Mumbai crowds understand their cricket, Virat!

Virat Kohli is unhappy about how the crowd jeered him in Mumbai, during the Mumbai Indians vs. Royal Challengers Bangalore game. And, he lashed back at them during the post-match presentation and press conference. 

He wants the crowd to remember that he plays for India too!! And hence, he should not be booed. Since when did representing India become a certificate that will prevent booing? He doesn't understand why is there so much "hatred" at this particular venue. And he feels people should be aware of their cricket. Well, Kohli, you are the vice-captain of the Indian team, and captain of the Royal Challengers' team, but your statements certainly reveal your ignorance of the historic passion the Mumbai crowd has for cricket. This is a crowd that has booed and jeered visiting teams when they play Mumbai in the Ranji Trophy matches. For them, when Mumbai is playing they are passionate and take every win and loss of the team almost personally. So, instead of actually enjoying the fact that city-based leagues like IPL are creating local fans who feel an attachment to their team, Virat wants these fans (and consequently all those others watching the IPL) to be magnanimous and remember that players representing other cities play for India too and hence shouldn't be jeered/booed.

No sir, that isn't what city-based leagues are supposed to do. They are exactly supposed to do what the Ranji Trophy does. Create a loyal base of fans for your team. That is what happens in other leagues like everyone's favourite the EPL. And it is the same with (American and Canadian) football leagues here and ice-hockey matches. Fans root for their city/state/province and if they feel like, boo the opposition. It doesn't matter if there are players in the opposition who represent their country. Right now, you are a rival of our home team! And you will be viewed as one. Doesn't Virat passionately advertise for the Bangalore team? 

Yes Virat, Mumbai cricket fans are a passionate lot and when Mumbai plays, they take it personally. And they will cheer for you, when you appear for team India, but when you play in the IPL, you are a rival. Try to take it sportingly. Perhaps the IPL is successful in creating city-based loyalties, which is necessary even for franchisees if they want a marketable fan-base. Ask your boss (and his son), they would be happy to see a Bangalore crowd which demonstrates fierce loyalty towards its team. Right now, your 'viraat' verbal diarrhea against the Mumbai crowd doesn't give you any brownie points and shows that you do not have it in you to stomach such opposition with a large heart. Perhaps, you might want to learn a few things from your RCB predecessors- Rahul Dravid and Anil Kumble.

Why the IPL is going wrong for Indian cricket?

No, this is not to blame for the disastrous tours of England and Australia. But it is got to do with wrong precedents being set and incorrect models being created. Previously too, I have blogged about the kind of culture that the IPL is ending up creating, especially on the franchisee side. But, in itself, IPL is not to be blamed for everything going wrong. It might just turn out to be the proverbial final straw that broke the camel's back, which has followed a series of rather unfortunate events. Some for which the BCCI is to be blamed and some for which we, the society, are to be blamed. The IPL is geared towards making a good business case first, and then an opportunity for players to display their T20 skills. It has been made completely commercial. And the BCCI has managed to get everyone, from ex-players to 'cricketing experts' on its side to tom-tom the benefits of the IPL. Many of these people claim that IPL has benefited fringe players like Swapnil Asnodkar, Paul Valthaty and others, who could get their 'skills' noticed because of the IPL. 

But are the franchisees actually interested in developing domestic cricket? The one which is supposed to feed the lineup for international cricket? None of those who shine at international level have honed their skills in the IPL. They have gone through the gruel of Ranji trophy, Duleep trophy and U-19 levels before being chosen for the test side. Moreover, the way the IPL is handled and organised itself is a huge contradiction, much like the Parliament and legislative assemblies in India. Those framing the rules of business, are themselves competing for the business. N. Srinivasan, the current BCCI secretary and a board member for eons, is the owner of the Chennai Super Kings franchise, through India cements. When the players of the game begin framing the rules, there is always going to be suspicions of not being fair and neutral.

Now, for season 5 of the IPL, Sahara India has begun claiming about unfair treatment. They are right, when they say that a replacement of Yuvraj Singh is needed. But, they go on to say that there is no Indian player of the same marketable value as Yuvraj, so they want a foreign player. Thus, what is more important to Sahara is their RoI, rather than creating a franchise where budding players can display their talent. A player's marketable value is important, than his talent. This is the same case with all other franchisees. How many have played a positive role in developing local cricket? How many have actually taken the pains to take cricket to areas which have good talent, but not enough facilities? Have the franchisees declared any plans to upgrade existing or build new training facilities and/or stadia for budding local cricketers, who might not currently be a part of the IPL? Has the BCCI ever thought of this issue? 

