmen mentioned earlier are ahead of him, a testament to their calibre and their status in the pantheon of batting greats.

But this isn't what makes Hussey so good. It is his ability to seamlessly go from one format to another taking hardly any time to change his approach to batting based on the format that sets him apart from any cricketer of this generation. Among batsmen who have played atleast 160 ODIs, Hussey has the second best average and the eleventh best strike rate. The argument used against most batsmen who bat in the lower middle order is that they pad their averages by virtue of remaining not out. It is one of the most cliched excuses given against batsmen who time and again show the skill and composure to score quickly at the end of an innings and yet remain unbeaten. Historically, as well as since Hussey's debut, batsmen in the top 4 have averaged more than those batting from 5 to 7.

Batting Position	All-time
Batting Position	Innings	Average	Strike Rate	Not Outs
Openers	12666	32.3	70.17	4.74%
3-4	12413	33.85	71.69	10.36%
5-7	16526	26.61	75.13	19.56%
Batting Position	Since Hussey's Debut
Batting Position	Innings	Average	Strike Rate	Not Outs
Openers	4366	32.23	78.19	4.54%
3-4	4267	34.34	75.11	10.05%
5-7	5731	28.57	79.15	18.32%
Batting Position	Hussey's Numbers
Batting Position	Innings	Average	Strike Rate	Not Outs
Openers	2	36	69.23	50%
3-4	20	62	85.71	25%
5-7	113	48.51	88.91	30.97%

As one can see, the batting averages of batsmen in the top 4 have remained more or less same. However, there has been a considerable increase in their strike rates. It's not something unknown to us, most of the changes in playing conditions in ODI cricket have been to the benefit of batsmen. The fact that batsmen in the lower middle order pad their averages due to greater frequency of remaining unbeaten is also offset by the fact that they can't score as big as batsmen before them and at times have to sacrifice their wicket in trying to score quickly.

Finally, the shortest format of the game and once again Hussey is right up there in the list of batsmen. He has the third best average and fourth best strike rate among batsmen who have played 15 or more innings in T20 Internationals. What is amazing about this is he usually bats in the middle order for Australia (he has batted at 4 or below in 19 of his 20 T20 innings) while he usually opens the innings for Chennai Super Kings, for whom he averages 43.27 at a strike rate of 122.

I don't know how much longer Hussey is going to be around. Any talk of his place in the list of batting greats would be premature and should happen once he has retired. Until then, we can just marvel at his performance across all formats, and how on earth did 9 IPL teams allow Chennai to buy him for just $425,000.

Does Anybody Understand the Rankings?

2011-08-17T00:13:00.000-07:00

It is always fun to see two sets of fans taking potshots at each other. The ICC Rankings have given them one more reason to display their ignorance. Depending on where your team is, the rankings are either a joke or an affirmation of a team's performance.

From December 2009 to August 2011 the Indian fans were pointing to the rankings and gloating about how their team was better than the rest. On the other hand, some thought India were number one only on paper. Some pointed to how India had never won a series in South Africa or Australia, how they didn't have a proper fast bowler, how the players didn't look hot in G-Strings. Now that England have taken that spot from India, you have scores of articles on how they are such a ruthlessly professional side and their rise to the number one position was inevitable. And the ones who were gloating a few weeks ago think England aren't really number one because they haven't won anything of note in the subcontinent for a decade. While that is indeed true, what is not true is that 9 of England's last 12 series have been at home. Some even think that they have the right to tell people that they do not have the right to belittle the Indian team after a bad series.

I wonder how many of these people actually know how the ICC Rankings System works. Jrod has pointed that England could lose their number one spot even before they play their next series. Those of you interested in finding out how can go to the ICC Website and fill in the boxes in the ICC Rankings Predictor to see how it's possible. If you want to dig deeper into how points are awarded to teams based on the series scoreline, here's the exact formula used to calculate it.

It looks like a really complicated calculation, doesn't it? Well, even if it is, it's quite clear that there is no extra weightage for away wins (or home losses). This means that if a team plays a dispropotionate amount of cricket at home, it can go up the rankings. This is quite possible over a 2 or 3 year period as the current FTP mandates teams to play each other home and away over 6 years and allows boards to add on series as they please. Hence, England can host the West Indies in 2009 just two years after a 4-test series between the 2 countries in 2007. Likewise, India hosted Australia for a 2-test series in 2010 (It was just an ODI series initially) despite hosting them for a 4-test series in 2008. Ofcourse these teams have to still ensure they win at home in order to improve/maintain their position, but I don't think many people would contest the argument that teams usually perform better at home than away.

Also, the rankings don't take into account the margin of victory/defeat. As far as they're concerned, a 1-run win is just as good as a win by an innings and 400 runs. Similarly, a draw with both teams scoring an equal number of runs is the same as a draw in which a team was 1 wicket away from an innings defeat.

One can debate the ratings system but it is what it is. There are other rating/ranking systems out there for those who want to look at alternatives. I quite like the system Russ from idlesummers has come up with. I agree with the parameters he uses for calculating the points although I don't know how much weightage he assigns to them.

I guess what I'm trying to say is there is way too much talk of ratings & rankings when all teams and fans should be worried about is their team trying to win every test they play. It doesn't matter if you're ranked 1 or 10, if you pull out of a chase with 15 overs to bat/bowl just because you're tired or think it's impossible to score 6 an over you're cheating the fans of a proper result.

IPL 2011 Points Table

2011-05-24T04:57:00.000-07:00

Blame it on its to the World Cup or the heartburn that comes from watching an obviously weak Daredevils side, but it took me a while to warm up to the IPL this season. I was so indifferent toward the start that during one of the games I decided to go grocery shopping. 3 of the 4 teams to make the playoffs were decided almost before the start of the tournament. The owners of Mumbai and Chennai had got their way with the player retention rule while Rajasthan and Punjab were docked a certain amount of their payroll. Bangalore had bought very wisely as well. It was just a matter of finding out which would be the fourth team to make the playoffs, although the playoff system was a very good move to ensure teams didn't ease off once qualification was confirmed.

But I did get into it as the season went on and there have been some really good performances. I'm not going to get into who are the best and worst players this season as that's not what this post is about.

This post is about the final points table and a statistical assessment of where teams should have been based on their performance. I should add a caveat here. A 14-game sample for teams isn't really big and there will always be large variations because of some lopsided matches. This was especially the case for the Bangalore, as the team's performance improved remarkably with the arrival of Chris Gayle. Just to give you a sense of perspective, Bangalore's estimated win percentage in matches Gayle didn't play was 29.43. In matches Gayle played, their estimated win percentage was 68.57. It would have probably been even more had they not had that huge loss against Punjab, but since a 9-game sample is small it will be prone to such odd results.

The estimated win percentage is based on the teams' average (batting and bowling), strike rate (batting and bowling), economy rate, and balls per wicket lost. I would have loved to incorporate the percentage of dots, singles, boundaries as well but unfortunately that data isn't available very easily. Also, the weight of each statistic was based on data from the previous IPL seasons. Below is the table depicting the actual and estimated win percentage of the 10 teams.

Team	Mat	Won	Lost	Win %	Est Win%
Bangalore	14	9.5	4.5	67.86%	55.95%
Chennai	14	9	5	64.29%	61.93%
Mumbai	14	9	5	64.29%	63.10%
Kolkata	14	8	6	57.14%	62.96%
Punjab	14	7	7	50.00%	44.15%
Rajasthan	14	6.5	7.5	46.43%	41.91%
Deccan	14	6	8	42.86%	50.09%
Kochi	14	6	8	42.86%	38.73%
Delhi	14	4.5	9.5	32.14%	35.24%
Pune	14	4.5	9.5	32.14%	42.49%

* Bangalore and Rajasthan, Delhi and Pune shared points because their respective matches did not produce a result due to rain.

The 4 statistically best sides have made the playoffs, albeit not in the order of their statistical edge. This is the first time in four seasons that it's happened - Mumbai missed out in 2008 and 2009 while Delhi didn't make the semis in 2010.

There really isn't much to choose between Chennai, Mumbai and Kolkata. It's interesting that Bangalore who have the worst estimated win percentage of the four have topped the table. It's due to the fact that teams play just 14 games and all it takes is a run of 5-6 good matches to make it to the top 4. In this case, Bangalore reeled off 7 consecutive wins thanks in large part to Chris Gayle.

What Jose Will Never Admit

2011-04-28T01:00:00.000-07:00

1. Porto beat Manchester United in 2004 after United had a perfectly legitimate goal ruled offside.
2. Jorge Andrade being sent off for allegedly kicking the ball at a Porto player in the semis.
3. His accusations toward Anders Frisk caused the referee to retire after angry Chelsea fans made death threats.
4. Ricardo Carvalho pulled down Victor Valdes as John Terry headed the ball into the Barcelona goal in the second leg at Stamford Bridge in 2005.
5. Chelsea prepared a sandpit for Barcelona in the first leg at Stamford Bridge in 2006.
6. Asier Del Horno should have been booked for a studs up challenge on Lionel Messi before he was shown a direct red for kicking the ball onto him after the referee had already blown the whistle.
6. Chelsea got a penalty in the second leg even though there was no foul on John Terry.
7. Michael Ballack should've been booked for a foul on Thierry Henry in the first leg of the semi-final in 2009.
8. The aforementioned foul was in the penalty area and would have resulted in a penalty and Barcelona most likely going into the second leg with a lead.
9. Eric Abidal was wrongly sent off in that game after Anelka tripped on himself.
10.Diego Milito's goal in the first leg of the semi-final in 2010 was offside.
11.Thiago Motta elbowed Sergio Busquets. Even if Busquets hadn't made a meal of it, that was a red.
12.Barcelona had a goal ruled out because Toure was deemed to have handled the ball, even though he had no time to avoid it.
13.Pepe should have been sent off in the Copa Del Rey final.
14.Sergio Ramos got booked for elbowing Lionel Messi.

Edit: I had got the first one wrong. Porto's goal at Old Trafford was fine, it was United who had a goal disallowed even though Scholes was atleast a metre onside. Props to Rohan the United supporter for pointing it out.

The World Doesn't Move to the Beat of Just One Drum

2011-04-27T22:35:00.000-07:00

It's amazing how there appears to be an unwritten code that demands footballers to get on with it despite being kicked around. Apparently it's a bigger crime to stay on the ground when you're fouled than it is to commit the foul in the first place. So who cares if your most precious asset, your legs, are constantly stamped on and/or poked at by elite athletes even though it's the ball that they need to be kicking? I mean what's the big deal if an Eduardo or a Ramsey breaks his leg? Who cares if a player misses multiple months due to an injury? They knew what they were getting into, isn't it?

Sure, everybody knows football at the highest level can be a very risky game where you're one bad tackle away from having your career ended. But why hold it against players when they do everything they can to ensure it doesn't happen to them? I dislike the exaggerated reaction to fouls as any other person, but it can never come close to a malicious foul even if that foul didn't result in a serious injury. One of them can influence the course of a tie, the other can influence the course of a tie and a player's career. People would do well to maintain a sense of perspective in such cases.

It is in this context that I would like to view last night's game between Real Madrid and Barcelona. Anyone who knows a thing or two about football should have seen it coming. There was no way in hell Real were going to allow an open game, even though it might just have been in their favour to be more aggressive on the ball rather than on the opposition players. Barcelona were missing all three of their left backs and had to slot in a semi-fit Carles Puyol to play in that position. It also meant they were without their first-choice centre back, and Diego Milito was also injured. As a result, they had to play a defensive midfielder in that position. They were also missing Andres Iniesta, who just happens to be one of the best creative midfielders in world football.

Why then would you put out a side at home to just sit back and absorb whatever Barcelona throw at you, especially when you have spent hundreds of millions on players who are supposed to score goals for a living? Lassana Diarra was penalised twice in the first half hour for tackling from behind and not getting a piece of the ball. He was pushing the limit all game and on another night he might have been booked. But when you as the opposition player see the referee not do anything about such tackles, why wouldn't you protest? If kicking players is a legitimate tactic to intimidate them, surely making the most of such challenges and pressurising the referee is just as fine? Unlike Rugby or American Football where contact is essential, it is only incidental in football. Don't tell that to most of the fans though, who think kicking players is an absolutely legitimate tactic.

