Indian Cricket - Stuck In The Same Grove Since Ages

Is the first thing that comes to mind reading this in today's The Hindu: Are many of the current lot just ‘flat-track bullies'? 

Several young Indian batsmen too have been found wanting outside the sub-continent.

Suresh Raina and Virat Kohli have struggled against the bouncing ball. These batsmen have been found wanting in footwork and have consequently been opened up.

The lack of solid back-foot play and the inherent inadequacies while coping with lifting deliveries have impacted the other attributes of their batsmanship as well. The short-pitched-full-length mix, with swing, has sent these batsmen packing.

“And the modern batsman is so well protected,” fumes spin bowling legend and former India captain Bishan Singh Bedi.

Wasn't this complaint brought out of the closet and aired regularly since I don't know when?  How many times have we heard this: "Indian batsmen don't get to play on fast wickets in the subcontinent and hence become pace bowlers' bunnies when they go abroad".  And to think it still goes on.  And it seems to have only got worse and spread to other teams too!  But not a problem, we'll dumb it down by introducing inane versions like Twenty20.

Low turnout at Kotla, but Tendulkar star attraction

Low turnout at Kotla, but Tendulkar star attraction.  Way to go Delhi'ites.  When will the rest of the country tune out?

Money Talks

Yeah:

Melbourne: Cricket Australia (CA) bore a scathing attack from its furious players and local media for bowing to the BCCI’s “money power” and letting Indian spinner Harbhajan Singh off the hook with minimal punishment.
...
“It shows how much power India has. The Aussie guys aren’t going to make it up. The players are frustrated because this shows how much influence India has, because of the wealth they generate. Money talks,” an unnamed Australian player was quoted as saying by the Sydney Morning Herald.

‘Cricket’s Day of Shame’ cried a headline in the paper and the report said the players were dismayed to hear “Harbhajan had avoided any meaningful punishment”.

The report also said that CA caved in to India’s muscle flexing as it was anxious to save the tri-series because it feared to be sued for a figure understood to be about $60 million if India quit the tour.

Hey, stop cribbing, that's what superpowers do. Yes, we are the superpower of cricket :

"World cricket authorities have caved in to the game's financial superpower, India, and Cricket Australia has incurred the wrath of its own test players by pressuring them to drop a racial slur charge against Harbhajan Singh," the Sydney Morning Herald reported.

"The Board of Control for Cricket in India had even chartered a plane to take its players home tomorrow if the Indian player's three-test suspension -- for calling Australia's Andrew Symonds a monkey during the Sydney test -- had not been overturned at yesterday's appeal in the Federal Court in Adelaide."

Former Somerset captain Peter Roebuck, writing in the same newspaper, said the Indian cricket board should be condemned for their abuse of power.

"If this is the way the Indian board intends to conduct its affairs hereafter, then God help cricket," Roebuck wrote.

"Brinkmanship or not, threatening to take their bat and ball home in the event of a resented verdict being allowed to stand was an abomination. It sets a dreadful precedent. What price justice now?" Peter Lalor, writing in the national broadsheet The Australian, said the decision was further proof of India's ability to wield their financial power to win events off the field.

And what about Roebuck's comment? His call for Ponting to be sacked and his 'pack of wild dogs' charge were widely reported. But this 'God help cricket' charge languishes in some hidden hole.

There has been a rebuttal by the Indian team:

The Indian cricket team today denied reports that they had chartered a plane to fly its players home on Thursday if bowler Harbhajan Singh was not cleared of racially taunting Australian player Andrew Symonds.

Arriving at Melbourne Airport this afternoon with the team in preparation for Friday's Twenty20 match with Australia at the MCG, the team's media spokesman Dr M.V. Sridhar said the team had not made any such plans.

''I don't know where that came from.There was no thinking like that at all. After what happened yesterday, we're going forward so that the game goes on,'' the Sydney Morning Herald quoted Sridhar, as saying.

A lie of course:

Mumbai: The Board of Control for Cricket in India on Monday reiterated its stand on the Harbhajan Singh ban issue and threatened to call of the remainder of the tour of Australia unless the alleged racial abuse charge against the Indian off-spinner was withdrawn in the two-day appeals hearing starting on Tuesday.

“Our stand remains the same as was the case earlier. We want the racial slur (against Harbhajan Singh) to be lifted. Otherwise the BCCI will recall the team from Australia,” said its Vice-President Lalit Modi on Monday.

My break with cricket is almost complete. Money power, the media circus, accusations of match fixing that keep surfacing, transformation of half-baked cricketers into national heroes overnight - who wants all of that? And of course, the Greg Chappell saga that started the downhill slide for me. I still follow results and the ever new controversies tepidly but indifferently move on to something else. And to think that not very long ago, I considered anyone who didn't watch and follow cricket a bit strange and exotic and a bit difficult to connect with.
Update: Human error led to Bhajji not being banned:

ICC appeals commissioner, New Zealand High Court judge John Hansen, blamed administrative error for the spinner escaping a possible ban.