Time and again, comparison is drawn with the football clubs in Europe. These clubs have been built over time and locals have been naturally drawn towards loyalty of their clubs. They act as a talent breeding centre, which feeds into the national teams of each nation. Finally, creating and nurturing the lines that feed the national cricket side is left to the BCCI. So, Saurashtra bears everything it takes to hone Ravindra Jadeja into becoming a strong international cricketer. Only after he has been tested at that level, does he catch the attention of the franchisees who now want to pick him up at all possible costs. This is a classic case of robbing Peter to pay Paul. Many states have rightly withdrawn the status of 'sport' to the IPL and have begun collecting entertainment tax on the matches played.

The great Indian media too has had its role in making the IPL larger than life. In an era of breaking news, a flash of 30 runs scored in 16 balls makes more headlines than 150 scored over a day or bowling 30 overs in  a day for getting 5 wickets. When Valthaty became the highest scorer in the IPL, the news anchors were clamouring for his inclusion in the India ODI side. This goes on day-in and day-out, leading the public and layman fans to believe that IPL performances are the benchmark for selection to the international side. Moreover, Valthaty features on the front-page of every newspaper, even if he has scored 45 runs off 20 balls. But a player's photograph rarely appears (even on the sports page) for his heroics in the Ranji trophy. Newspapers allocate a major portion of the sports page for each of the IPL matches, but Ranji trophy games are reported in one column, with the heroics of the players going completely unnoticed. Take up any leading daily in your area and you can see that Ranji scores are presented in brief, whereas IPL score cards are presented in complete detail, with analysis from their regular cricketing experts. Twnty overs per side of cricket is analysed in great detail, but these experts do not sit and analyse the Ranji trophy games.

Not currently, but gradually, this would create a belief and mindset that cricket should be played in a manner so as to come onto the radar of the IPL franchisees. People will subconsciously begin believing that since the media gives prominence to the IPL, compared to the Ranji and Duleep trophies, it is far more important than the latter. All that needs to be done is bang a few balls into the boundaries or limit the score by bowling a few tight overs and you could be netting in far more money that you would have made over your entire career (if you didn't play international cricket).

As a society, we too are to blame for this. We haven't rejected the commercialisation. We have favoured batsmen hitting the balls into the boundaries and have never liked to see the stumps being castled too often. Perhaps because we are more of arm-chair analysts and very few have played the game seriously at any level. So, it isn't much difficult to cheer a ball crashing into the boundary, but requires more knowledge to realise how a few kmph difference in pace can deceive the batsman. Talk to parents of young cricket aspirants, majority would want their ward to become Sachin Tendulkar. Very very few would want him to emulate Anil Kumble or Zaheer Khan or Kapil Dev.

So, finally, whose game is it any way?

The cup is ours!!

Yes, Team India has done it for us. 28 years in the waiting. That is twice the time Lord Ram or the Pandav spent in the woods, banished from their kingdoms. And captain M.S. Dhoni, fittingly, lead from the front in the finals and finished off the game with style!! It isn't more hurting for the opposition than scoring the winning runs by hitting a seam bowler for maximum. If you do not believe it, ask a certain Chetan Sharma. Or those who watched Javed Miandad clobber him for a boundary off the last ball. And I was witness to every moment of the final. From Zaheer's tight spell, to Perera's hitting. From the agony of losing Sehwag in the first over, on a duck to the joy of  a solid Gambhir-Kohli and Gambhir-Dhoni partnership.

All said and done, through the series it was a team effort. Team India certainly deserves this cup, as everybody contributed their bit for the team in the entire series. Tendulkar and Sehwag did it with the bat, Yuvraj provided crucial all-round support. Gambhir, Kohli and Raina provided consolidation when it was most required. Zaheer was crucial with the ball and broke partnerships for his captain. Dhoni backed his team-mates solidly, in their highs and lows. He accepted the limitations and tried to circumnavigate those. And he was brutally honest with his assessments, which perhaps led the team in giving a bit more. His team selection was criticised, batting form was a concern, but the team's performance made the critics swallow their own words. Yes, ODI cricket is a game of chance, and had things been the opposite way, everyone would have bayed for Dhoni's blood. And Mahi was honest about that too, in the post-match presentation. But he took the risks, and the team justified his gambles. Those who do not dare to loft the ball (and thereby risk being caught out), will never hit a six.