Ofcourse the flip side to this argument is that players like Alves and Busquets made the most of the fouls committed on them. But does it change the fact that those fouls were committed? Pepe's studs up tackle on Alves is the kind that ruins careers. I remember UEFA banning Michael Essien for two games for a similar tackle on Jamie Carragher in 2006, and I bet people would be quick to point out that those two games happened to be against Barcelona.

I could say a lot about Mourinho and his one-eyed view of incidents, but I'll leave that for another post. For now, I'm going to enjoy this piece of brilliance from Messi and I hope that whoever I marry lets me name my first-born Lionel.

O Captain, My Captain! Give me my Humble Pie!!!

2011-04-02T14:09:00.000-07:00

They used to ask who wrote Ian Botham's scripts. I think it's time people asked that question about Mahendra Singh Dhoni. Those who think it's disrespectful to question Dhoni's tactics miss the point: We all want him to lead the side to victory. Just because we disagree with some of his decisions doesn't mean we don't want him to be captain. Conversely, just because we agree with some of his decisions doesn't mean we'd blindly back him on everything.

I thought the decision to play a third seamer in the last two games was the wrong one. Dhoni admitted to making that mistake in the semis and I'm glad he can do that inspite of the intense scrutiny he's put under. Playing Sreesanth ahead of Ashwin was wrong too, but it didn't cost us a win. On another day it might. On the other hand, it was the right thing for Dhoni to bat at 5 with 3 offspinners in the Lankan side. As good as Yuvraj has been, he's never been comfortable against them. The required rate was very much under control and it made a lot of sense to save him for bowlers he could hammer all over the Wankhede. It would've been the right decision even if Dhoni had gotten out.

I think Dhoni understands this, and as long as we're civil about expressing our opinion it's alright. It was nice to see him not take the bait Ravi Shastri dangled in front of him. He knew he hadn't batted well in the World Cup so far and wanted to prove a point to himself. He's a much bigger man than Shastri and all those bitter "experts" will ever be. Let's not talk about how sick it makes us when we see a cricketer endorse a brand right after he's been dismissed. These guys have a much shorter career span than so many of us and we should let them decide their priorities. Question their tactics, but please don't question their motives without concrete evidence because these guys have worked so much harder than any of us to be where they are.

Anyone I talk cricket with knows I did not think India would win this World Cup before the start of the tournament. It wasn't because of the weight of expectations or anything, I just thought a lineup that hadn't played together for the past year or so, out of form middle order batsmen and a bowling attack that sold itself short in its quest for wickets could win three knockout games in a row.

As it turns out, it took the side a while to realise Kohli's place shouldn't be messed around with. The brilliant allround performance of Yuvraj was obviously the biggest boost for the side, one not even his biggest supporters would have expected. Everyone knew he had the ability to pace his innings in ODIs but no one expected him to bowl 10 overs and take 2 wickets almost every game. The bowling was just about good, but Zaheer provided the leadership it desperately needed and Yuvraj took away the headache of the fifth bowler. It is amazing that of the many "experts" on TV & in the media, none of them has picked up on Zaheer's knuckleball. Sometimes it helps to expand your horizons. Kudos to whoever got Zaheer to try that delivery.

The addition of Raina gave the side a leader in the fielding department. It is difficult to quantify the impact of fielding, but if ever there was a case for recognising a player's "intangibles", Raina is a prime example. I remember an incident from the game against Pakistan when a throw came in and Nehra wasn't aware of it. The ball would've hit him but Raina stepped in to take the blow. It's the sort of thing TV cameras never pick up, but the men on the field do. It would be wrong to not touch on his lower order batting in the two knockout games. The team was right in trying Pathan at the start of the World Cup, and it was also right in going back to their finisher when Pathan couldn't deliver. It's not a knock on Pathan, he should be (And I bet he is) proud to be part of a World Cup winning side.

Last but not least, a big Thank You to Gary Kirsten. You have sacrificed over 3 years of family life to turn us into a proper team. You have done it without being overbearing, without going behind the players' backs, and with a lot of dignity even when things didn't go the way India wanted them to. I hope you enjoyed working in our land and achieve great success in whatever project you take up. I wish you would have stayed longer but nothing comes before family and nation. Just don't join the Mumbai Manhooses. They're Evil :)

History Beckons...Again

2011-01-05T21:45:00.000-08:00

This might be the age of ratings and rankings but those who have watched test cricket over the years would largely agree that teams focus a lot more on a series than they do on calculating how many points they need to retain/improve their spot on the ICC ladder. That is why, while India have retained the number one spot irrespective of the result of the Newlands test, a lot of people are skeptical about their status as the number one. One of their arguments is that India have never won a series in either Australia or South Africa. It is also why a lot of people are touting England to be the best side in the world, even though they've been beating up on the weakest Australian teams since the 1980s.

There is no denying the fact that India's home win over Australia in 2001 was a watershed moment in the history of Indian cricket. That Australian team was the strongest to visit Indian shores since the 1994 West Indies side that hadn't lost a series since 1979-80. Back in 1994, India took a 1-0 lead after the first test but blinked in the second test when they had the chance to finish the series and tell the cricketing world that they were a force to reckon with. The Windies came back and forced a win on the back of an all out attack in the second innings of the third and final test. The Windies continued their streak, India continued to be underachievers. A few months later Mark Taylor's Australia who ended their dominance and in the process made Australia legitimate contenders for the best side in the world. It took them 4 more years to separate themselves from the pack but once they did it, they remained the undisputed best side in the world for almost a decade.

There have been quite a few series since 2001 when history beckoned India, who cheated themselves out of an historic result. In 2003-04 they faced an Australian team without its two best bowlers. After a brilliant comeback in the first test at Brisbane, India showed they had the resolve and the ability to bring the Aussies to their knees at Adelaide. However, they collapsed after Sehwag played one of the best Boxing Day knocks at the MCG. The final test saw Australia save their unbeaten home record of 10 years thanks to some docile Indian batting, inability to mop up the tail, shoddy wicket-keeping and dubious umpiring.

Three years later they had another chance, this time in South Africa. India were in all sorts of trouble going into the first test at Johannesburg. They had lost the ODI series 4-0, their captain had a broken finger, the relationship between the coach Greg Chappell and the players was deteriorating, and the chairman of selectors Dilip Vengsarkar had recalled former captain Sourav Ganguly - the man who was said to have been dropped at Chappell's behest.

The pitch that greeted the visitors was green and had cracks running through its length. Infact, the start was delayed because the curator thought the pitch wasn't ready. India won the toss and chose to bat in what was perceived to be a show of aggression. They didn't put up a big score but the South African reply put India's score in perspective, as the hosts were bowled out for just 84. A first innings lead of 165 was enough of a buffer as India won their first test in South Africa. However, just like in Australia, they squandered the advantage by losing the very next test. It was all the more sad because South Africa were without their best player - Jacques Kallis - for that test. The third test was played on an unusually rough wicket. India got the crucial first innings lead and looked set to push for an historic series win, when debutant Paul Harris tied down Dravid and Tendulkar on day four. India collapsed after those two couldn't kick on and Kallis anchored a fairly tricky run chase after captain Graeme Smith had played another one of his famous fourth innings knocks. Another series, another opportunity lost. This time serious questions were raised of Tendulkar's place in the side, as he was in the middle of a lean run and had failed to take on Paul Harris.

After a disastrous World Cup campaign, India started rebuilding and registered series wins in Bangladesh and England, as well as their first home win over Pakistan since 1979. Next up was an away series against an Australian side that had won 14 tests in a row, although 12 of those wins had come when Warne and McGrath hadn't retired. The selection for the tour betrayed a defensive mindset, as Wasim Jaffer did just enough to ensure the selectors wouldn't drop him and an out-of-form Rahul Dravid was moved to the top of the order to accommodate Yuvraj Singh. Shockingly, the selectors had completely overlooked Virender Sehwag as he wasn't even in the list of probables for the tour. I don't know how they went from that to picking him in the final squad but it was the only bright spot in an otherwise defensive selection policy. Maybe Ian Chappell's opinionated piece calling for Sehwag to be in the side tilted it, although going by the comments it seems like Indians thought he was trying to finish off the Indian team by making such an outrageous suggestion. The preparation for the test series was far from ideal as the side had just one practice match before the first test at the MCG, and even that match was hit by incessant rains.

Sure enough, India got rolled over in the first test as they failed to score 200 in either innings. Another heartbreaking loss followed in the second test at Sydney as India failed to bat less than a day to save a test they should have won. There were a lot of questionable calls from both umpires but if Anil Kumble is honest to himself he will know his side had no business collapsing on the final day. He should also question his decision to accept Ponting's pact on walking if the fielder claims a catch. I'm sure he accepted it with the best of intentions, but there was a reason why no other captain agreed to it. Kumble did lead his side to an inspiring win at Perth but the series was already over as Australia had retained the Border Gavaskar Trophy by taking an unassailable lead in the series. One couldn't help but think India didn't give themselves the best chance to register their first ever series win Down Under. A year later South Africa broke Australia's unbeaten home record of 16 years by winning two of the greatest tests in recent times.

India have crept slowly and surely up the ladder and are now perched on top of it. However, their position at the top isn't that steady and it needs a statement like the one Australia made in 1995 for the side to assert themselves as the undisputed number one. That this side has the ability and belief to bounce back is now known to even the skeptics. The Durban test took care of that, although one could argue that a better preparation going into the first test of the series may have helped the side draw if not win at Centurion.

But all that is behind us and with just one more day of cricket left in the series this Indian team has the chance to establish itself as unarguably the greatest ever to come out of the country. Weather interruptions notwithstanding, they have 340 runs to get in a minimum of 90 overs. It's a difficult target in the best of circumstances so it's probably more difficult considering South Africa's new ball pairing and the state of the pitch. Most sides wouldn't dare go for it and I suspect that's exactly what Graeme Smith is counting on. Tactically speaking, playing for a draw is only going to put more pressure on the Indian batsmen and I think they should play to win this test.Let me make it clear that by playing to win I don't mean they should go out and throw their bat at everything. To me, it starts with the openers actively looking to take singles against the new ball. The loose deliveries may or may not come, but rotating the strike will not only force Steyn and Morkel to frequently alter their line, it will also put Smith on the defensive. Over the past 13 months South Africa have failed to force a win on Day 5 on four occasions, two of which came at home. Kallis won't be bowling and if India get through to lunch at 100/1 or better, we might just get a close finish. The problem for India is Sehwag has had a bad series and he's never been a good second innings batsman. Also, Rahul Dravid has shown no signs of getting out of a funk that's seen him not score a hundred outside India or Bangladesh in four and a half years.

But there is a far more important reason I think India should play to win this test. Time and again they have blinked at the sight of making history. 20 years from now when people look back at what will be known as the golden era of Indian cricket, they won't remember the series India drew in Australia. They won't remember the series India lost in Australia or South Africa. And if India don't play to win today, people will sure as hell not remember the day India drew a test series in South Africa. But what they will remember is an Indian side that looked history in the eye and this time didn't blink, even if it means they ended up falling short in their effort. To me, settling for a draw is the easiest option India can take. However, there is a tougher option out there and it's given Dhoni and his men the chance to make this the greatest ever series in the history of Indian cricket. The flip side is a series loss, which is really no different from their past results in this country and won't be remembered as fondly or for as long as a series win.

50 years ago a West Indies side made history in Australia when Sir Frank Worrell won over the cricketing world with one of the greatest series of all time. The Windies lost the series 1-2 but got a rousing send-off from the city of Melbourne. To this day, that series is remembered fondly by players on either side. The lasting legacy of that series is it gave a name to the rivalry between two of the strongest cricketing nations. I doubt we'll have a similar legacy from the series going on in South Africa, but it can be an historic series nevertheless. History beckons...is India ready to make it?

IPL Player Retention and Auction Dynamics

2010-12-08T21:20:00.000-08:00

The list of players retained by IPL franchises is out and it’s no surprise to see Mumbai and Chennai retain their full quota of four players. Rajasthan have retained two while Delhi and Bangalore have retained just one player each. Some of the choices like Tendulkar, Pollard, Dhoni, Raina and Sehwag are obvious ones. There are a couple of picks that surprised me, namely Shane Warne and Virat Kohli. Not because I don’t think they are good enough to be retained but because I don’t think Bangalore and Rajasthan would have had to bid $1.8 million and $1.3 million respectively should these two players have gone into the auction. I assumed the $1.3 million figure for Warne as Rajasthan also retained Shane Watson. Come to think of it it’s also a stretch to believe Watson would have drawn a bid for $1.3 million let alone $1.8 million.