Hansen said the ICC informed him of one prior offence of the spinner but discovered after handing down his verdict that Harbhajan had been penalised on four previous occasions.

"At the end of the day Mr Singh can feel himself fortunate that he has reaped the benefit of these database and human errors," he wrote in his judgment.

Speed said: "It is very unfortunate that human error led to Justice Hansen not having the full history of Harbhajan's previous Code of Conduct breaches and the ICC accepts responsibility for this mistake."

Human error. Yeah, tell it to the fricking birds.

Proved Wrong

Once again! The first time was of course when the media reported that an on-field argument was about Ganguly refusing to open out of mortal fear. More recently it was Ganguly figuring prominently in a group of seniors holding the captain and the team hostage, when the outgoing coach actually had words of praise for the man.

How these rumours are actually planted and by whom is an interesting topic by itself. The media is part of the problem facing Indian cricket and not the solution.

35,35,32....

~32,~26,26,~32,36,~30,24,37.

The ages of the Australian team in batting order of course.

Media Feels The Heat

The BCCI cracks down on player-sponsor nexus - limits the number of endorsements per player to 3, and number of players a company can sponsor to 2, and bans players signing exclusive contracts with electronic or newspaper media. Among other changes.

The media lets out a giant squeal. Rajdeep Sardesai takes up the injustice to players - his sports editor even calling it 'restrictive trade practice'.

I say - go for it BCCI.

Dark Comedy

The debate continues. (WARNING: More futile discussion of Indian cricket ahead!)

I think any discussion of Ganguly, Chappell and the Process is moot at this point in time. The call for revolution has been answered with a civil war. The waters have been muddied with accusations and sources. Even EAS Prasanna whose spin could outfox very good batsmen has given up trying to determine whose fault it is. Chappell has already resigned. Ganguly's name heads the list of the senior group in every report, while it is said that he was let into the management discussions only after the Bangladesh loss, and when it is Tendulkar who actually speaks out about his lovers' quarrel with Chappell. The ex-master-blaster has done a neat retraction - denying that he had ever said that there was a rift between him and the coach - following in the best traditions of politics. Ex-Presidents of the BCCI hint at quite unbelievable things.

But what the heck, what if it is moot, let's have at it! kmp's latest rejoinder (my comments inline):

There are multiple things that I have to answer (or put across my point)

1) Saurav Ganguly’s inclusion into (or exclusion from) the team and how that derailed the process
2) Why I think the “process” was never given a chance
3) Hence the question on that day’s press-conference was indeed “inflammatory”

Saurav Ganguly was dropped from the team because he had an awful form for quite a long time – It was termed just in this forum too and what supposedly was bad was the way they handled the subsequent (taking and dropping for no reasons) actions . I don’t have too many issues with that either [Me: Thanks!], because in any case he was taken into the team for non cricketing reason (he had met Sharad pawar) and may be he was dropped again for non cricketing reason.

Having asked to prove his mettle in domestic cricket or county cricket, he did not play well in County (where-as Zaheer did well there), he did not play well in Ranji, He did not play well in Challenger series. Then comes the brouhaha in Parliament (Brinda Karat, Gurudas Dasgupta etc) and lo he gets selected on the basis of “experience” (mind you not because of form or fitness). I don’t remember this “experience” theory being invoked for some dropped players (and for that matter, which “experienced” player was *recalled* when we did not do well in our previous series to SA). [Me: If he was brought in because of political reasons, why so late in the day. He was out of the team for more than a year. Why wasn't he brought back earlier? Or maybe we need to investigate how many sponsors he has in WB. After all, the whole team seems to have been selected on that basis.]

Again the point was, dropping a senior (and one having political linkages) player was relentlessly resisted and that was the first (and perhaps the last) obstacle for the process – who knows if he were allowed, he would have cut Sachin to size, but alas the Ganguly saga did not let him implement his process. [Me: That's a bit too much - remember Ganguly came in only 3 months before the WC (I'd wrongly put the date of his return as August 2006 - a full 5 months earlier than the actual date). The process had run its course for a year, and then just three months before the WC it sprang a leak because Ganguly came in, and Chappell lost his nerve about disciplining Tendulkar? I don't buy it. As for Ganguly's dropping being relentlessly resisted (nice phrase) - well it was completely ineffectual for more than a year wasn't it? What kind of resistance is that?]