Very very special thanks and gratitude should be reserved for Gary Kirsten. He took up coaching after Greg Chappell had left it fractured and demoralised. Chappell's so-called reforms led the team from disaster to disaster, not only on-field, but in the dressing room too. He has built a superb atmosphere in the dressing room and rallied around with the players. He and Dhoni together instilled a lot of self-confidence in the team, but that wouldn't have been possible if Gary hadn't inculcated the spirit and ways of Indian cricket. Chappell thought Australian cricket is most professional and hence Australians dominate the word scene. He thought the same "professionalism" could be brought into Indian cricket. And the same Chappell is the chairman of selectors in Australia, has selected a team that lost the Ashes at home and for the first time since 1996 didn't enter the World Cup final. In this light, Gary's contribution is immense. I sincerely desire that Gary changes his mind. If not, let's find someone who imbibes Gary's methods in going about his job.

And finally, to the man (God, I would say) who has shouldered the expectation of a nation for more than two decades- Sachin Tendulkar. He finally has that elusive World Cup winning team medal in his showcase along side the countless man-of-the-match, man-of-the-series and other awards he has received during his glorious (for my lack of vocabulary) career. He deserved it and the team has done it for him.

Once the frenzy has died out, the celebrations have ended, there are a few points that India has to ponder upon.

1. We lacked a decent pace attack. To be frank, Sreesanth isn't exactly a reliable bowler. He was lucky to get into the team, thanks to an injured Praveen Kumar. Zaheer shouldered the responsibility almost single handedly. Even Munaf and Nehra were mostly off-coloured in their bowling.
2. Spin too, wasn't quality spin that is expected from an Indian side. Harbhajan looked to contain rather than attack, Chawla was spraying the ball all over the pitch. Ashwin bowled nicely, especially when asked to bowl in the mandatory power play.
3. Dhoni has accepted that India aren't a great fielding side. But then, we need to work upon our fielding and get better with it. In the final, crucial 30 odd runs were saved by Yuvraj and Raina's brilliant fielding.
4. Gary Kirsten is going back to South Africa. Pray that the person who replaces Gary, carries on what Gary has been doing and the way he is doing it. Do not try anything suicidal like Greg Chappell.
5. Finally, let us show the same zeal and support for other sports persons too. Hockey, tennis, badminton, athletics, etc. They too bring laurels for India at world stage.

Awful terminologies used in IPL

IPL-4 is back with a bang. With the new rounds of "auctions" over, there is a need to ponder over the terms used to describe the transactions between the franchisees and players. In a previous post too, I have expressed concern over wrong or harsh terms being used to describe such transactions. In today's politically correct world, if I were to call an African-American a Negro I am bound to face the boos of the people. Coming closer to home, if I were to abuse a Dalit, I can be prosecuted. You cannot call people "disabled" but have to call them "differently abled". There would be a huge hue and cry in newspapers if the older terms are used.

And that is why I am surprised, about the continuing usage of inappropriate terms in the IPL. First of all, the formation of teams, is termed an "auction" and team owners have to "bid" for each player. The dictionary meaning of auction is "a public sale in which properties or items of merchandise are sold to the highest bidder". Now, are our revered players property or items of merchandise? In the olden days, when European colonialism was spreading its wings, they used to buy and sell slaves, especially native Africans in an auction, which used to be held in a public square. The winner of the auction used to then own these slaves who then had to behave as per their master's wishes. Do we want to project our players in this manner? That they are owned by the likes of Shilpa Shetty, Preity Zinta, Shah Rukh Khan, Juhi Chawla, etc.!!

Now, look at the news that describes the outcomes of the "auction". Times of India reports:

Shah Rukh Khan was not present in person but his Kolkata Knight Riders, which had been reduced to an also-ran in the last two seasons, proved to be the big spender of the day by also buying hard-hitting all-rounders Yusuf Pathan (Rs 9.66 crore) and Jacques Kallis (Rs 5.06 crore) for the fourth edition of event to be held from April 8 to May 20.

Note those words in bold. Players were "bought" like pieces of artwork or antiques, to be displayed on the field and used to earn more money!! And, there were a few players "unsold" because none were interested in "buying" them.

But there were some surprise names in the unsold list with former India and KKR captain Sourav Ganguly, West Indies batting star Chris Gayle and the legendary Brian Lara failing to find a buyer.

rediff.com reports

Gautam Gambhir was sold for the highest price with Kolkata Knight Riders signing him for a massive $2.4 million.

And many more reports from the media might have reported the IPL "auctions" in a very similar manner. We continue to devour the IPL news without giving a second's thought to the terminology used. We, who worship Sachin Tendulkar, Rahul Dravid, V. V. S. Lakshman and many other cricketers, do not feel uncomfortable about them being "bought" or remaining "unsold". 