So how does one explain this? Well, one thing that needs to be noted is the franchises may not be paying the retained players the same amount as that they lose from their auction money. For example, it could very well be that Mumbai Indians are paying Tendulkar, say $2 million, but they’ll lose on $1.8 million from their payroll. Conversely, they could be paying him $1.5 million and still lose $1.8 million before going into the auction. In essence, the amount a franchise pays to a player it retains has been negotiated internally.

It’s easy to understand teams retaining players on a salary higher than what they lose before going into the auction, especially if the owners are as rich as Mukesh Ambani or N Srinivasan. But there is an interesting scenario wherein a team might choose to lose a higher amount from its payroll despite paying him less. In their brief history Rajasthan have been the smallest spenders in the IPL. It hasn’t affected their performances a lot. Afterall, they won the inaugural IPL and were just one win away from a semi-final spot in the last two seasons. It could very well be that Rajasthan got Warne and Watson to settle for a lot less than $3.1 million put together, thereby avoiding a scenario wherein the franchise could get into in a bidding war and either lose them or have to pay an amount greater than what they signed these two for. This may also explain them not retaining Yusuf Pathan who might have declined the salary Rajasthan were offering him. Afterall, he could well go for more than $900,000 or whatever amount Rajasthan were willing to offer. Sure they now have just $5.9 million for the auction, but if Mumbai and Chennai are confident of building a squad with just $4.5 million each then Rajasthan wouldn’t have a problem building theirs with $1.4 million more to play around with.

How does all this affect the auction? For starters, half the teams are going into it with a smaller purse than the other half.

Team	Auction Money (USD)	Players Remaining	Average Price (USD)
Deccan	9 million	25	360,000
Kochi	9 million	25	360,000
Kolkata	9 million	25	360,000
Pune	9 million	25	360,000
Punjab	9 million	25	360,000
Bangalore	7.2 million	24	300,000
Delhi	7.2 million	24	300,000
Rajasthan	5.9 million	23	256,521
Chennai	4.5 million	21	214,285
Mumbai	4.5 million	21	214,285

Some of the spots will be taken up by domestic players who won’t go into the auction. These players include Ambati Rayudu, Siddharth Trivedi, T Suman, Mithun Manhas, Iqbal Abdulla. However, anyone who has played for India will go into the auction. This means players like Cheteshwar Pujara, Umesh Yadav, Abhishek Nayar, Saurabh Tiwary, Ashok Dinda, Venugopal Rao will be able to test the market.

Now we have a situation in which some teams have more leverage going into the auction. But there is another variable in this whole process as teams don’t know the order in which players would be bid on. Hence, there could be a scenario in which a team is forced to bid an excessive amount for a player just because he happened to be among the first few names out of the hat. As a result, they may not have enough money to bid on a lot of other quality players later on in the auction. Mumbai and Chennai are in the weakest position as far as the auction is concerned, but they’ve covered up well through the players they’ve retained. They just need to guard against getting into a bidding war early on in the auction as it would be difficult to have a proper squad if they have to spend $1 million or more on getting a good keeper-batsman (Mumbai) or a wicket-taking fast bowler (Chennai). The other teams could identify the missing pieces in Mumbai or Chennai and try upping the price of players who these two teams might need desperately.

I don’t know if all this sounds interesting to most people. It does to me because I think this is where the businesspeople in the franchises need to think hard about getting the slightest edge over the others. Players will be locked in for three years and if the suits screw up at the auction there will be a lot of trouble on and off the field. One just needs to look at the Kolkata Knight Riders and the Bangalore Royal Challengers from the first season to realize the importance of player acquisition.

Shut Up and Bowl

2010-11-19T06:25:00.000-08:00

I'm going to come straight to the point before getting into the details. Harbhajan Singh has got to go. Not permanently, as every cricketer deserves to come back if he shows that he's improved, but atleast for the time being.

I haven't read anything from the men who matter about Harbhajan's prolonged run of poor bowling. Maybe they're unaware of it. Maybe they don't have enough faith in the alternate options. Afterall, neither Ojha nor Mishra has performed much better than Harbhajan. What's more, they don't make Ravi Shastri make outrageous claims about them being allrounders.

But how is it that no one has picked up on Harbhajan blaming everyone but himself everytime he doesn't perform? A few years ago he had a problem with the Kookaburra ball. He made no secret of the fact that he didn't like the ball as its seam wasn't as prominent as that of the SG ball and that it went flat very quickly. It was never a problem for Murali or Warne. Even Vettori seemed to do okay with that ball and he played his home games on pitches that weren't necessarily suited to his bowling.

One could give Harbhajan the benefit of doubt here as he was still new to test cricket and didn't get to practise with the Kookaburra enough as more often than not Kumble was India's pick for the lone spinner in away tests since his brilliant performance Down Under in 2003-04. Over the years though, Harbhajan has played tests in Pakistan, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka, Australia and the West Indies. He has also played a lot of limited overs cricket around the world so one would think he would have learnt to use the Kookaburra better. If he has he's surely done a great job of hiding it, for his test record in these countries is very mediocre.

He's done well in New Zealand and the West Indies but struggled elsewhere. It's hard to say he's suffered because of the ball or that he's adjusted to it.

So what about his performances at home with the SG ball that he seemed to like so much? They're nothing to write home about either. An average of over 35 with a strike rate of 76.5 would be unacceptable for the lead spinner of an attack that has thrived on spin in Indian conditions.

It is all the more disappointing considering he averaged a little less than 24 and had a strike rate of just 55 until the end of 2005. The last 5 years should have been a period in which he graduated to the status of a world class spinner who took wickets in all conditions. Instead, he's been reduced to making excuses for his performance by blaming the groundsman. It's interesting that while he says critics think he bowls well only when he takes wickets, his opinion of the pitch itself changed based on the number of wickets he took on it, as just 5 days before his criticism of the pitch he was quite happy about it after taking 4 wickets on that day. And I'm not even getting into the fact that he took the last 4 wickets to fall in the New Zealand innings after Zaheer Khan had struck the telling blows by getting 4 of their top 6 (Oh wait, I just did).

Daniel Vettori, on the other hand, has 11 wickets in the series and has had to bowl at the stronger batting lineup than the one Harbhajan has bowled to. He also has to lead his side unlike Harbhajan who is utterly incapable of even leading his team's bowling attack. Vettori has quietly gone about strangling the Indian batsmen even when the pitch hasn't offered much turn or uneven bounce. He's kept Sehwag quiet by the batsman's free scoring standards and really tested Tendulkar in the first test by conceding just 7 runs off the 65 deliveries he bowled to him. It might have had a role to play in Tendulkar stepping out to him and losing his wicket on Day 3 of the second test as Kartikeya suggests. Unlike Harbhajan, Vettori has used his experience to his advantage instead of being stuck on the condition of the pitch.

The team management has stuck by Harbhajan through his worst times as a cricketer when he was accused of racially abusing Andrew Symonds. A lot of people, some credible and some not so much, backed him as they believed his version of the story. They have also backed him despite 5 years of performances ranging from average to downright pathetic. Yet, he's shown no sign of even admitting that he needs to improve. It's about time Dhoni or Tendulkar told him to Just Shut Up and Bowl.

Cricket with the FT - By Lionel Barber

2010-11-06T13:26:00.000-07:00

A couple of days ago I received an email asking me to spread the word about an article in the Financial Times. The article is from Lionel Barber, editor of the Financial Times, titled ‘Cricket with the FT’, which talks about his day playing cricket with Imran Khan at his hilltop home overlooking Rawalpindi and neighbouring Islamabad.

Please note that the article is not mine and I haven't had any part to play in the writing of it. Do go through it and scoot over to the original which is on the FT website.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Cricket with the FT

By Lionel Barber

Our black four-wheel Toyota accelerates uphill, weaving past potholes and buffalo, en route to the hilltop home of Imran Khan. Hours earlier, aboard a Pakistani air force helicopter, I toured for two hours the areas north of Islamabad devastated by the worst floods for nearly a century. So I ask myself: which is the riskier journalistic venture: flying in a Russian-built M1-171 over a terror-stricken, nuclear-armed country often described as the most dangerous on earth or squaring up to the bowling of Imran, one of the finest cricketers of his generation?

Fixing a time and location for our sporting encounter has proved a challenge. Imran is a professional politician these days, the founder and head of the opposition Tereek-I-Insaf or Movement for Justice. He is also a prodigious philanthropist. Inside two and a half weeks, he raised 2.5bn rupees to help the flood victims; now he is in the middle of a 20 million dollar annual fund raising exercise for the cancer hospital he set up in his native Lahore in 1996 in memory of his mother, a victim of colon cancer; and he is expanding Namal college in the rural north, built in association with the university of Bradford, where he is chancellor. Plainly there is not much spare time for anything, let alone cricket with the FT.

Yet the man who greets me in his airy and stylish home is in excellent physical shape. He is tall, sinewy and, at 57, still strikingly handsome. The mop of ebony black hair shows no sign of fading, let alone receding. He is wearing a white shalwar and cream kameez and brown Peshawari chapal (sandals). By contrast, I have brought a new cricket bat, new pads and new batting gloves, courtesy of Farhan Bokhari, the FT's long time Islamabad correspondent. And I have lugged my quasi-antique protective box (Dulwich College 1st XI 1971-72-73) all the way from London. Is Imran Khan taking me seriously?

"I almost didn't make it," says the great all-rounder and six-hitter, by way of confirmation. Like many of his countrymen, Imran is enraged by the stand-off between President Ali Asif Zadari and the judiciary which is challenging the president's right to immunity against longstanding but unproven corruption charges. Imran has ill-disguised contempt for Zadari, the widower of former president Benazir Bhutto. "We were ready to go out on the street at any time," he says with a booming laugh. "We were ready to go this morning."

Imran talks rapidly, just like he used to bowl. I first saw him play in The Parks in Oxford in the summer of 1975. Two things stick in my mind: Imran's wonderfully high action which allowed him to generate far more pace and bounce than most mortals; and the fact that the Varsity side, which Imran captained, was playing Somerset, an exciting county ream which included Viv Richards, the swashbuckling West Indian batsman, and a promising young fellow all-rounder by the name of Ian Botham.

It is time to break the news, Imran and I were contemporaries at Oxford but we never met at the crease (thankfully - Ed).

"Really?"' exclaims the maestro, "What years? And which college?"

Imran has obviously become accustomed to every Tom, Dick and Harriet claiming to have been at Oxford with him in the 1970s. But he appears satisfied by my own credentials (St Edmund Hall 1974-78). I ask Imran what he makes of the recent betting scandal involving the Pakistani national cricket team.

"It's more prevalent than you think. It could be going on everywhere."

Toward the end of his 10-year reign as Pakistan's cricket captain, Imran remembers being woken up in the middle of the night by an anonymous caller claiming four members of his team had been bribed to throw the game. Imran summoned his side the following morning, "I told them I knew how well each of them could play and if anyone did not perform I wouldn't just have them banned I would personally ensure they went straight to jail."

Imran retired from cricket in 1992 aged 39. In fact, he tried to stop earlier but the fearsome dictator General Zia-ul-Haq literally bounced him out of retirement, insisting he carry on playing to serve the national interest. Imran calculated a few more years of celebrity would help him raise money for his cancer hospital so he went along.

Since retirement, he has only played twice, both times alongside his two young sons playing against their cousins on Ham common near Richmond, London, after the titanic Ashes series of 2005 which England won. Imran says he no longer plays or watches though his boys are passionate. Enough of the excuses, I say. It's time to play cricket!

We stride out into a magnificent garden overlooking Rawalpindi and neighbouring Islamabad. Having inspected the makeshift wicket, I mutter about uneven bounce and speculate, in my favourite Richie Benaud accent, that there could well be some turn for the bowler. Finally, after a semi-professional roll of the shoulders and twirl of the bat, I prepare to take strike.