And the playing 11 for WC 2007 is almost same as WC 2003 (Oh yeah Munaf has replaced retired Javagal and Robin has replaced Mongia – and BTW Mongia was there in Champions trophy) – and also remember this WC 2003 team had not won a ODI series, even at home (under Ganguly) for 2 years (after WC 2003) till Greg came along and had that 17 successive chases, under Dravid and with youngsters team [Me: This Cricinfo article analyses the successes - and chalks it up to Indian batsmen thriving on home pitches and floudering outside. Less to do with coaching and more to do with the batsmen? Note that these were only wins while chasing, there were other losses in between - a funny kind of world record! Also note, when Ganguly and Wright took over also there were stirring performances initially, then the usual stuff happened and things petered out, just like with Chappel - but there was no nothing like Process to distract us.]. Sure, they did lose in West Indies (not badly) and in SA (very badly) but that does not mean you get back to all the old players – that’s certainly was not the Greg’s process (however flawed that may be) that’s tough-talking-Colonel’s “experience” theory – coz all the players now have “experience”. [Me: That is the point - that does seem to have been Chappell's process. Because with all the freedom in the world and a pliant Kiran More, Chappell was playing with the same core of 'experienced' players in July 2006, within shouting distance of the World Cup, before the Colonel came in with his 'experience' theory. Even the team the Colonel gave for the August Sri Lanka tour is not much different - see the Indian team for the first ODI! The idea that he was all for youngsters just doesn't hold much water. So, would the team have been different from the WC 2003 team if the Colonel had not come in? Going by the teams doing duty with Chappell's full confidence, one doubts it. Of course, with the allegations of kickbacks for selection and Chappell's own allegations of sponsorship deals affecting selection, one is completely flummoxed and in the dark trying to second-guess the team.]

So, those folks should have asked about the “process” when the team was selected and before it went to WI, like “Hey Greg, how come your process has thrown in the same team as the previous edition, was that the “process” to churn out the same players again and again or was the process was flawed and we gave a go-by?” (coz you could guess the playing 11 anyway). After the debacle, only question they could have asked was to colonel “Hey chief, was it that this team did not have enough *experience* to go to next round?” - Since they asked about the process, after the debacle - it is indeed inflammatory. [Far be it from us to tell the free media how to do its job. But we can say that it is screwing up the job massively. Edit: There seem to be wheels within wheels in the media's treatment of cricket and cricketers as I'd noted here. It seems to be under the impression that hagiography is the style best suited to cricket coverage. Of course, the small knives are out after a loss, but quickly sheathed. A MAJOR clarification all the same: I still don't see how the question is inflammatory - that is the only point I was making in the original post - others were doing a better job of question the process and supporting it and all that and I was not getting into any of that. I would have been happy to let it go if Chappell had at least tried to address the question in the briefest manner - "We'll have to analyse it later" would have kept me happy and sleeping soundly for many days. As to asking the Colonel, he can still get away by saying that selectors are in any case just 'a bunch of jokers'. No one expects anything approaching logic from them. But when you have almost made a religion of "The Process" and have been hailed as the messiah and mocked a cricketer well-liked by many then you need to feel a tad less prickly. I mean, just compare the reams of newsprint on Chappell and his way and that written about the Colonel.]

-P

PS: This is beside the point – but I am answering coz you have mentioned. I did not mean Saurav was lobbing catches intentionally [Me: I've been misunderstood, I was not implying that], sure it did not get reported either. I watched those matches and observed myself, there were tough chances which Bermuda and Bangla could not convert, and Murali took an exceptionally tough catch. What I meant was, earlier those hits of Saurav would consistently clear the rope, and now somewhere in between circle and boundary. I can only guess, his timing was not good as it used to be – understandable. That also says, he had not regained his form or fitness completely. (And, BTW he was clearly unable to rotate strike and his running between the wickets was awful – again I would put fitness as the problem rather than commitment). All that he had now is “grit” and if you are playing every match (including against Bermuda ) with “grit” that means you have lost form. [Me: I'll let his scores speak after his comeback for him :-)]

kmp adds:

When it was just rumored that supposedly Greg had said that there is “Senior” players group and then he supposedly called they act as “mafia” etc… (mind you they were just leaks and quotes attributed to “sources” , Greg never openly said) – Some people believed it and some did not believe (rightly so). In fact you had questioned along the lines of “apart from Captain which “senior” player could have influenced anyway”. Not sure about the *influence* part, however today’s report of Sachin’s and other unspecified folks reaction clearly shows there indeed exists a “senior group”.

BTW, Greg supposedly did not speak to Sachin for 4 days (in the 7 day Carribbean trip) and Sachin got so depressed that he lost the sight of incoming delivery and got bowled!!!