Softer terms can be used to describe the above transactions. Even the football leagues in Europe use such terminologies. E.g., a player is not bought but is signed on by a team. Similarly, a team doesn't sell a player, but he is transferred. And a player needn't be unsold but he can remain unsigned by any of the franchisees. This helps maintain the dignity of the profession and also stresses the fact that the players are anyone's slaves but have made available their talent to a particular franchisee at their own will. The auction itself needs to be redefined. Currently, I cannot find an appropriate word to replace it, but readers would be of great help, if they can help me find one.

These are finer nuances of the language, which if implemented convey a completely different meaning of the entire process. Remember Michaelangelo said, "Trifles make perfection, but perfection is no trifle". That is how it is any language. But is there anybody listening? Are we concerned only about the sixers that will be rained in the IPL or also about whether the dignity of the cricket profession and the game is maintained?

Tendulkar vs. Bradman: Unfair to compare

With the Master Blaster having completed a half century of test centuries, the media has predictably begun doling opinions (less of experts, more of amateurs) comparing Don Bradman and Sachin Tendulkar. Let us try and see how both of them compare:

1. Pitch Conditions:
   Bradman: During Bradman's times, playing pitches used to be left open overnight and were hence prone to be affected by the overnight weather conditions.
   Tendulkar: Pitches are well covered with water-proof material and are, hence, less affected due to changes in the weather conditions overnight.
2. Bowling Conditions:
   Bradman: In Bradman's era, bowlers could, legally, bowl six bouncers to the batsman. Moreover, with uncovered pitches, the conditions could tilt in favour of the bowler on every morning of the test. There were no restrictions on field placements. Fielders could be placed anywhere the bowler wanted.
   Tendulkar: In test matches, two bouncers per over are allowed. In one-day internationals, one bouncer per over. So, no more rattling the batsmen by hurtling down an over full of bouncers. No more than five fielders can be placed on the leg side of the batsmen, thereby limiting the nature of attack.
3. Sports Gear:
   Bradman: No protection over the chest and no helmets. Imagine facing Larwood when your head is exposed and your heart, ribs and lungs have no protection against the thud of the ball which could hit you at around 140 km/h. And then, you would realise Bradman's situation.
   Tendulkar: All sort of safety equipment are now available. Helmets, elbow guard, chest guard, etc. Not that cricket has become easy, but batsmen can think of risking being hit, without having to worry too much about how grievous the injury will be.
4. Fielding:
   Bradman: Watch those grainy videos of the test matches involving Bradman, and you will realise that the fielders in that era didn't dive around or run their heart out, to save a few runs or to get the crucial wickets. Hence, runs were a little easy to come by.
   Tendulkar: In the modern era, cricket has become heavily competitive. It not only matters how many runs you score, but it also matters how many can you save. You can see fielders diving around to save singles, latch on to catches that would have the opposition down by one more wicket. Hence, Tendulkar has had more hard work, while compiling those runs.
5. Oppositions and conditions:
   Bradman: Bradman has played most of his cricket against England and in two countries: England and Australia. He hasn't played on the turning tracks of the subcontinent or on the ferocious pitches of South Africa.
   Tendulkar: He has played test cricket all over the world, against nine countries. This means his runs have come against different types of opposition and many more different conditions than Bradman. From the placid pitches of India, to the bouncy pitches of SA and Australia, to the seaming pitches of England, he has conquered them all. From Abdul Kadir to Warne, Ambrose to McGrath, he has tamed almost all of them.
6. Statistics: In cricket, statistics are always biased. They comment on the results, but ignore the efforts that went into them. A century on Motera, Ahemdabad is far less difficult than a one on WACA, Perth. But statistics places equal value on both. Hence, these should be seen only as a formality.
   Bradman: Tests: 52, Runs: 6996, 100s: 29 (includes 12 double hundreds and 2 triple), Average: 99.96.
   This means, almost every time he went out to bat, he scored a hundred runs.
   Tendulkar: Tests: 175, Runs: 14513, 100s: 50 (includes 6 double hundreds, but no triple), Average: 56.91.
   Sachin's stats are as of 26th December 2010, before the start of the 2nd test match between SA and India, at Durban.

Now, these were individual parameters on which the two greats were compared. But, in no match, does it happen that only one of the parameter dominates and the rest don't. Hence, if we were to analyse a combined effect of all these factors (multivariate statistical analysis) coming into play together, it would be much more difficult to come up with a conclusion. So, it is better we stop demeaning either of the two by saying one is a greater batsman than the other. Bradman, is as great as Tendulkar is. Both batsmen have taken cricket to new frontiers in their respective era. Both have set new benchmarks to achieve for their successors. Hence, I would say, it is unfair to try and compare the two greats. Fair, would be to savour all those exciting cricket that Tendulkar continues to generate.