© Alixandra Fazzina/Noor Images

Imran's first delivery is a slow loosener. I move forward to the pitch of the ball and skew it 15m into the would-be covers near the house. Mental note: move feet more adeptly. Imran's next delivery is slightly faster. I play a forward defensive stroke with the bat slightly angled to leg; Imran says he is impressed and asks me what grade cricket I played at Oxford. A couple of games for The Tics (The Authentics; Oxford University second and third team) I reply proudly.

The next ball catches me slightly unawares and I fall into the old bad habit of tipping over to the leg side, a technical flaw never ironed out at school. Quietly cursing, I compose myself for the next ball, an off-cutter which grips the grass and darts into me, catching the left glove but not so viciously as to offer a chance to a would-be short square leg. Imran's dog, a female shepherd called Sherni (Lioness) barks approvingly at his master's cunning delivery.

I decide it is time to take the offensive. Imran is barely bothering to bowl with a run-up and although his action is still admirably high, the pace is more than accommodating. For some reason, he is also complaining about the weight of the white ball. His shirt is carrying a small island of sweat. The next delivery is full length and I hit it with a straight bat but without quite timing the shot.

Imran compliments me on my drive and bowls the last ball of the over, another full-length delivery. And this time I do everything right: the feet move quickly, the bat-lift is high and the follow-through is confident. Ball meets bat and races past Imran 50m or so to the edge of the garden and on down the hill into the underbrush.

Imran is momentarily surprised but immediately gracious. "Good shot, but we will not find the ball now."

I had imagined floating a few Freddie Titmus style off spinners to the Great Man but I rapidly sense this is the time to retire to the pavilion. And so we march in together, honours even. Imran signs the bat and then reverts to politics, talking eloquently and passionately about Pakistan, Afghanistan and the counterproductive Americans military presence. As I take notes, I look briefly around the room. Three tribal swords from Waziristan on the wall, two beautiful carpets hanging to the left and right - but not a cricket trophy in sight.

"I auctioned them all for the cancer hospital," explains Imran. He never realised his own sons would share his passion for the game. As we bid farewell, I sense that I have been in the presence of not merely a (great) player but also a gentleman. The product of a bygone age, not just in cricket but also in politics.

Lionel Barber is editor of the FT

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

PS: Since this isn't my work I would appreciate it if readers didn't comment on this post and would share the original piece in FT.

A Little Bit of Respect

2010-11-03T14:09:00.000-07:00

For the Black Caps wouldn't be uncalled for. I had the misfortune of catching some of the coverage on the news channels and it would be an understatement to say that it was patronising toward the Black Caps. This is a team that hasn't lost more than a test in a series against India since 1988. Granted the two teams haven't played each other all that often and not in a series with more than 3 tests, but it still says something about the spirit of the Black Caps.

Suhas has been painting it black on his blog and has done a good recap of the last 3 times the Kiwis toured India. A lot of fans have been advocating a multi-tier test league with the Kiwis being relegated to the second tier. The popular opinion is they are no match for the Indian team and the big sides should be allowed to play among themselves because money is the overriding factor in the sport and playing weaker sides affects the bottom line. It's a very convenient "solution" as it assumes the status quo won't change anytime soon.

At a time when other sports are doing their best to make themselves as global as possible, the cricketing elite seem to be leaning the other way. I really don't agree with it and those who know me know this well enough. Inclusiveness is the very essence of sport. For years the West Indies sent their best players to the subcontinent even though the Aussies saved themselves for better conditions. Those Caribbean Gods were the hottest ticket in whatever town they were in and didn't not show up just because a town wasn't fun enough for them.

While the Kiwis have never achieved that sort of acclaim, no side has competed the way New Zealand have despite their limitations. They were the last side to beat the Windies before they embarked on a 15-year run of not losing a test series. They have also won a series in Australia, something none of the subcontinent sides have managed in their history. Since 1995 they have also registered series wins in the West Indies and England, something neither Pakistan nor Sri Lanka have managed during that period.

None of this has a bearing on the series that starts in a little less than 7 hours. But it does point to a side that has the ability to compete and the record to show for it. Undermining them is not the same as calling Bangladesh an ordinary test side, and Virender Sehwag copped a lot more flak for saying something that was proven right in the series - Bangladesh did fail to take 20 wickets in either test that series. The Kiwis might be coming off a whitewash in Bangladesh but let's not forget it was a different format. Let's also not forget that India recently lost both its ODIs to Zimbabwe but it didn't affect their performance in the test series in Sri Lanka.

As an Indian, I am obviously hoping we win all 3 tests. But then I hope for it every series. However, and it seems highly unlikely, it won't be the worst thing if the Kiwis win a test as long as it's not the first test: I'm going for that game and I don't want to see us lose when I'm at the game :)

Tough Love for Young Cricketers

2010-10-25T00:17:00.000-07:00

Most people I talk cricket with know how much I detest the hype around Rohit Sharma. In fact, there's an ongoing storyline about Nohit on Bored Cricket Crazy Indians and Naked Cricket spent his vacation time in Goa stalking Nohit to find out what he was up to.

I don't think those of us who bag him really hate the guy. We can all see he has the ability to bat genuinely well, just that he doesn't make that ability count as often as he should. A few years ago there was another player who had impressed everyone with his exciting batting at the Under-19 World Cup in 2004, two years before Rohit Sharma was the mainstay of the Indian team at the Under-19 World Cup in 2006. That player was Suresh Raina.

Raina made his international debut a little over a year after the 2004 Under-19 World Cup. He played a few decent innings but didn't do enough to nail down a place in the side and was rightly omitted from the squad for the 2007 World Cup. Until that point he had played 36 matches and scored 612 runs at an average of 26.61 and a strike rate of 72.68. The Indian middle order was very strong so Raina didn't get a lot of time to bat. He had just 28 innings in those 36 matches and he batted at number 6 or below in 19 of them. Not the best way to cement your place in the side. Few people succeed in that role at the start of their career. Hussey did it but unlike Raina he had a lot of experience albeit not in the lower middle order.

Raina made his comeback on the back of a strong performance in the 2008 IPL. He's batted in various positions but looks to have matured into a batsman who can adapt to the situation. I think his primary role in ODIs is going to be that of a finisher. In addition, he's India's number 3 in Twenty20 cricket and has had a good start to his test career. The test series in South Africa should be a good test for him.

Rohit Sharma's career has followed a somewhat similar path. Just like Raina, Sharma made his international debut roughly a year after he played the Under-19 World Cup. He too has played some brilliant innings but hasn't shown the consistency required to cement a place in the side. Even their numbers are quite similar, as Sharma in his first 41 matches has scored 695 runs at an average of 24.82 and a strike rate of 72.24. However, and this is not to bag him, Sharma has batted in 38 of those 41 games (Raina had 28 innings in his first 36 matches) and he's got a lot more opportunities to bat in the top 5 (25 times in 38 innings compared to 9 in 28 innings for Raina). Since the start of 2010 Sharma has scored a couple of hundreds but has still not been consistent enough. Meanwhile Virat Kohli has done a lot more in the chances he's got and with the hundred at Vizag should have sealed a place in the 15 for the World Cup.

Sharma is just 23 years old and if he sorts out his game he should have a long career ahead of him in all formats of the game. Just like Raina in 2007, maybe an exclusion from the World Cup squad for 2011 might be needed for Sharma to work on his batting and come back the same way Raina has. If he does, we might just have to stop calling him Nohit!

IPL 2010 Schedule

2010-09-13T03:43:00.000-07:00

In the previous post I had looked at how the schedule for the next IPL season should be like. This one is about the schedule for the last season and analysing how games were spread between teams and venues over the course of the season.

There is a slight disparity in the number of night games for each team. While four of them played 9 night games each, Chennai had 8 night games while Kolkata and Mumbai had 11 each. Deccan had 12 night games, perhaps justified since they didn't really have a home venue.
There was a very even spread of the number of weekend games for each team. Six of them had 6 six weekend games each while Bangalore and Delhi had 5 each.
Six of the eight teams had 5 home games at night while Rajasthan and Bangalore had 4 each. Considering Bangalore had one less game on the weekend maybe it should have had 5 home games at night. Rajasthan played 4 of their home games at Ahmedabad so maybe they could have had 5 home games at night too, although I had been to a couple of those games and both were sold out.
Again, there was a very even spread of the number of home games for each team on a weekend. Six of them had 3 home games each while Bangalore and Delhi had 2 each.
There was a little bit more variance when it came to the number of travel/rest days for each team compared to what I have proposed for next season. I guess it makes sense because there were a lot of days on which there was only one game. Sure the league could have given Bangalore more days at the expense of Kolkata but it's not like the difference was huge.

2011 IPL Fixtures: Changes and Additions

2010-09-13T02:04:00.000-07:00

In my last post I came up with a draft for IPL fixtures for next season. Since then I've revisited the schedule as well as looked at the one from last season in order to see how evenly were matches spread out last season. The factors to be considered were:

Number of night games.
Number of weekend games.
Number of home games at night.
Number of home games over the weekend.
Number of rest/travel days.

Based on these factors, this is the schedule I came up with.

The final is scheduled for a Friday but it can obviously be pushed back to a Saturday. I think Saturday is the best day to have the final as people don't have to worry about being late for work/school the following day. Also, this schedule leaves enough room to have the wildcard system I had proposed in an earlier post. Here's a summary of how the games are spread out keeping the aforementioned factors in mind.

Each team has 7 night games.
Eight teams have 4 weekend games each. Mumbai and Rajasthan have 3 and 5 respectively.
All teams have either 3 or 4 home games at night. Rajasthan who have 5 weekend games naturally have 3 home games at night while Mumbai who only have 3 weekend games have 4 home games at night.
Eight teams have 2 home games each on weekends. Rajasthan have 3 while Mumbai have 1. Another reason why Mumbai have more home games at night than Rajasthan.
Five teams have 19 rest/travel days each while the other five have 20 rest/travel days. You can't make it any more even than this.

As I mentioned in the last post, I have colour-coded the fixtures and given each team a specific code so that you can regenerate the schedule by simply reassigning the team codes. Again, first name in a fixture indicates the home team.

I will compare this schedule to the one from last season in another post.

Draft for 2011 IPL Fixtures

2010-09-08T21:14:00.000-07:00

Since the IPL has come out with its format for the next three seasons, I decided to come up with what I think would be a good fixture list. It's based on what I felt would be the right way to split the 10 teams but I will also provide a key to ensure the fixtures can be tweaked just by changing the respective codes of the 10 teams.

Please note:

I have colour-coded the fixtures. The ones in light blue are games within the pool while those in dark blue are ones between teams from different groups.
The first team name in a particular fixture is that of the home team.
All teams play an equal number of day-night matches.
Total number of travel/rest days for each team.
There are some instances of a team playing on consecutive days, hence the matches on these days are scheduled at the team's home. For example, Punjab play Deccan and Kolkata on consecutive days at the start of Week 4. Hence, both games would be held at Punjab's home venue. Likewise for Kochi against Bangalore and Kolkata in Week 5.
The season ends with two of the most intense regional rivalries in India. Bangalore host Chennai while Delhi travel to Mumbai for the last game of the regular season.
You can tweak the fixtures by simply changing the team code. This ensures that this fixture list can be used year after year by just rotating the teams.
I have checked the fixtures for the last IPL season and it seems on an average a team had 23 rest/travel days. According to the schedule the number is 19.5. However, you can always space out the fixtures and make the IPL a 7-week tournament.

Changes in Indian Premier League

2010-09-05T12:51:00.000-07:00

The Indian Premier League has finally come out with the changes for the coming season. I have to say I'm quite happy with most of them although it wouldn't be surprising if people blindly criticise whatever the league has done. There are a lot of stakeholders in the IPL and it's impossible to please all of them. The best one can do is be mindful of the interests of fans, players, franchise owners, sponsors, broadcasters, etc. and ensure long-term benefits aren't compromised for short-term gains. So let's look at the key points:

Format

There was a fear that with two new teams being added there might be 94 games in a season. While franchises might have been keen to have more matches, this may have been detrimental to their cause in the long run as players would have either been tired by the end of the season or would have to be rested for some games. In both scenarios, you're compromising the quality of cricket and that's a definite no-no as far as fans are concerned. Reducing the number of games per team was also not practical as the business model was based on teams playing a certain number of matches.