And that is that. I'll print kmp's next rejoinder (if any) as is with no comments. Time we laid this particular discussion to rest. Indian cricket is already RIP.

Love Or Money?

What's with British newspapers and Indian cricketing superheroes? First it was Chappell telling a British newspaper that Ganguly wanted to play for the India team only because of money. Now it is Atherton insinuating something similar in another British newspaper about Tendulkar. Why don't the pommies leave our gods alone? Not that I'm clean though - I too have long suspected the unseen hands of the market behind the strong groundswell of support for Tendulkar, as I'm sure many others have. One doesn't build a brand with lots of hard-earned money and just let it crumble because of declining cricketing powers. Many things need to be sold to the consumers before that happens. Promises to keep etc.

NRN, Infosys And A Process

kmp sends a link to an article which quotes Infosys' N R Narayana Murthy:

Frankly, I don’t think having a coaching camp for a few days helps. I’d suggest we pick the 30 guys who we believe are the best in the country. They should all be given good salaries by BCCI and closeted in a hi-tech training centre round the year. Rotate them so that even if 15 are playing a series, the other 15 are training. Ensure that everyone gets to train intensively during the year. Follow best practices from around the world, give the players the best facilities and make them work really hard — eight hours a day. If anyone refuses to practice or follow the rules, axe him immediately. Follow these principles and you’re bound to have a world-beating team.

30 players cooped up in a high-tech centre round the year, practising hard for eight hours everyday. Let me humbly suggest the outcome of such a course of action: By the time the next World Cup comes along, the 30 guys would hate the sight of each other and the coach so much that on-field fights would become routine and hardly the stuff to give a second thought to. TV vieswership would shoot up initially then taper off as the novelty wears.

Seriously, the question of whether cricketing greatness can be achieved by following a particular training process is a good topic for a debate. I'm hoping to weigh in on this critical topic anon.

The Fun Never Ends

kmp (a very good friend) writes in, responding to this post.

I knew this was coming, and I knew this particular question will be highlighted. I remember an old post [kmp is referring to this post] mentioning the “process” part in this blog! Having said that, I am still waiting for that courteous reporter to ask another much often used word “experience” to none another than “tough-talking-colonel”!

Did we let the “process” to start to find out whether it is flawed? Whom did we let in thru the “process”? I mean, whom did we let out? When an awfully out-of-form batsman gets dropped, streets were set on fire and so was parliament. He continues his awful form in County, Ranji, Challenger series etc. and comes in advertisement pleading for a chance – and lo, he is into the team coz of “experience” and that’s a cricketing reason (referring the previous post of cricketing and non-cricketing-reasons – moreover that is a damn good “process”. Sure, he did score runs aplenty (contrasting with abysmal standards that this team has set), but how on earth anybody knew that he would. And, this man who is known for those lofted hits (sixes) was clearly unable to execute in his new stint. He kept on giving those catches, but Bermuda and Bangladesh could not hold it, and Murali held it. No, I am not after Saurav ganguly, I am after those groaning rascal Marxists – for setting a “experience-process”. Other than Robin and Munaf, did we have anybody else for whom “Process” could be applied? And, do we need to have “process” for Sachin, Saurav, Dravid, Sehwag, Yuvraj, Dhoni, Zaheer, Harbhajan, Agarkar? How many years they have been playing?

First up, courteous is one thing that journalists need not be - their duty is to ask and tell it like it is. If they sound uncourteous so be it. Chappell will understand - seeing that he himself is not averse to the odd gesture involving a middle finger.

As to Ganguly's comeback and how on earth anyone knew that he would succeed - well, could that be just like how people thought Chappell would succeed knowing fully well that he had failed in his previous coaching role for New South Wales?

Or it could have been an informed guess based on the following:

1. His efforts at improving himself - physical fitness, playing first class cricket regularly, and making a few good scores(thought not consistently)
2. The fact that sending a player to first class cricket to regain form is generally considered a good way to regain form, if nothing else, they come back more hungry for success - like it happened with Hayden who was left in the wilderness till recently
3. Or, maybe they did think experience does play a role, like Buchanan seems to feel :

"We've got a lot of experience in our batting, and we leave it to individual players to assess the conditions," Buchanan said. "They are good at telling each other what to do when they go out there, and they're good at sending information back. This is a new ground, and both sides were not exactly sure how it would play. In the end, it was pretty true but we made just about the most of those conditions that we could."

Mind you, this was not experience taking the place of deserving youth - the said youth had failed miserably playing in the West Indies and South Africa, after having feasted and been hyped up on home pitches. And this just a few months away from the World Cup.

And whatever he did in the World Cup, Ganguly has been one of the more consistent batsmen after his comeback. As for giving catches, I thought he played slowly against Bangladesh - I was not aware that he was lobbing balls to the fielders - don't blame me, none of the newspapers carried that bit!