Yes, we can

The Ayodhya verdict, for once, showed that we are a mature democracy. The promise given by leaders that no party would celebrate or indulge in riots irrespective of the nature of the decision was kept by the leaders. Many may claim that they said this because the option of going to the Supreme Court was available to both sides. And because there could be political implications of wild celebrations or riots. But, whatever be the reason, the promise given was kept. India, as a nation, desires to move on towards development and prosperity. Sensible youth are hungry for more opportunities in the new Indian economy. They have the desire and energy to build a career for themselves. All stakeholders in the story of India's economic success should strive to channelise this desire and energy in a way that would benefit the country, both, socially as well as economically. While this does not mean that we discard our faith, it means that people desire to practice their faith in a manner that is minimally intrusive to others.

For once, India showed that we can digest a particular verdict in a manner such that there is peace in the society as a whole. Murmurs in some corners are bound to occur, but the leadership should stand up and try to see that these murmurs do not come to mainstream. Ofcourse, the media has a role to play, but then today's media does not desire to take any such responsibility.

And, there is another event where we need to show, we can. The Delhi Common Wealth Games (CWG) 2010. Yes, agreed there is a huge scandal involving the games, taxpayers' money has definitely been swindled, brazen corruption has taken place, payments made for works that haven't met specifications, funds for other causes have been diverted to the Games. Poor people have been uprooted from their shanties and dumped on the fringes of Delhi. Lots of injustices and bad practices. We have been snubbed and taunted about the way the preparations have gone. But, all said and done, we should be solidly backing our athletes who are depending on the support of the home crowd to give them the extra edge in performance. We should show them, that we back them, despite this callous government and the tardy preparations for the Games. We should show them, yes we can be enthusiastic about sports apart from cricket. Ditch the Australia-India test series. Go out, watch the CWG, only for our athletes. Support them, they are playing for the nation. Remember, BCCI admitted in the court that it does not send an Indian team, but a team representing BCCI. If the time for India has really come, we should support those who truly compete for India, not only for namesake.

Let's us show the athletes, yes, we can thumb our nose to cricket. Yes, we can support sports despite every controversy that surrounds it. And yes, we can help them inspire others, which will create a fresh set of talent in the country.

So, is Sehwag really the best?

Today, I was going through Aivjit Ghosh's blog post on the recent news in the world of cricket. Amongst all news, he talks on Sehwag in high esteem. Not that I do not hold Sehwag in high esteem. Infact, someone who has consistently appeared and performed well at international level, deserves an applause. But then, is it really the right time to start calling him the Indian best bastman of all time?

But, Avijit thinks he is the best. And here are the claims that Avijit makes in Sehwag's favour:

"Others can keep piling methodical hundreds, they can never dream of a 80-plus strike rate in Test cricket. Now even research papers show that he is better than anybody in India."

Oh yes, probably no one can dream of such a strike-rate. But then, stirke-rate is a deceptive statistic. It is not an unbiased measure of performance. This only means that Sehwag scores 80+ runs every 100 balls he faces. Which means, he might get out at a score of 8 or 9 after playing 10 balls in an innings, for 10 consecutive matches, and still end up with this strike-rate. In such a case, methodical hundreds might be more useful. I have blogged previously about the deceptive nature of statistical figures. This is yet another example of use of incomplete statistics to arrive at a conclusion.

Again, Avijit relies on some research papers that have claimed to have analysed that he is better than anybody in India. Frankly speaking, the reliability of research papers that combine human abilities and statistical data to arrive at conclusions should be sceptically looked at. I, definitely find in difficult to trust in such research, as we are never sure if the statistical data used is completely unbiased. And that the final conclusions are not sensitive to addition or removal of parameters.

Perhaps, the best comparison comes from Harsha Bhogle. His crininfo article on comparison between Gavaskar and Sehwag can be found here. And, quoting Harsha, here is the clincher

"But at the corresponding points in their career (79 Tests each), a mere 88 runs separate them. The difference in batting average is but 0.68."

I had once heard Shirish Kanekar on comparing different cricketers. Like every sane person, he said that it is impossible to compare players of different era, as playing conditions were different. Ranjitsinghji, Don Bradman, etc. never wore helmets or protective gear. They played differently and had to defend themselves against the possibility of getting injured due to a swinging delivery ramming into the body. The pitches were never covered, as they are today and hence batsmen were much more exposed to the vagaries of nature. Today, with protective gear, the batsman can be more aggressive and hence in turn score more runs. Kanekar had an interesting anecdote. He said, "There was no concept of nuclear warfare and its counter strategies during Shivaji Maharaj's era. That doesn't mean he was a king of lesser abilities than today's war strategists."