Under the new format, there will be 14 more games in the season but each team will still play the same number of games in the group stage as they did last year. The 10 teams will be split into two groups with each team playing those from its group home and away. Each team will also play four teams from the other group either home or away, and the fifth team from that group home and away. I've come across people who found it a bit difficult to understand so I should point out that this is kind of similar to how the National Football League draws up its schedule (Click here and here).

The one different thing I would have done would be to simply create two permanent divisions - North and South (Don't get stuck on the names, they can be called anything). There are already 4 teams from the South and it makes sense to have them all in the same group. Ditto for the 3 Northern teams. This greatly reduces the amount of travel and also helps build regional rivalries which are a key factor in generating and sustaining spectator interest. Keeping this in mind, the two groups would be:

Group A: Delhi, Punjab, Rajasthan, Mumbai, Pune.
Group B: Bangalore, Deccan, Chennai, Kochi, Kolkata.

Also, I think the teams that finish in identical positions in their respective groups should be the ones that play each other home and away next season. For example, if Punjab and Kolkata are the lowest ranked of the 5 teams in Group A and B respectively then they play each other home and away in 2012. Similarly, if Delhi and Chennai have the best record in their respective groups then they play each other home and away in 2012. What this does is creates a competitive balance because the teams that have performed badly play each other one more time than they play the better teams while the ones that perform well play each other one more time than they play the lesser sides.

I also like the knockout format for next year. Until now, teams have had no reason other than pride to play for top spot in the league. As Deccan and Chennai have proved the last two seasons, you really don't need to finish top of the league to win. It only takes two good games once you've got into the top four. Under the new format, the top two teams can make the finals even if they lose one game while the ones finishing third and fourth have no margin for error and have to win three games instead of two in order to be crowned champions. This should ensure teams will fight it out almost till the end so that they can finish in the top two.

If you had to pick a hole in this format you could say there might be a situation in which four teams might run away at the start and the others wouldn't have much to play for. The league could've looked into a wildcard system wherein the top two teams get a bye in the first round. The team that finishes third would play the sixth placed team while number four would play number five in the wildcard round. After that you'd have the usual semi-finals with the top team facing the lowest ranked team left after the wildcard round and the second-placed team would face the next lowest team. It would add two more games to the schedule.

Player Retention and Salary Structure

The initial IPL player contracts were for a period of three years and the league hadn't thought of how they would be structured going ahead. With the league being such a hit in India and two new teams entering the fray there were quite a few entities whose interests had to be looked after:

1. The players obviously wanted to maximise their value because a lot of them performed exceedingly well and they could see how well the league had done.

2. The 8 existing franchises wanted to retain some of their players but they wouldn't want to break the bank in order to do so.

3. The 2 new franchises would want to be allowed to be in a position to buy any player and hence wouldn't want the 8 existing franchises to be able to retain any players.

4. Fans would like to see the best players of their franchise and/or homegrown players to remain with them but they would also like to see certain players from other teams to be in theirs.

The league has increased the salary cap to $9 million so that's a good thing from the players' perspective. However, it is the point of retention that I'm wary of. By leaving it between the franchise and the player, the league has opened up possibilities of players being paid a part of their salary under the table. For example, let's assume Chennai retain Suresh Raina on a contract of $900,000 and the Super Kings owner N Srinivasan ensures Raina is bumped up to a Grade A contract for the national team. Also, the chairman of selectors is the brand ambassador for that franchise. He can ensure Raina gets picked for the Indian team even if he's struggling. If you think this is outrageous then think back to when the Mumbai Indians were ready to offer Ravindra Jadeja a salary that was FIVE times what he was entitled to under the league rules.

I would have rather liked to see all players go into the auction and then whatever price he commanded his original team could sign him for that amount if not at a premium. For example, if Pune put in the winning bid for Sachin Tendulkar at $2 million Mumbai would have the option to sign him for that amount or at a premium of say $50,000. That way the 8 existing franchises can theoretically retain any number of players and there would be no danger of paying players under the table.

Well these are my thoughts on the new rules. I'm sure there are other ideas out there as well that might improve the format and/or salary structure. Feel free to share them.

Dr. Swann and the Spin Revolutions

2010-09-01T10:26:00.000-07:00

One of the most enduring attributes of sport is the ability to unearth greatness generation after generation. Sunil Gavaskar had carried the Indian batting on his shoulders for the better part of decades. When he retired in 1987, people started obsessing over the fragility of the Indian lineup. However, Mohammad Azharuddin had already established himself as a top class batsman by then.

It took only more two years for the nation to witness perhaps its greatest batsman take centre stage. 16-year old Sachin Tendulkar showed the flair and tenacity to thwart a world class batting lineup - bloody nose and all. With Tendulkar nearing the end of his career Sehwag has taken over the mantle of being the most feared batsman in world cricket.

Coming to a more global scale, the eighties saw people proclaim the end of spin bowling. Kim Hughes made a statement that legspinners had no role in the game. The West Indians talked about picking a spinner if he could turn the ball at 90 miles an hour. Infact, only 12 spinners took 50 or more wickets during that decade, with only two of them averaging less than 30 runs per wicket. What's more, only Iqbal Qasim had a strike rate of less than 70 while Abdul Qadir with a strike rate of just over 70 being the only other bowler with a sub-80 strike rate.

However, the nineties saw the renaissance of spin bowling. Three of the greatest spinners in the history of the game made their debut. Interestingly, none of them had a good start to their career. Anil Kumble was the first of the three to make his mark with a six-for in South Africa and followed it up by tormenting the English batsmen in a 3-0 sweep at home. Shane Warne and Muttiah Muralitharan debuted within months of each other but took a while to get going. Although the Australian legspinner produced a master performance to turn a test in Sri Lanka, he shot to fame with what was labeled "The Ball of the Century". He didn't stop bamboozling batsmen around the world, especially the English, until a little over three years ago. Murali took the most time to develop into a world class bowler, he wasn't rated very highly until the 16-wicket haul against England at the Oval. Soon after he developed the doosra which was pioneered by Saqlain Mustaq and gave batsmen even more headaches.

There were some more quality spinners in the game during this decade - Saqlain Mustaq invented the doosra, Mushtaq Ahmed who had an amazing wrong 'un, while Daniel Vettori and Harbhajan Singh made their debut in 1997 and 1998 respectively. In all, 15 spinners took 50 or more wickets this decade with 8 of them averaging less than 30. In addition, 7 of the 15 had a sub-70 strike rate. Part of it could just be down to strike rates generally following a downward trend from the 1960s.

Kumble, Warne and Murali continued their dominance well into the next decade and were joined by Harbhajan Singh who even managed to keep Kumble out of the side for a brief period. Vettori had his moments too, as did Saqlain Mustaq and Stuart MacGill. Towards the end of the decade it started to look like cricket might lose the charm of spin bowling. Warne retired in 2007, Kumble wasn't as menacing and eventually retired in 2008, and Murali was also losing his bite. Harbhajan Singh, who was supposed to take over as the world's premier spinner still hadn't adapted to foreign conditions and the Kookaburra ball. Worse, he wasn't as effective as he used to even at home. As a result, only 3 of the 18 who took 50 or more wickets in the 2000s averaged less than 30. The good thing, though, was 4 of these 18 had a strike rate of less than 60 and 3 more having a sub-70 strike rate. Again, part of it could just be down to strike rates generally following a downward trend from the 1960s.

It was in this backdrop that England finally picked Graeme Swann in their test side. Swann had played a few ODIs before that, making his debut in 2000 before being in international wilderness for seven years. It was in his comeback series in Sri Lanka that he caught my attention with a Man of the Match performance against Sri Lanka, tossing the ball up and inducing false strokes. Indeed, two of the four dismissals were caught and bowled.

Swann's latest challenge was perhaps the sternest one faced by spinners in international cricket. The best in the world have come to Indian shores and left with their reputations tarnished. The Indian batting was stronger than ever, for the first time featuring two prolific openers to set up a strong and experienced middle order. It didn't count for much: Swann rocked the batting by taking the wicket of Gautam Gambhir and Rahul Dravid in his very first over. He has gone on to take a wicket in the first over of a spell 22 more times. Talk about instant impact.

Eight wickets in a two-test series against the best batting lineup in the world must have done wonders to Swann's confidence. But it wasn't enough for Andy Flower who persisted with Monty Panesar in the first test against the West Indies in Jamaica. However, Swann got his chance in the next test and promptly got a five-wicket haul in the first innings. England couldn't force a win but Swann's place in the side seemed to be safe and he hasn't looked back since then. As seen above, he has the third-best average among spinners for the last decade. No shame being third in a list which has Murali and Warne occupying the top two positions. He also has the fourth best strike rate among the lot.

Since his debut in December 2008, 12 bowlers have taken 50 or more wickets in tests. No surprise that Dale Steyn has the best average and strike rate in the list. Asif has the second best average although it should be noted that all 12 of his tests have been in conditions ideal for his style of bowling. Swann is third on the list, no mean achievement because spinners have generally tended to average more than fast bowlers. It's interesting that Zaheer Khan has the second best strike rate. 9 of his 12 tests during this period have been in the subcontinent and only 2 against Bangladesh. Swann has the fifth-best strike rate, again a major achievement when you consider even the best spinners in the post-war era, Warne and Murali included, have an inferior strike rate to their fast bowling peers.

It should be pointed out that he's achieved all this with a clean action and without a doosra, displaying the old-fashioned virtues of beating batsmen in the air. Another impressive aspect of his bowling is the number of balls he forces batsmen to play on the front foot, thereby giving them less time to adjust. Last but not least, he is one of the few right-arm bowlers who starts around the wicket to left-hand batsmen. It's something James Anderson would do well to replicate.

It's a pity he's already 31 years old. In some ways, he's had the kind of start Michael Hussey had to his career. While he has been good in different conditions and against all opposition, his place in the pantheon of spin Gods will be sealed only if he sustains this level of performance for another 5-6 years. Test cricket will be all the richer if Swann manages to do so and in the process inspires others to take up the art of finger spin.

Let's Get Real

2010-08-29T14:07:00.000-07:00

"Oh Amir, how could you?", "What were they thinking", "They sold out". Add a thousand lines and it still doesn't make a difference. Everyone thought this was happening, no one could prove it. Now there's some proof (allegedly) and people are asking boards and cricketers to prove they're innocent because "We pay our good money to watch these guys play".

Oh and this isn't confined to cricket. NBA fans get all rabid at the business end of every season despite a former referee's claims that he was asked to call games a certain way to ensure series went the distance. Baseball fans in New York and Boston are crazy about their teams even though some of the greatest names in the history of their franchises were on Performance Enhancing Drugs. Pete Rose, the all-time hit leader in the history of Major League Baseball is banned from even entering a Major League ballpark. His absence from the Baseball Hall of Fame still attracts criticism but the league won't bestow up him that honour. It remains to be seen if the likes of Barry Bonds, Mark McGwire, Sammy Sosa and Roger Clemens will make it to Cooperstown. While the sport isn't as popular as it was a few years ago, it still enjoys a big enough status for players to earn 8-figure salaries.

Cricket deals with such issues rather leniently. Cricket South Africa retired Cronje's jersey number. Kapil Dev has made it to the Hall of Fame, as has Wasim Akram after Justice Qayyum let him off because he had a soft corner for the fast bowler. Cricket Australia banned Shane Warne for 12 months when he tested positive for a diuretic at the 2003 World Cup. The legspinner didn't play a single ICC event after his comeback as he decided to concentrate on test cricket. Many consider him the greatest spinner in the history of cricket. The PCB banned and then reinstated Shoaib Akhtar and Mohammad Asif when they tested positive for Nandrolone in 2006. Why? Apparently they were tested under the PCB banner and not by the ICC, so it was the PCB rule book that applied. The rule book said a player who was unaware of what he was taking could be pardoned, hence Akhtar and Asif were let off. The whole of Pakistan rejoiced. Five months later both of them were declared unfit for the ODI World Cup, a tournament where WADA was the authority conducting the tests. Yesterday some Pakistani fans were trying to assuage their fears by saying the players had done it for the flood victims.