I don't think it is true that the process was not given a chance. Chappell had been having his way for more than a year. The process was already dead by the time the colonel entered the picture. The team had flopped miserably against WI in the ODIs and by the time SA were lording it over us, Chappell was already putting the players and not the process at the centre of the losses. Here is the team that played the ODI series in the West Indies (May-July 2006):

• Agarkar
• Dhoni
• Dravid
• Harbhajan
• Kaif
• Patel
• Pathan
• Powar
• Raina
• RP Singh
• Sehwag
• Sreesanth
• Uthappa
• Venugopal
• Yuvraj
• Tendulkar

I've added Tendulkar because he was nursing an injury and would have been selected if that was not the case - and one youngster would have been knocked off the list. Now this is a team which Chappel and his enabler Kiran More had selected keeping in the World Cup in mind. Except for Ganguly and Zaheer the World Cup team is in there in its entirety! That includes the nonprocessable "Sachin, Dravid, Sehwag, Yuvraj, Dhoni, Harbhajan, Agarkar".

Seeing that Chappell had planned for these hardened veterans to be in the team for the World Cup, the difficulty in applying the process to them ought to have raised a red flag. An idealised process then should have been given a dose of pragmatism and modified suitably. Else it is the process that is useless and should have been dropped like a brick. And assuming that Ganguly and Zaheer had not come in and two young legs had come in instead, would four processed products have been enough to neutralise the seven heavyweights? Because somehow I think the magnificent seven would have made it into the World Cup squad, no matter who was selecting - the Colonel or More.

Now it comes to light, a tad predictably, that Chappell was not happy with the team composition. It is of a pattern with Chappell - the whining and cribbing with paper and other trails carefully preserved. He says the seniors fought against youth. Only Dravid would have had the say in the matter. So it seems to me Chappell is saying Dravid was against youth (Vengsarkar has confirmed on TV that this was the case at least where Sehwag was concerned). Now, Dravid is a process champion. So he seems to have lost confidence in the process by the time the World Cup tooled along, probably sometime in 2006 itself given that he had stopped invoking its magical powers by then. How can we support the process when one of its two firm proponents in the team has given it up?

He praises Kaarthik - why then has Kaarthik played so few matches under Chappell? And why wasn't he played in any match in the World Cup though part of the team?

He criticises Yuvraj. Here he is claiming Yuvraj is a key player - a month before the World Cup. He rues Raina not being present - but look at that interview again - he has almost given up on Raina for the World Cup.

Why blame others like a spoilt kid?

Of course, all this could just be Chappell positioning himself for an extension as coach post-World Cup.

Inflammable Chappel

From the press conference:

Another word that has been mentioned a lot is 'process'. What went wrong with the process?
That's an inflammatory question and I'm not prepared to answer it.

An highly inflammable coach I should say.

Off tangent, with respect to Bob Woolmer's muder, will there be a cover-up and if yes, how big a cover-up will it be? Apparently Pakistani diplomats have flown in from the US to Jamaica. As the Guardian puts delicately:

It was not clear in what capacity they would assist the investigation.

Are these diplomats trained police investigators?

As for the ICC, the ACB is already doing its bit regarding the match-fixing charge. Calls seem to have gone out from some person to members of the Pakistani and Indian teams. Who got these calls, what were these calls about? Will the ACB come up with anything in the middle of the World Cup? It will be a pleasant surprise if they do, the status quo seems to suit everyone just fine. Like the recent Samuels case - what happened about that? It is obvious that match-fixing is very much present. When a captain says that his gut-feeling is that fixing is happening, one can't just ignore it. One treats it as English understatement and concludes that it fixing is taking place, more likely than not.

Update: How much more rotten can it get?

Former South Africa player Clive Rice said that when news of the match-fixing scandal broke seven years ago, he was coaching Nottinghamshire while Woolmer was in charge of Warwickshire.

“We were actually involved in a match in England at the time and Bob and I discussed it. He told me a lot that never came out…. I’m not just talking about other players being involved, but officials too,” Rice said.

“Bob knew a lot of what went on during the match-fixing scandal in which Cronje was nailed.”

Rice said Cronje, who died when a chartered plane crashed five years ago, too, was planning a book and that he had acquired the rights for it.

“I went to see him six months before he died. He signed over the rights to me. Like Woolmer, he knew a lot more of what was going on. His so-called accident was just a lot cleverer than the one that killed Bob.”

Super-8s Math

After that defeat, the only way India get through to the next stage is if Bangladesh lose to Bermuda by a big margin. It is very obvious what the Indian team must do to make that happen. They need to sit down with the Bangladesh team and pass on their considerable experience to the minnows.