So, instead of pondering over which individual is best, there should be more concentration on building a team that is best.

Slave trade back?

Just watch this interview of Gayatri, the co-owner of the Deccan Chargers. If you cannot watch it here, watch it on YouTube. It was conducted by a pea-headed IPL anchor, who didn't know her questions and was probably targeting the socialite crowd and those more interested in the Page-3 aspect of the game, rather than serious sports viewers and analysts.

Watch and hear carefully the question asked at 0:18. The way the question was framed is outrageous and extremely silly. What is the point that the interviewer is trying to prove? Brought up in the beliefs of the "breaking news" era, she just wants to create some sensation, using her heavily accented English. And she just succeeded in that! Her statement provoked me to blog about this.

Just look how casually she mentions the act of bidding for players. "Buying people like that!!" And on top of that, she goes on an ego massaging spree. Asking Gayatri whether she enjoys being in a position where she can "buy people" at the stroke of the gavel.

But, I liked Gayatri's response. Calm and composed. Nothing out of the way, just going-about-my-job kind of answer. That, I think is the hallmark of a person who actually realises the importance and impact of the position he or she holds.

The next question, at 0:34, almost scales the peaks of stupidity. Asking a business-person, whether there was some strategy in bidding for the players, who are "bought" not at a price that is uniform for everybody, but the better the player, the more is the cost in acquiring him. Come on lady, you can never ever run a successful business. I wish Gayatri had answered her like- "Oh no, what strategy, I had the money, I wanted to splurge it, so just bid for whoever I thought will cost more!!" And from here, the questions become a cliche. Watch for the question at 1:56 and you will realise what I mean.

But, it is alarming to see the downfall in the way interviews are conducted. Do you want to just fill the time before an innings starts or are you really interested in dishing out that "insider" bit of information. From what this lady does, I do not see any genuine interest in making things more informative.

On a parting note, I wonder if there is some mechanisms where these anchors can be auctioned. I would love to bid for this lady and then say in an interview- "I bought her because she is sexy, doesn't have too deep intellect and hence is useful to fill time whenever and wherever required."

Test Match or T20?

This debate seems to be happening everywhere. Newspapers, websites, cricket forums, columns, news channels, debating shows, on the tea-stalls near offices, canteens, messes, buses, trains, airplanes, and even on the cricket field. The latest format of cricket seems to have taken the world by storm. Reducing the five-day game to mere 3 hours of action packed hitting around the park. Of course, bowlers too have their say, and fielders have to be athletes of the highest quality to prevent runs from being scored.

Talks have been doing the round that Test cricket is on its way to death, T20 is the 'in'-thing. To justify their arguments, people talk of the huge response to IPL and the T20 world cup. What also provided fillip to T20 in India was the Indian team's victory in the inaugural edition of the T20 WC. And then IPL took T20 a step further and tried (with some success) to become like the footballs leagues in England. Building loyalties around cities and franchises, rather than states. Critics point out to the decreasing popularity of Test cricket by pointing out to the empty stands in the Nagpur test between India and England in 2008. They point that Test cricket is unsuited for the fast lifestyle of today and T20 cricket allows us to enjoy the game in under 3 hours and then get on with our work. Yes, we have changed. Our lifestyles have changed. Quick value for money is the mantra for today.

But then, really, does T20 provide all the excitement that we desire in a sport? As Sachin Tendulkar said, in T20 a batsman is 'good' if he can hit the ball around the park for three or four overs. So, a Yuvraj Singh is a must in T20. When he hit Stuart Broad for six sixes in the WC match in South Africa, it was considered a great display of batting. A bowler with bowling figures of 4-0-20-0 (O-M-R-W), is considered 'good'. The bowler's main activity is to stop flow of runs. The bowler doesn't need to trap a batsman into committing mistakes to get him out. So, we see spinners of the highest quality relying more on line and length, rather than flight and turn. Imagine Harbhajan Singh bowling yorkers, straighter and flat through the air deliveries. Where is his craft as a spinner put to display? In very very few situations, I would say.

The other end of the spectrum is Test cricket. Spread over five days, it requires a team to bowl its opposition out twice over. Or, if batting second, score more runs that the other team's combined first and second innings total. Only then can it be declared a winner. It tests the grit and determination of batsmen and bowlers alike, their skill to endure onslaughts. Batsmen have to face swinging deliveries, bouncers, four slips, and a point. A slight nudge outside the off stump and the batsman may loose his wicket. Sachin faced this problem in the 1999 and 2004 tour of Australia. But in the third test match, he was determined to get back the flow of runs. So determined that he didn't touch any ball bowled outside his off-stump. Such was his judgment that he knew exactly where his off-stump was, and left everything that was outside it. Almost all of Sachin's runs came off the leg side. People may call this defeatist mentality, but Sachin managed to frustrate the Australian bowlers and simultaneously get back the flow of runs. In the 2007 tour, he was seen teasing Brett Lee by hitting him over the slip cordon and scoring runs easily.