How would people react if Sachin Tendulkar were suspected of being involved in some form of fixing? What if he tested positive for a banned substance? Do you really think fans would ever believe it even if the truth hit them in the face? I have already heard former cricketers act scandalised at the mention of match-fixing, asking if Tendulkar would ever do it because they know no one would have the balls to even explore the possibility of it happening.

So let's just admit we're suckers for cricket. We didn't stop watching the sport when India's greatest allrounder cried crocodile tears on national television. We laughed and cried with our teams even after Hansie Cronje admitted to fixing games. And we sure as bloody hell aren't going to miss the two-test series between India and Australia. Enough of the sanctimonious articles asking for an overhaul. Enough of feeling devastated by an 18-year old sensation allegedly bowling no balls on demand. This will continue and we will continue waking up at odd hours to watch what might be an 11 on 11 tag team match right out of the Vince McMahon's group of creative writers.

Trust is the biggest ingredient of any healthy relationship. It holds true for that between a sport and its fans as well. But how many times have we allowed players to betray our trust? We must be idiots of the worst kind to let bookies, agents, officials, players take us for granted time and time again. There is a remote in our living room and none of these people can force us to use it to make ourselves heard. Do we use it? Only when we've sufficiently gratified the masochist in us.

Ravindra Jadeja and the Number Seven Spot

2010-08-25T13:58:00.000-07:00

While a lot of people are jumping off the Indian bandwagon after the tri-series in Dambulla, the team is more or less settled once some of the players come back from rest/injury. That is not to say I'm confident of India winning the World Cup, just that most of the spots in the XI are more or less taken. Sachin Tendulkar, Virender Sehwag, Gautam Gambhir, Suresh Raina and Mahendra Singh Dhoni are sure to be in the XI. Yuvraj Singh's spot should be under question but it's his to lose, I think the selectors will pick him in the XI over others. Zaheer Khan, Ashish Nehra, Praveen Kumar and Harbhajan Singh are also sure to make the XI, although I think India are better off playing Pragyan Ojha as the frontline spinner but that's not going to happen.

This leaves just one spot realistically up for grabs. Ravindra Jadeja is the frontrunner for it even though he hasn't exactly distinguished himself in the many chances he's got. Potential contenders for his spot are Yusuf and Irfan Pathan, Robin Uthappa and Ravichandran Ashwin. Ashwin is part of the squad and maybe he should have got a chance during this series. Uthappa is coming back from injury while Yusuf Pathan is currently out of favour. No one knows the status of Irfan Pathan.

All this means Ravindra Jadeja is in the side almost by default. A look at his numbers shows he scores less runs per dismissal (31.47) than he gives away per wicket (41.55). Also, he scores his runs slower than the rate at which he concedes when he's bowling (Strike Rate of 76.97 and Economy Rate of 4.84 i.e. 80.67 per 100 balls). Surely this is exactly the reverse of what you'd expect from someone playing as an allrounder.

So where does Jadeja rank in comparison to players who bat at number seven for their respective sides? In the last 24 months only 9 players have batted in that position 10 or more times. Here's a look at their batting record for that period.

If one were to rank the 9 in terms of their average and their strike rate, Jadeja would be ranked 7th and 9th in the list. Since we're looking at Jadeja as the fifth bowler, I thought it was only fair to include the bowling statistics for these 9 players when they didn't open the bowling (Not that they have opened to bowling too often).

Jadeja ranks 4th in terms of economy rate and 7th in terms of average. Ranking all 9 players on the four parameters, this is what it looked like.

Player	Batting		Bowling		Total
Player	Average	Strike Rate	Average	Econ. Rate	Total
Shahid Afridi	8	1	4	2	15
Elton Chigumbura	4	5	3	5	17
James Hopes	2	4	5	3	14
Ravindra Jadeja	7	9	7	4	27
Mohammad Mahmudullah	1	7	8	7	23
Angelo Mathews	5	8	1	1	15
Yusuf Pathan	3	2	6	9	20
Kieron Pollard	6	3	2	8	19
Luke Wright	9	6	9	6	30

Even though Afridi's two hundreds didn't come at number 7 it shouldn't be surprising to see his name at or around the top of the list. But not many would expect James Hopes to be among the top players. Angelo Mathews and Elton Chigumbura are also up there. Jadeja ranks second last in this list, even behind teammate Yusuf Pathan. This is not to say Pathan should take his place, but it does put Jadeja's performances into perspective.

Now this is only a very basic way of looking at the performances of the 9 players. Obviously ranking them doesn't account for how much better or worse they are. For example, there is very little difference between the economy rates of Mathews and Afridi who are ranked first and second on that parameter. However, the gap between the economy rates of Pollard and Pathan is much higher even though they're ranked eighth and ninth respectively.

I'm sure people can dig deeper and rate these players instead of ranking them. It would be a much more accurate way of comparing them. However, at first glance it does seem that Ravindra Jadeja ranks pretty low in comparison to his peers. It remains to be seen whether he gets more opportunities and if not, whether the replacement can do better. All I can say is India might pay the price of not having a good enough player at number 7, be it a batsman, bowler or allrounder.

Congratulations to Arjun Atwal

2010-08-22T14:27:00.000-07:00

Arjun Atwal became the first Indian to win a tournament on the US PGA Tour. It was a special achievement for him considering he's the first qualifier to win an event on the tour in 24 years. Not that the Sports Authority of India has contributed anything to his success, or that of the likes of Jeev Milkha Singh and Shiv Kapur for that matter, but I hope this win gets adequate coverage in the print and electronic media here. The sheer size of our population means there are plenty of people who have the time and resources to play and follow the sport. Promoted well, golf tournaments can bring in a lot of money to cities hosting them - A point that is lost on most people when they talk about sporting events. Just think of the number of jobs the IPL has created, not to mention the money it brings to various industries (Airline, Hotel, Power, Catering, etc.)

I'm watching various news channels to see if they've put it on breaking news - They haven't. I'd like to think it's because the time is 2:48 am right now, although that shouldn't be an excuse for channels where there is always someone to track the news filtering in from the rest of the world. Considering Atwal was either in the lead or tied for it at the end of each of the first three rounds, someone should have followed his progress. All this makes these news channels campaigns in support of our athletes rather hollow. What is their credibility if they can't even report a first in Indian golf but cry themselves hoarse everytime the Olympics and Asian Games come around?

You Don't Necessarily Need 20 Wickets to Win a Test

2010-08-21T14:44:00.000-07:00

It irritates me no end when experts talk about a side needing 20 wickets to win a test. At the risk of sounding pedantic, I'm going to point out that there have been 131 tests in which a team lost despite losing less than 20 wickets. Ofcourse most of the teams that lost in such a manner did so because one or more of their batsmen were either retired hurt or absent hurt.

However, there have been numerous instances in which a team has declared either or both its innings and gone on to lose. South Africa lost at the SCG in 2006 because Graeme Smith was ready to risk losing the series 2-0 if it gave him a chance to level it at 1-1. He declared both innings and Australia chased down the target on the back of a second hundred in the game from captain Ricky Ponting. Less than a year later Shane Warne masterminded the collapse that broke England's spirit for the remainder of the series. Warne and his mates had looked insipid in the first innings when England piled on a score of 551/6 before declaring their innings. India's historic win at Chennai came after Kevin Pietersen had declared England's second innings with one wicket remaining.

Sure these occurrences are rare (Statsguru doesn't allow me to sort the declared innings from the others), but they do happen. More often than a team winning despite scoring less runs than the opposition. How many times has a team done that? Never. Why? Because in test cricket, just like in any other sport, you cannot win if you don't score more than the opposition. And yet experts keep talking about how bowlers win you matches, how you're not a world class side if you don't have a strong bowling attack, how you can't win if your bowlers don't have the ability to take 20 wickets.

Saying you need 20 wickets to win a test is the biggest cliche in cricket. You can say it because it's not like you can take more than 20 wickets. But can anyone predict the number of runs to win a test before the start of the match? Obviously not, because in order to win you need atleast one more run than the opposition although you could win by scoring a lot more as well. On the other hand, you could score a lot more runs than the opposition and yet not win! So while scoring more than the opposition is a necessary condition to win a test, it may not be sufficient. But taking 20 wickets is neither a necessary nor a sufficient condition to win.

If you took a snap poll among cricketers on who has the better bowling attack between India and Pakistan the verdict would be overwhelmingly in favour of the latter. A similar poll on the batting strength of the two sides would result in India getting the vote over their neighbours. And yet it's the Indian team that hasn't lost a series in two years (They have won 5 during this period, 4 if you exclude Bangladesh), while Pakistan have lost two series and not won any during the same period.

The only two teams both have faced during this period are Sri Lanka (Home and Away) and New Zealand (Away). India beat Sri Lanka at home while Pakistan drew against Sri Lanka (The first test was drawn and the second one was cut short after the attack on the Sri Lankan team bus). Pakistan lost to Sri Lanka 2-0 away from home, failing to chase a sub-200 target in one of the tests while India drew their series in Sri Lanka 1-1, chasing down a 200-plus target in the final test. Coming to New Zealand, India beat the Kiwis 1-0 and it might well have been 2-0 had it not rained on Day 5 with India needing just two more wickets. Pakistan, on the other hand, drew their series 1-1. You can say Bond didn't play against India and New Zealand won the only test he played against Pakistan, but Pakistan would have lost had it not rained on Day 5 of the final test at Napier.

This isn't an exercise in proving India is better than Pakistan when it comes to test cricket. I've used these two teams because they have forever played contrasting styles of cricket. A few years ago Pakistan were clearly the better test side because they had batsmen like Saeed Anwar, Javed Miandad, Salim Malik, Inzamam-ul-Haq to go along with bowlers like Wasim, Waqar, Imran, Shoaib, Saqlain. Compare that lineup to the current lineup that has only one batsman averaging over 40 and you know why Pakistan aren't among the top sides in the world. In contrast, India have figured out ways to win in all conditions with Zaheer Khan being the only consistent performer. Each of their top 4 averages over 50 and the number 5 batsman averages almost 60 over the last 4 years, while the captain averages over 60 when he's leading the side.

The two greatest test sides were so good because they were extremely strong in both disciplines. It's not like Marshall, Holding, Garner and Roberts had a bunch of bunnies batting in their side. Greenidge, Haynes, Richards, Lloyd is as strong a top four as you'll get. The Australian juggernaut had Hayden, Langer, Ponting, Waughs, and Gilchrist. They have combined for over 150 test hundreds!

The point I'm making is there are different ways to be a quality test side. While being a strong batting side doesn't guarantee it, being a great bowling side doesn't either. Remember, you can't win unless you score more than the opposition but you can win even if you take less wickets than them.

Edit: David Barry just showed me how to filter out finished innings so that we only have innings which were declared.

Dismissing a Batsman for 199 is Against the Spirit of Cricket

2010-08-18T17:44:00.000-07:00

It was a foregone conclusion that once Suraj Randiv deliberately overstepped the line to deny Virender Sehwag a hundred the media would use it to mint money. Anyone who thinks those reporters and newspersons kept harping on it did so out of their commitment to upholding sportsmanship probably believes that Stuart Broad is a man.

So while most media outlets were busy criticising the actions of Randiv, NDTV 24x7 decided to play Devil's Advocate. They called on Chandu Borde to make the whole "Anything goes on a cricket field" argument. That's perfectly fine, but how exactly are you making your case by saying "We ran out Sobers when he was on 199"? The Spirit of Cricket is a pretty vague concept, but surely dismissing a batsman by fair means cannot be against it. No one would have criticised Randiv had he dismissed Sehwag for 99, if anything he would, or atleast should have been applauded for going after the batsman even though the match was all but over. And that really is the essence of being an aggressive cricketer - You are always looking to score runs or taking wickets.

A lot of players seem to think being petty and abusive is the same as being aggressive. Stuart Broad, Harbhajan Singh, Sulieman Benn and Shane Watson are the torchbearers of this group. It's pretty sad that Benn is the only one whose behaviour has resulted in censure from the inside, with Chris Gayle sending him off the field when the bowler wasn't ready to implement his captain's plans.