After that, they need to pray that Bangladesh are quick learners.

Not Cricket - 2

Sambit Bal writes in Cricinfo:

Take the current predicament of this World Cup as an example. The major stake-holders in the tournament - the television channels and major sponsors - risk losing millions, either in cash or kind, if India go out in the first round. They are not the number one team in the world by a mile. Not even number two. They are ranked sixth in the ICC team ratings and, while that might not always be the best indicator of a team's worth, they have not won a competition of note outside the subcontinent since 1985. Yet the fate of the World Cup rides on them. It's a disaster waiting to happen.

Like they say on the comment threads: Tell Preach it, brother.

How Wrong Can One Be

I never believed that it was murder. The better half was convinced it was murder or suicide right from the time the death was announced, but I couldn't think of a motive. And suicide also seemed unlikely, he being a professional and all.

How wrong was I.

And yes it was the chamber maid who found him.

Different Versions

Of Bob Woolmer's death are doing the rounds on TV and online. But there are many inconsistences. Just one of them: Who actually found Bob Woolmer's body? I've read three different versions online:

1. The team manager (or some team official) sent Inzamam to Woolmer's room to pick him up, because he had not been seen for more than an hour
2. The hotel staff forced their way into the room
3. A maid found him after she entered the room (presumably for cleaning)

Which one is true? And linked to this question, which of the various versions of the cause of death are true?

Not Cricket

Not any longer. It isn't just a game any more. Money plays a starring role.

Kunal Dasgupta of Sony, the official broadcaster of the World Cup, agreed that the money spend on advertising will be hugely affected if India is knocked out. He complained, ‘‘The entire format of the 2007 World Cup is flawed. In a 48-day tournament, if a team like Pakistan is already out for playing bad cricket in two matches, there is something really wrong. We were against this format and even told the GCC (the commercial wing of the ICC) to reconsider it. But they refused.

‘‘Now that Pakistan is out, the fun of an India-Pakistan Super 8 match is gone. And if India lose another group match, the Cup will be the biggest flop in India and advertisers will lose value of their investments and we may also lose money even after selling all slots,’’ he said, indicating that advertisers could force the broadcaster to lower rates if India went out. He refused to divulge any financial details.

So a television channel is trying to influence the format of the cricket World Cup. And the world cup is no longer about the best teams winning, but an India-Pakistan match on a Sunday.

Bob Woolmer

What a way to go. Alone in a hotel room far away from home. Totally dejected and no one to share the pain with. All for a game of cricket.

It was horrifying to watch the news break over the news channels on sunday night here. The looped video footage of the scenes with Shoab Akhtar and Mohd Asif and others, making it too obvious that the coach was hardly enjoying a good working relationship with at least some members of the Pakistan team. Still some of them probably felt otherwise as was evidenced by Kamran Akmal and a few others breaking down during the farewell meeting.

There must be many dying every day in other ways that are equally tragic. But we don't know their particular stories and hence don't feel as much. But in this case everything was open. The humiliation of the loss against the weakest of teams. The shattering of the world cup dream. All the hard work - not only for Pakistan but also the illustrious career with SA - down the drain. The shocking death of the affable and mostly cheerful - as far as one could judge on TV - coach. It was hard not to feel sorrowful.

Land of Elephants, Snake Charmers

And bookies.

Some More Cricketing Fun

kmp sends in a bunch of mails about a bunch of cricket posts. I'll copy them below first, and later discuss them in the same order.

Re Harmless Fun he writes:

I was watching the TV night before these headlines ( I mean when he[Ganguly] was selected, but not yet in SA)…Rajdeep Sardesai’s prime time select panel included Mohinder Amarnath (understandable – original comeback-man ), Saurav’s biographer, and CPI-M MP Gurudas Dasgupta. Now, I don’t know what this groaning Marxist was doing there to discuss capitalistic cricket, and a rich main’s come-back (both out of place with their ideology). His point was, he was thrown out “un-ceremoniously” but he agreed that he should be dropped if he does not play well in future. As far as I know, he was not playing well when he was dropped so I attached more importance to the “ceremony” part. Next time, Greg should give more importance to that – my opinion. The biographer was almost crying (adding to that his Bengali accent made me feel that he was really crying) and his only concern was how he will be welcomed in the dressing room by two men – Captain and Coach. And, he repeated it three times. Again, the “ceremony” part crossed my mind ;-)

Now, with this background – I was bit more curious than usual with the newspapers and I found the “news” apt – although I was disappointed not to find any mention about the ceremony in the news.