The grit and determination of V.V.S. Laxman, in the third test during India's tour to Australia in 1999 is also an innings to remember. Though Laxman's century was played in a lost cause, the sheer determination and cricketing shots displayed in the 167 runs that he scored is amazing. Australia didn't have it easily. Not to forget, the second test match of the India-Australia series in 2001. Where he and Rahul Dravid stitched together a record-breaking partnership and India went to score a victory over Australia after being asked to follow on, the third instance that such a thing happened in Test cricket's history.

I am not a very good cricket historian. So spotting anecdotes from cricket history is difficult for me. But, Maharashtra's famous cricket historian and writer Shireesh Kanekar has a thing or two for Test cricket. He says that while in one-day cricket (or T20 for that matter) how the runs are scored do not matter. But in Test cricket, it is very important for the batsman not to play rash shots. In Test cricket, bowlers always have a chance of coming back, not so in ODIs or T20s. It is actually appalling to see bowlers bowling flat trajectory balls or yorkers in T20s. In a test match, the bowler would have to bowl a mix of flighted deliveries, straight, flat and yorkers. Add to the fact that there would be a slip, a short-leg, silly mid-off and possibly a leg-slip, all waiting to pounce upon the nick that the bat might produce. A few runs given wouldn't matter if they could bring a wicket. In swinging conditions, bowlers would bowl with three slips and a point maintaining a line just around the off-stump. If the batsman manages to hit a few strokes through the off-side, it didn't matter, because the bowler could always try what he wanted.

On the other hand, for a batsman, it is essential to play strokes as correctly as possible. Test cricket can have a lot of scenarios in which batsmen would be required to change their batting style. There could be periods when attacking is possible, periods when wickets need to be conserved and periods where the run rate needs to be maintained. All these situations require a different skill set from the batsman. Not all batsman can be good Test players. Scoring runs in any possible manner isn't the name of the game in Test matches. Scoring them according to the situation is much more important. Sometimes conserving the wickets itself helps save a Test match. Remember England 2007? India couldn't win the third Test because they couldn't bowl England out in the second innings. Although India had the upper hand all through out the match.

Overall, I feel that a Test match is like our life. It goes through periods of highs and lows and we have to fight it out and overcome our adversaries to score a victory. There is no victory if the opposition is not vanquished. Remember Chennai 1999? Sachin Tendulkar, nursing an injured back played a brilliant knock of 136 to bring India close to the target. While India lost the test match by 12 runs, Sachin's knock was a display about how Test cricket should be played. About T20, my feeling is that it is like drugs, which give a temporary high, but then leave us with a vacuum.

So, let T20 remain for those who like to enjoy the temporary highs, but let Test cricket flourish for fans like us, who want a wholesome game.

P.S. Did anyone mention the empty stands during IPL-2? Well, it seems that T20 cricket can't attract enough crowds either

Shameless Symonds

So, Mr. Andrew Symonds is "shattered" after Judge Hansen delivered his verdict in the "monkey" incident. He says that his "blood boils" if anyone questions his integrity!! These are the words coming from the batsman who stood his ground despite nicking an edge to the 'keeper in Sydney. In the post-match interview, he said that he is out only if the umpire says so. And, in the next match at WACA, he showed his bat to the umpire, indicating that he had nicked the ball and hence, not LBW.

So, what integrity is Symonds talking about? His integrity stands shattered by these two incidents. In the Sydney test, he says that the umpire should judge whether he is out or not, and in the Perth test, once the umpire decided he is out, he questions the decision by showing his bat to the umpire. Here is a man who is not ready to stand by his own statement. And he is talking about integrity.

Let's go through the incidents of Sydney. Harbhajan pats Bret Lee on his bottom and acknowledges the delivery bowled. Symonds, who had no business for what transpired between Harbhajan and Lee, walks in and says something to Harbhajan. Harbhajan, being irritated by Symonds comments responds in a manner, which the Aussies treat as their fiefdom. Symonds misinterprets the response (well, it just goes to justify that he has a brain, no larger than a monkey's) and then suddenly Hayden and Ponting have heard everything that transpired between the two. But in their testimony before Hansen, neither can recall the exact words used!! So much so for the integrity of the Aussie cricketers.