I am glad SLC took it upon themselves to nip such behaviour in the bud by banning Randiv for a game. Sure the Indian media went overboard with its criticism, but that doesn't change the fact that Randiv did deliberately bowl a no ball. He's still young and maybe he'll be wiser after this incident. Just a few days ago he got the same batsman out stumped on 99. If he focuses on denying batsmen milestones that way he'll have a long and successful career ahead of him. I hope the other boards follow suit when one of their players indulges in an act of petulance, and you can be sure the next incident isn't too far away.

VVS Shows Time Travel is Possible

2010-08-07T03:00:00.000-07:00

Can there be any other explanation for his presence in modern-day cricket? He really is a player from a bygone era when scoring runs was meant to be done with panache and running between the wickets was a chore. You could say Michael Vaughan and Damien Martyn might have also been time travellers, but both gave away their disguise by being decent runners. VVS, meanwhile, continued to play those ridiculously wristy drives and flicks that must come with a statutory warning. With Dravid's fielding fading he has also been India's best slip fielder for the past decade.

And yet he never gets the recognition from those outside the team. Sehwag is the marauder, Dravid is/was the wall, Tendulkar is God, Ganguly was the leader, Kumble was the workhorse. It was only the mighty Aussies who recognised his brilliance and adorning him with the name Very Very Special Laxman. Maybe the difficulty with pronouncing Vangipurappu Venkata Sai Laxman had something to do with it, but we will give the Aussies the benefit of the doubt here.

Cricinfo has been running a segment on the All-Time XIs for test-playing nations and presently they're inviting readers to pick the All-Time Indian XI. The top pretty much pick themselves and this leaves room for just one middle order batsman. I'm reasonably sure readers will pick Laxman over others but I have a sneaking feeling that the cricinfo panel will go for either Gundappa Vishwanath or Mohammad Azharuddin.

Perhaps it's because Laxman doesn't have what people refer to as matchwinning innings. Today's hundred was Laxman's sixth in a winning cause. In the last 14 years Dravid has 12, Tendulkar 16, Sehwag 7. What goes unnoticed, however, is the number of fifties he's scored in matches India has won. Laxman has the highest percentage of 50+ scores among all Indians in matches won during this period.

Perhaps the fate of his international career was written in his debut test. Laxman came in at number 6 with India just 61 runs ahead in the second innings. 13-year old me with my three friends had lost all hope alongwith the Ahmedabad crowd which disrupted the game by throwing missiles onto the field. We left after India lost the sixth wicket. Laxman, however, battled on with Kumble and was the 8th man out, scoring 51 of the 98 runs India scored while he was at the crease. It seemed like a testing but gettable target before Srinath bowled the spell of his career and blew the South Africans away with 6/21. He was deservedly named Man of the Match but VVS on debut had made it possible by playing the kind of innings he would turn in regularly over the next 14 years. To put his effort into perspective, he was only one of two batsmen to post a fifty-plus score in the whole match.

Most people will remember Laxman for his brilliant innings against the Australians, but the hallmark of his career has been his fighting fifties in low scoring games, especially away from home. His efforts at The Wanderes and The WACA are footnotes in the stories of those tests, as are his efforts in steadying the team after collapses at Lord's and The Oval. But it is hard to imagine the team pulling off those results without VVS Laxman.

It is only a matter of time before Laxman declares his international innings. When he does, India will miss the man who for years has been The Stockade behind The Wall. Good thing then that he scored an invaluable century in the fourth innings at the P Sara Oval to help square the series. It should keep the century mongers off his back while he goes about his business until he decides to call time.

Who Makes These Draws???

2010-08-06T16:07:00.000-07:00

There must be some really stupid people incharge of domestic competitions. A few months ago I had written on BCC! about how the rules of the knockout stages of the Ranji Trophy made no sense. Subsequently Mumbai benefited from playing Haryana instead of Uttar Pradesh in the quarters and went on to win the title. They did put in a solid performance against Delhi in the semis and played out one of the most memorable finals against Karnataka, but it doesn't change the fact that neither they nor Uttar Pradesh should have been seeded higher just because they made the finals of the previous Ranji season.

The 2010 Champions League starts in a little over a month and I happened to visit its section on cricinfo earlier tonight. There was some rubbish about branding, positioning, etc. and they've hired Amitabh "Serial Brand Ambassador" Bachchan their brand ambassador. I don't know how it makes any sense and I also find it contradictory that they want this to be as big as the UEFA Champions League but are only focusing on the Indian market. But I'll go along with it anyway.

Then I checked out the draw for the tournament. Now the format this year is different from what it was in 2009 because you don't have any English teams. Therefore, this is the break-up of where the teams come from.

India: Chennai (Champions), Mumbai (Runner-up), Bangalore (Third Place)
Australia: Victoria (Champions), South Australia (Runners-up)
South Africa: Warriors (Champions), Lions (Runners-up)
Sri Lanka: Wayamba (Champions)
New Zealand: Central Districts (Champions)
West Indies: Guyana (Champions)

Surely the way to go about this would have been to have 3 champions in each group, with the runners-up from India, Australia and South Africa drawn in the group other than the one the champions from their country were drawn into. Instead each team in Group A won its domestic T20 competition, while Guyana are the only team in Group B to have won their T20 competition.

T20 might be the most unpredictable of the 3 cricketing formats, but it's a bit of a stretch to put Chennai, Victoria, and the Warriors in the same group. Below are three possible combinations which I believe are better than the good folk running the tournament have come up with.

Group A	Group B	Group A	Group B	Group A	Group B
Chennai	Mumbai	Chennai	Mumbai	Chennai	Mumbai
South Australia	Victoria	South Australia	Victoria	Lions	Warriors
Lions	Warriors	Warriors	Lions	Victoria	South Australia
Wymb/CD/Guy	Bangalore	Bangalore	Wymb/CD/Guy	Bangalore	Wymb/CD/Guy
Wymb/CD/Guy	Wymb/CD/Guy	Wymb/CD/Guy	Wymb/CD/Guy	Wymb/CD/Guy	Wymb/CD/Guy

I think the best option would have been the first combination - Winners and Runners-up from India, Australia and South Africa go into opposite groups while #2 and #3 from India are paired together, and each group has 3 champions. I'm sure some people might disagree, in which case I invite them to share their point of view :)

Shooting Yourself in the Foot

2010-07-28T22:52:00.000-07:00

A few months ago I wrote a post on a parameter to gauge how efficient a partnership is. Yesterday was a classic case of a team getting it wrong and losing a chance to gain an advantage.

Virender Sehwag set out like a house on fire like he always does, scoring 64 off 63 before close of play on Day 2. India were chasing a mammoth score of 642 on a flat pitch and needing to win this test if they wanted to win the series. The only way it could happen was if Sehwag batted through the day, and even then the odds for an Indian win would have been tall.

Well they certainly didn't help themselves in trying to shorten them. The pair did decently well on Day 2, working at an efficiency of 54 percent. However, for some inexplicable reason Vijay ended up taking a lot more strike on the third morning. He faced 62 of 90 balls from the start of the 21st over to the end of the 35th. His scoring rate (32 off 62) during this period was decent by test standards Sehwag at the other end was scoring much faster (21 off 28). The partnership efficiency for this passage of play was just 31 percent.

What it also did was slow down Sehwag's charge as he was getting hardly any strike. Even before he got out on 99 he had been dropped at backward point when he was on 89 and had offered a half chance to backward short leg. The man likes to see runs being scored and the opposition always looks to get him out by cutting off his boundaries, although he's smart enough to keep his tally going by taking the singles on offer. However, he can't do anything about the score if he doesn't get the strike. It sounds very simplistic and obvious and yet if you see most of his innings you'll see he invariably ends up facing less deliveries than his partner(s).

I'm not privy to what was discussed in team meetings or on the pitch but if I were Gary Kirsten I'd instruct my batsmen to look for singles when they're batting with Sehwag. Put away the odd bad delivery but the first instinct should be find a gap and get Sehwag back on strike. Not only will it increase the scoring rate, it will also get the other batsmen going and they won't be stuck when Sehwag is finally dismissed.

The anti-superstar

2010-07-20T20:08:00.000-07:00

It is no secret that fans the world over love and cherish their sporting heroes. These heroes do things most of us can only dream of. Some have style, some have charisma, some have raw power and aggression. Some have all of these. But every great sporting dynasty has a rock which cleans up the mess left behind by his team's stars. He's not very flashy, doesn't look hot in jeans, doesn't court media attention. He just keeps going out his job of helping his team win matches.

Derek Fisher does it for the present-day Lakers. The Yankees have Derek Jeter. The treble-winning Manchester United had Roy Keane, the feat being emulated recently by FC Barcelona and Inter Milan who have for years relied on Xavi Hernandez and Esteban Cambiasso respectively. Cambiasso was also big for the Real Madrid from the pre-Galacticos era. Coming to cricket, Australia had Damien Martyn to solidify their famed batting. The West Indies had, at different times, Rohan Kanhai, Alvin Kallicharran, Richie Richardson, Carl Hooper, and Shivnarine Chanderpaul.

This brings us to the team that is at the top of the table right now. Whether India is the best team in the world is an argument for another time and place. For now, I'm going to focus on the rock in the Indian team. It might come as a surprise to some but the person I'm talking about is not Rahul Dravid. No, Dravid averages a shade over 40 since the West Indies tour of 2006. That he has held onto his number 3 position is more a case of his reputation preceding him.

Here's a look at the performance of Indian batsmen since that tour:

No surprise that the two openers lead the team in terms of batting average, although Gambhir hasn't played a test in Australia, England, Pakistan, South Africa or the West Indies during this period. Sehwag's claim to being one of the best is quite legitimate, although he doesn't get past fifty as frequently as some of his teammates (Gambhir 46%, Tendulkar 41%, Laxman 40%, Dhoni 37%, Sehwag 34%). Ofcourse he makes up for it by scoring the biggest hundreds of all Indian players. Meanwhile, VVS Laxman averages almost as much as Sehwag during this period. Skeptics can point to the high number of not outs, but they are overlooking the fact that even though he hasn't get a lot of hundreds, his efforts have been crucial in that he's come in to bat with the team either in trouble or looking to score quickly to enforce a declaration. A lot of times he has had to shepherd the tail as he bats at 5 or 6. Moreover, he has the second-best percentage of 50+ scores so clearly he's been batting really well.

Laxman's performance looks even better when you consider he's been consistently prolific even away from home. Here's a look at how Indian batsman have fared on the road since the West Indies tour.

Tendulkar leads the team when it comes to away performance while Laxman is a close second. Sehwag is third but his average and percentage of 50+ scores drop considerably when he plays away from home. One thing these stats don't tell you is that Laxman has been better than Tendulkar if you exclude performances against Bangladesh. In fact, his average drops to 44 if you take out that opposition. Laxman, though, has maintained his performance by averaging 50.52 if you exclude his innings against Bangladesh. He's also more consistent than Tendulkar, going past 50 in 42% of his innings while Tendulkar has done it in just 34% of his innings. There is definitely a case for Laxman being the most reliable middle order batsman in the side.

So where does Laxman rank among middle order batsmen (Positions 4 to 7) across all teams? Pretty high actually, he has the fifth highest average since September 2006.

Note that he has the highest average for Indian batsmen during this period (This doesn't include his innings at number 3). Again, these numbers look even better when you consider he has maintained his performance away from home. It's all the more admirable considering he's played everywhere except in the West Indies and Pakistan during this period. Here's a look at how he compares with other middle order batsmen away from home during the aforementioned period.

Samaraweera and Clarke drop out of the top 5 and is replaced by AB de Villiers whose home conditions have been kind to bowlers and Sachin Tendulkar thanks to his strong performance in Bangladesh (4 hundreds in 4 tests). Jayawardene is still up there but has been very inconsistent, although he's converted each of his five fifties into hundreds. AB de Villers tops the away list and is sixth otherwise. This augurs well for the youngster who has made no secret of his ambition to be the best batsman in world cricket. Shivnarine Chanderpaul has also been consistently prolific, once again proving that it's important to have a solid batsman to anchor the batting. It's a pity he's surrounded by so many mediocre players, in another era he might have been part of a leading test team.