Re Good Old Movie Plot he writes:

I differ. It still makes a “Good-Old-Movie-Plot” though – in many movies the protagonists are not always the good guys in the beginning, they become one later ;-)

I do not think dropping Ganguly was wrong then, he was not playing well – period. I did not believe that it was cricketing reason that made him to be picked, and I thought “they” were doing wrong again, however I was proved wrong (mind you, that does not mean I was wrong earlier – the dropping part). Anyway, it was good to see him among the runs, and those flowing vintage offside drives. In fact this makes me believe that dropping him has done him good, if nothing else the *grit* is back (coz I haven’t seen him playing with the same grit when he was out of form and in those matches we lost after the world cup)

And finally re And The Brickbats Keep Pouring In he has this to say:

Consider the awfulness of what might have been. If Yuvraj Singh hadn’t ruptured himself playing kho-kho or kabaddi or whatever else Chappell considers a necessary cricketing skill, he would have played the ODI series. Had we won or even drawn the ODI series, Yuvraj would have been a certainty for the tests, and had Raina managed a couple of fifties, he would have been rapidly translated into the test squad too. Ganguly wouldn’t have been recalled, nor would Zaheer, and Laxman would still have been the wallflower in the dressing room, not the vice-captain of the Indian team. Harbhajan, had he taken a handful of wickets in the ODIs, would have been preferred to Kumble and the first test at the Wanderers wouldn’t have had a happy ending.

Usually you should not use as many “ifs” to prove-a-point. With all the ”if”’s he says the first test at the Wander’s would not be a happy ending. My question is what’s the point if (oh, not again) we add one more “if” at the end: “if India had won the wanders test” with those 50s, 100s and couple of wins in ODI… ;-)

1. I haven't watched Rajdeep, and neither - to keep it balanced - whoever is his counterpart at his ex-employer, for a long time. They strain my brain cells. Thus I missed this humour-fest. But the MP was on probably because Rajdeep - always an eye on the TRP - invited him. And, hey, Das Kapital does not mention cricket - it does refer fleetingly to BCCI hoarding money in its grubby fists, but definitely not cricket. However, should an MP be spending time gassing about cricket on national TV at all? I'm not sure.

I don't know what the biographer was expecting, but the point I was making here was that the reports were mostly probably inaccurate. The Deccan Herald line I quoted has to be an outright lie. If the think-tank weren't averse, they would have said so, and DH would have reported so long before Ganguly landed up for match practice. I didn't read anything remotely suggested that the think-tank thought so. Even the warmth mentioned in The Hindu is a bit hard to believe exists. They are all professionals - and being one myself, I know that one cannot go around with scowls on one's face and mouthing personal invective when one is putting in a day at the office. All I was saying was: spare me the false sentimentality. And Indian Express actually did that in a report titled "Ganguly back: handshakes but no happy family photo-ops yet" (italics mine throughout the post):

Around 10.30 am, Ganguly walked into the Willows hotel, two kilometres away, blazer in place, the smile, too. A quick change of clothes, one final turn towards the ground, and he stepped out quietly, specks of bright grey glowing beneath the India cap.

Where is Greg Chappell?

The Australian coach, whose leaked email spelt the beginning of the end, was a short sprint away, studiously watching the nets, calling up young pacer VRV Singh for a chat. He never turned this way.

Unfazed, Ganguly dragged his kitbag across, knelt down and started unpacking, stopping briefly to exchange quick handshakes and smiles with Munaf Patel, MS Dhoni, and Sreesanth - Dhoni had made his debut under Ganguly, the India captain.

Then, the big moment. Ganguly got up, walked across to Chappell.

As they shook hands, ears perked up all around the wire mesh, struggling to catch the few words that were exchanged. “He said, Welcome back, mate.” “No, he asked is it good to be back.” “I don’t think so.” Chappell smiled, Ganguly, too, a quick handshake and it was down to cricket.

... Just before he went in to bat, Ganguly did walk up to Rahul Dravid. They had a small chat of their own, both struggling to meet each other’s eyes. Remember Dravid the wicket-keeper?

A much more realistic report. Note especially the lack of "Welcome back" shouts and warm handshakes.

2. I believe no one is good or bad - one's actions are. Leaving that profound philosophical statement aside, I was thinking more of a good 'old' movie plot, indian movies at that. The norm there: heroes start good and remain good whereas the villain starts bad, meets his comeuppance and turns over a new leaf :-) And I believe I had not even brought in morality - just a wrong done to a man. Whether he was good or bad - not mine to know!