Symonds admitted during the testimony that he went to Harbhajan and said something first. So, Harbhajan rightly retorted back to the Aussie, which Symonds didn't expect at all. Therefore, judge Hansen was right in saying that Symonds started the entire incident. Now, where is the issue of "questioning" Symonds integrity(?) when he himself has admitted to being the initiator of the conversation.

The Aussies used the legal process laid down by the ICC to have Harbhajan punished. But, couldn't come up with the evidence to nail Harbhajan. So, the legal process which the Aussies took shelter under, itself dumped their claims. Then, why is Symonds sulking? And in this entire incident, has Bret Lee got to say anything on whether he felt it appropriate for being acknowledged by the opposition on the field? If he was okay with that, then Symonds had no business at all to say anything to Harbhajan. And if he said that, then he should be ready to face the consequences.

P.S. Symonds should not be too worried about the words "teri maa ki c*****". The Aussies themselves say that the word "bastard" is a term of endearment for them. The term sticks to a person only after some incidents that occur in that part of the body!!

The Great Indian Cricket Tamasha

With India winning the T20 World Cup in South Africa, came to an end two weeks of good cricket. It was good because teams were able to beat the Aussies, who were unbeatable in the ODIs, we beat Pakistan twice, and are the current World Champions. The same Indian team which was isolated for all the criticism in the world five months ago, is now the darling of every Indian. If you adored the team six months ago, you were a good-for-nothing fellow. However, today if you do not adore the Indian team, you are not patriotic. The same fans who demolished Dhoni's under-construction house, burnt effigies of players and bayed for their blood are now running around to get a glimpse of them. The players now find a place in every nook and corner of the house and nobody gets tired drooling over them.

The media had endless hours of news time dedicated to how World Cup 2007 (50-over version) has spelled dooms-day for Indian cricket. The same media is now drooling over the Indian team, again devoting endless hours of news time to every minute detail about the players' off-field life during and after the T20 Cup. Details to the extent of where did a particular players kith and kin position themselves during the final game were presented elaborately with the anchors and news-reporters dramatizing the entire piece of news. And at the end of all this, we came to know a lot lot lot more about players like Joginder Sharma, RP Singh, etc. But what did we come to know? We were enlightened about what Joginder likes to eat, where did he play in his bachpan, etc. The unimaginative media-- both print and electronic-- hijacked Chak de India, the slogan meant for the hockey team and used it as if it was their own creation.

The sponsors, who were rethinking about their committement to cricket, are now back with their full financial might. Ready to pay unimaginable amounts to be associated with the Indian cricket team for a few seconds every day. Ask these sponsors to spend some money on research for the betterment of their company, and they will come back saying that they have not much funds to carry out research.

Finally, the BCCI. This governing body of cricket should be working for the welfare of the game and players. However, time and again it seems to be working for its own welfare. After the first round exit from the World Cup, it sought to discipline the players in an innovative way-- restrict their endorsements. They thought of scratching off the centralised contract system and pay the players on a per match basis, with bonus thrown in for every win. Now, after the team has won the T20 World Cup, it has announced centralised contracts for the team members with enhanced retainorship fees. A u-turn on its own position in less than six months.

The attitude of everybody-- fans, media and BCCI-- in this incident lacks professionalism. The fans do not professionally respect the players and the fact that they (the players) too can have a bad day in the office (exit from WC-2007). The fans get emotionally outraged-- if the team doesn't perform as per their expectations-- and get into a rioting mood. However, once the team wins a series or a major tournament, the same fans transform the devils into Gods.

The media too plays into the hands of fans' emotions. Instead of professionally reporting any cricketing event, they report it as if the tournament is an equivalent of World War 3. For e.g. WC-2007 used to be reported as War in the Windies. They report a single defeat as if Yudhishthir lost his kingdom to Duryodhan and every victory as if Arjun has killed Karna. Then there are those endless chat/debate shows, where even a player who has played just a single test match or ODI starts ranting on what the players feel, what should the BCCI be doing its job, how should Tendulkar play the hook shot, etc.

And finally the BCCI. Well, the less said about its professionalism, the better. I need not say anything as the over-enthusiastic media has already spent lot of air time and newsprint on this issue. But, after the T20 World Cup, nobody is bothered about the BCCI's method of functioning.

In the end, we all should understand that after all cricket is a game. Yes, I love it when India wins a match. I do not like to see India losing. But let us accept, this is a game, sometimes India will lose, sometimes it will win. However, we fans and media should not get to the extremes of adulation or rioting to prove our point. Congratulate the team on winning, support them when they lose. After all, the team is also made of humans. They have put in a lot of efforts to reach at that stage and are continuously putting in more efforts to remain there and progress to better stages.