It's hard to find faults with Laxman's performance over this period. People have tended to get carried away by Sehwag's brilliance and Tendulkar's second coming, but Laxman has been matching them all this while without getting a tenth of the recognition and respect. Even now, opposition players consider Sehwag the key wicket despite Laxman being at the other end. Maybe this plays into his hands as bowlers might relax a bit when bowling to him. It is in this backdrop that one feels happy for Laxman being regarded so highly by the best team in the world in recent years - They have considered him Very Very Special ever since they got Laxmaned at the Eden Gardens.

How Dysfunctional Can Cricket Get?

2010-07-01T07:36:00.000-07:00

The inevitable has happened. John Howard's push for becoming the ICC Vice-President has hit the mountain of a roadblock that all but Cricket Australia could see. This has kicked off a fresh round of accusations and counter accusations from the sides on either side.

Cricket Australia is miffed at its candidate being shafted without the boards having a logical reason to do so. Maybe they're not aware of all the Australians who can't stand the sight of their former Prime Minister. Maybe they thought their Big Brother attitude toward New Zealand would go unnoticed by the cricketing fraternity. One doesn't know how it managed to convince its neighbour to not back Sir John Anderson, a man with extensive experience as a cricket administrator. Is it surprising to see this happen when a few months ago Inderjit Singh Bindra's push for an ICC post was considered dangerous for the sport simply because he's Indian?

Australian journalists are talking about the ICC being split along racial lines. They usually start their editorials with their general dislike for Howard the politician and go on to state that it shouldn't be the reason boards object to his candidature, and that it isn't. They point to Zimbabwe's objection being a result of Howard's stand against the Mugabe regime, to which others point to his indifference to the apartheid regime in South Africa. They refuse to believe the man was opposed to his countrymen touring Zimbabwe because of the lessons he learnt from his indifferent stance toward South Africa.

Sri Lankans can't get over the fact that Howard called Muralitharan a chucker. Howard isn't the only man to call him that and I don't see why he had to be politically correct about a cricketer's action just because he was Prime Minister. One of the greatest spinners in the history of the game has shared Howard's view. It led to Murali consider filing a lawsuit against him. Apparently an international umpire was asked not to call Murali for chucking in the final of a World Cup. He refused and he didn't stand in that game, although that may have nothing to do with his stand on Murali's action.

These things only point to people wanting a puppet heading the ICC. An impotent and incompetent man completely devoid of any opinion or the will to act on one, not that John Howard is a man of impeccable character. It's probably a good thing that he won't be heading the ICC in two years time. One hopes it will be Sir John Anderson instead.

But neither is Sharad Pawar. The man hardly has a legacy of uniting people, he was the brains behind the biggest split in India's biggest national party. His tenure as the country's Agriculture Minister has seen hundreds of farmers committing suicide and steady increase in food prices. Coming to his cricketing legacy, he has his fingers in the IPL pie (Not that other politicians and BCCI officials don't). When he lost the BCCI election in 2004, his protege Shashank Manohar got the curator at the VCA Stadium to prepare a green top in order to help Australia win. The Aussies weren't going to look the gift horse in the mouth and duly demolished India to win their first series in the country in 35 years.

As for the fans, the Asians are happy to see their boards having so much leverage over the so-called white countries. One can increasingly see them wanting to get back at the white boards for decades of subjugation. Some are happily wishing for a split in the cricketing world so that their team doesn't have to share any money with the countries that are equally responsible for making the sport so popular in their country. On the other hand, the whites can't come to terms with the power shift and want to go back to the good old days when they had all the power.

While all this is happening, cricket drifts from one meaningless series to another. England and Australia are about to finish an inconsequential ODI series, India will play their second test series in Sri Lanka in two years and the Kiwis will join the two nations for a tri-series for a second year in a row. We still don't have a structured international calendar which sees teams playing each other equally over a period of time. There is major disparity in the amount of money the sport generates in various countries. The governing body can't arrive at a consensus on how to implement the UDRS.

These are just the issues I can think of off the top of my head. There are many more but I'm not going to hold my breath over them being solved. The administrators, players and fans involved with the sport are a bunch of retards who can't understand the simple fact that it's time to put the past behind them and look at making cricket a truly global sport. I hope they rot in hell alongwith the sport - I have other sports to capture my imagination if that happens.

Only a Question of Intent

2010-06-27T21:07:00.000-07:00

Professional athletes the world over do what most of us wouldn't even dream of. They look extraordinarily good when the going is good but perhaps the greatest indicator of their commitment to excellence is how they react to being exposed of their shortcomings. On a macro level, it shows how far a team or an establishment is willing to do to achieve the desired goal. Indeed, it also shows how high they have set the bar for themselves.

The Germany v England match in the Round of 16 of the FIFA World Cup got me thinking about it. In many ways, the Indian cricket is similar to the England football. Both are under constant scrutiny, the players are among the most handsomely paid professionals of their sport, they have a rabid following, and both fall short on the big stage every single time. You could make a recent addition to the list - The Indian Premier League is supposedly the best cricket league in the world just as the Barclays Premier League is supposedly the best football league. I don't know how you define the best in this case but it seems people are increasingly going by the level of interest and the money involved. However, that's a discussion for another time.

The English have traditionally favoured a direct approach to football. There isn't as much focus on the technical aspects or encouragement for players to show their creativity. They have only one major international title to show for it and the team gets exposed at the world stage every two years. They have tried different coaches - English and Continental - for their international team and yet the best they have managed in the last 20 years is a semi-final appearance at the 1990 World Cup and another one at Euro 96. The players who shine so brightly in the uber-competitive Premiership always seem to stutter at the international stage.

A parallel could be drawn with Indian cricket. Those who have watched the side over the years will tell you it suffers from the same problems now as it did 20 years ago. There aren't enough quality fast bowlers, the fielding is abysmal, and there is a general lack of fitness awareness. It's fallacious to say current Indian cricketers are fitter and play better out-cricket than their their predecessors because the comparison has to be drawn with their present-day counterparts. Since the final of the 2003 World Cup, India has failed to progress to the knockout stage in 6 of the 7 ICC tournaments. The lone success came at the first ever Twenty20 World Cup in 2007. They are now under their third foreign coach and each of them has highlighted the need for a proper system that needs to be built from the grassroots level. To use a cliche, they have advocated the need for a bottoms-up approach rather than a top-down one.

Yet, nothing has been done about it. The batsmen who are coming through look hopeless on a wicket which has something for the bowlers. The fast bowlers lose their pace, control and fitness after a season or two. They all talk about the distractions that come with this life and yet none of them have been able to cope with it. The same excuses are brought out time and again - Our grounds aren't in good condition, we don't produce good pitches, selection is biased, and so on. The list is endless and you will hear former cricketers pay lip service to it everytime the team is exposed at the international level.

And yet, if you look around you can see establishments change their culture because they admit their follies and recognise the need to set things right if they are to be competitive. Germany crashed out of Euro 2000 and Euro 2004 at the group stage and while they made the finals of the 2002 World Cup, it seemed more like a case of them being there by default and they got found out by an inspired Brazil.

The Germans decided to set things right after exit from Euro 2004. What had always been a strong, efficient, meticulous German side was now being turned into one with flair and creativity. They embraced the possibility of being slightly vulnerable at the back by adding the threat of their players going forward. It can be seen from the fact that Germany are European Champions at every age-group and the average age of national squad is just 24. The early signs were seen in 2006 when Jurgen Klinsmann led them to a memorable performance at home where his team played attacking football throughout the tournament. Perhaps it was too early for them to go all the way and the Italians played a tactically brilliant game to eliminate them in the semifinal. 2008 saw the Germans go a step further only to be beaten by a Spain side that had been trying to win with the very approach Germany had embraced. Now the Germans have taken their customary place in the quarterfinal of the World Cup and should provide us a memorable contest when they take on the Maradona-inspired Argentina on Saturday.

There is a very obvious lesson that can be learnt from this German team. You could probably say the same about the England cricket team. These two have said goodbye to their past and embraced a different system simply because they have set their sights on being the best and are willing to do whatever it takes to achieve their goal. It's difficult to let go of something you have believed in for generations but it can be slightly easier if you are clear about your goal. The results may not come immediately either but if you have the right people in place they will stay focused on the path they have chosen.

It's Not Too Hard To Admit You Screwed Up

2010-06-03T04:05:00.000-07:00

A perfect game is a rare sight in Baseball. It's probably rarer than a 10-wicket haul in an innings - There have only been 20 perfect games in the history of Major League Baseball. An MLB season comprises over 2500 games and the first perfect game was recorded in the year 1880. There have been 1958 tests and 2986 ODIs and a few more T20s. The total number of innings when you combine all these matches would be around 14,000. There have only been two ten-wicket hauls in an innings in the history of international cricket.

Why am I making this comparison? Well, it has something to do with how cricket umpires, and a lot of baseball umpires, refuse to acknowledge their mistakes and are opposed to the use of technology in order to reduce the number of mistakes. It is in this backdrop that Jim Joyce, an MLB umpire for 21 years, openly and unconditionally apologised for costing the Detroit Tigers pitcher Armando Galarraga a perfect game. It wasn't a case of the umpire making a wrong call midway through the game - It would have been the last out and the game would have ended right there had he got it right. No Tigers pitcher has ever pitched a perfect game. The team has been around for over a hundred years and has won Four World Series alongwith 10 American League Championships. Suffice to say the team has been home to a number of great players.

It's really heartening to see Joyce realise his role in the game as that of a facilitator who enables players to go about displaying their ability for the millions who follow the sport. He has shown the way to officials who tend to think they're as important as the players and that nobody is allowed to criticise them when they make mistakes. It's high time they realised technology is only there to help them make the right decision, somewhat like an insurance cover for the times they get it wrong.

Why Don't You Show You Belong?

2010-06-02T08:37:00.000-07:00

Let me start off by saying my opinion on whether Bangladesh should be playing test cricket doesn't count. The ICC has made the decision for whatever reason and that's that.

But it's getting tiresome to read about Bangladeshi players trying to prove a point to those who think they don't deserve to be playing test cricket. A few months ago unnamed media personnel took pleasure in Bangladesh getting the better of India for one day of a test match after Virender Sehwag had called them ordinary and that they couldn't beat India because they can't take 20 wickets - Bangladesh have taken 20 wickets in only 4 of their 67 tests. The match predictably ended in a comfortable win for India with Bangladesh vindicating Sehwag by not being able to dismiss his side twice. Ofcourse the narrative after the game was that of the Bangladeshi side running India close.

Bangladesh have now played 67 tests, a reasonably big number to take stock of where they stand. I looked at how they compare to the 9 other test playing nations over their respective 67 tests from the time they started playing test cricket.

Team	Played	Won	Lost	Drawn	Win%	W/L Ratio	Bat Avg	Bowl Avg	Avg Diff
England	67	35	22	10	52.24	1.591	24.4	20.77	3.63
Australia	67	26	28	13	38.81	0.929	22.51	24.26	-1.75
RSA	67	12	37	18	17.91	0.324	23.12	30.7	-7.58
WI	67	18	26	23	26.87	0.692	31.15	33.2	-2.05
NZ	67	3	32	32	4.48	0.094	22.67	37.77	-15.1
India	67	6	29	32	8.96	0.207	26.7	37.23	-10.53
Pakistan	67	11	21	35	16.42	0.524	28.19	33.97	-5.78
SL	67	8	31	28	11.94	0.258	27.22	39.15	-11.93
Zimbabwe	67	7	37	23	10.45	0.189	27.16	37.9	-10.74
Bangladesh	67	3	58	6	4.48	0.052	21.75	50.29	-28.54

It doesn't matter what category you look at, Bangladesh are dead last. New Zealand match them in terms of their Win % over their first 67 tests but have a much better Win-Loss ratio as well as a much lower difference between their batting and bowling average. It's not even that teams that started playing test cricket later have necessarily inferior records. West Indies started playing almost 30 years after South Africa but have a considerably better record. Pakistan started playing test cricket in the early fifties and they have a better record than New Zealand and India, and pretty much at par with South Africa. It's interesting to note that even Zimbabwe started off just as well as India.

It's about time Shakib and his teammates realised they need to stop behaving like they're entitled to something just because they have test status and start winning some tests, or atleast drawing them. They need to realise the odd good performance by one of their players isn't going to get them there and it's the whole team that needs to put in a more disciplined and consistent effort if they want to be respected by the cricketing community.