I have to point out one thing in kmp's response however. This is not consistent: when Ganguly is dropped it is because of cricketing reasons, but when he is picked it is just politics. If you concede that players get picked to the Indian cricket team for non-cricketing reasons, then you need to concede that players get dropped for non-cricketing reasons too - unless the facts say otherwise. And I don't see many facts out there to suggesting that he was recalled due to politics, in the newspapers which had cooked up all kinds of canards against Ganguly when he was dropped (For instance, the big argument with Dravid as Chappell watched, before a test in Pakistan when Ganguly was reportedly arguing vehemently against opening the batting. Needless to say this turned out to be false). And nothing else has changed apart from the chairman of selectors. The comrades are still holding up the government, same then as now. But there is a lot to suggest that his recall for for cricketing reaons. The editor of Cricinfo himself takes over:

Not much should be read into the meeting between Sharad Pawar, the BCCI president, and the selection committee this morning, because Ganguly's fate had been decided earlier. Indeed, Cricinfo broke the story on Tuesday.

So what does one make of it? A knee-jerk reaction to a batting crisis? The irony cannot be missed: Ganguly, whose decline as a batsman has been attributed primarily to his vulnerability to the short ball, has now been picked to strengthen a batting lineup that has been systematically dismantled by the surgical, relentless use of bounce.

It can also be seen, however, as a pragmatic, immediate measure that wagers heavily on Ganguly's Test-match experience and his innate fighting abilities. His finest hundred came at Brisbane in 2003, the first Test of a hard tour, when India were four down for 80 in the first innings and Australia's fast bowlers were smelling blood. It was a brave and a scintillating hundred, compiled as much through skill as through sheer mental strength.

But by the time he'd lost his place in the Test team, he was back to chasing ghosts: even medium pacers were bouncing him out. India will hope that the time in the wilderness would have created a will strong enough to carry him past his shortcomings.
...
While it is inevitable that Ganguly will dominate the headlines, the much bigger issue is why and how his selection was necessitated. The truth is that once again Indian batsmen have been mercilessly exposed on harder pitches, and the selectors didn't really have too many options after the young men in whom they'd placed their faith failed make the grade. The selectors had the choice to let them learn from their failures or opt to try damage control. The passions involved in cricket in India are just too high for the selectors to be able to ignore the immediate. And the reality is that beyond Ganguly there was not much to look at anyway.

And as it happens I hold the converse view hence the movie storyline : I believe his being dropped was for non-cricketing reasons and that his recall was for cricketing reasons. And I think the facts bear me out. I've given the argument for the second part of that view in the preceding excert from Cricinfo.

Now, about his being dropped. As I'd mentioned here, I fully agreed with Ganguly being dropped when it first happened. But when he was toyed with during the Pakistan tour and after doing quite well in the one test match he played (according to Cricinfo, which I'd quoted in my post then), was dropped again, that suggested batting form was the least of it. He had shown that he had the determination and the ability too. He could have been retained for the Test side at least - if the coach was keen on youth and building a team for the World Cup. Yet he was dropped. And Chappell's email itself confirms this viewpoint. Bad attitude, deviousness, selfishness, cowardice, lack of respect. All there, bad batting form being just one reason, and not the main reason at all according to it.

And there is the Laxman angle too - he was dropped soon enough after Chappell had claimed that he was an 'integral part of the team'. And knowing how that worked out for Laxman, one wonders about the email. Whatever. There were non-cricketing reasons. In addition to the above there was a new coach with revolution on his mind. Add More to the mix and the picture is complete. And it can't be cricket when others were and are still given a free pass in spite of their non-performance. Tendulkar and Sehwag coming to mind immediately. As Ganguly said in his interview after the SA test - 'Tendulkar will never be dropped'. Envy maybe. But true.

3. Like Siddhu says - If 'ifs' and 'buts' are pots and pans then there would be no tinkers. In this case, if kmp's 'if' were added to the scenario, we wouldn't be discussing Ganguly's recall, and Laxman would still be watching the match on telly instead of being the vice-captain. And I wouldn't be writing this post at 2 am!

To clarify again, my main point was about the coach and his gobbledygook, and his willing doppelganger. Handing it over to the Editor at Cricinfo again from the same piece (italic not mine):

Indian cricket, you could say after reading the names in the Test squad, has completed a full circle. Prima facie, it would seem that the Greg Chappell-Rahul Dravid revolution has ended, or at least been temporarily suspended, and India are back to where they were 14 months ago.

Youth has been jettisoned, the process has been buried and, quite incredibly, Sourav Ganguly is back. And all this has happened so suddenly that it has left a lot of us struggling to comprehend its wider implications.

Let me go out on an limb and suggest one implication: this coach has wasted our time till now.
But having said that, these arguments will go on. I think it is futile for us to take Indian cricket as it stands right now seriously. Whether the team wins or loses, it really doesn't matter. It is just a circus.

And The Brickbats Keep Pouring In

Like here. Fair enough - there were bouquets aplenty once.

Update: Actually the title could do with a bit of rework. "One Lone Brickbat Is Thrown" looks more like it.