Desicritics Author: The Enigma

Sachin Tendulkar: Should He Or Shouldn't He?

The Enigma — Wed, 4 Apr 2007 00:22:58 EDT

A few days after the WC exit I wrote an article about why Sachin Tendulkar should not be made captain. Unfortunately, in the comments of the DC post, the debate has veered towards whether Tendulkar should be in the team at all.

Let's address this question, then. Does Sachin Tendulkar warrant a place in Team India in the current climate?

IMHO, those that want Tendulkar out of Team India should be able to name a (or multiple) creditable and talented replacement. Most of the names that have been cropping up, to date, revolve around the likes of Mohammad Kaif and Suresh Raina.

Don't get me wrong, these two players have potential that they need help in realising. However, that help should not come at the expense of SRT. One could argue that Kaif has had all the help in the world, and then some. Yet, he still has not been able to flourish and cement his place in the ODI team - unlike his good friend Yuvraj Singh.

For all his dips in form and changes in mental approach, I would still bank on Tendulkar playing consistently better over the next few years than any new cricketer coming into the side. Anybody who suggests that Indian cricket is ready to forge ahead without Tendulkar (and apparently that is 60% of India, as well as Ian Chappell) is seriously deluded or has an axe to grind.

A Question of Age

People like Jabberwock and Ruchir Joshi have vastly differing reasons for asking for Tendulkar to be shunted out of the team. Although, I do understand Jabberwock's angle (not because, like me, he is a self-proclaimed Tendulkar loyalist), I fail to understand what Ruchir was on about. Sample this:

"For a person born and brought up in India, age *does* matter. Most indians are indoor-people, by nature. They don't have the physical build to be in tip-top shape, as age advances. Compared to a normal adult of 33 years age, Sachin may be in great shape, but that does not mean he is in a great shape to play cricket. Add to that all the injuries he had to suffer. Sachin is definetly one of the better physically fit players, but it doesn't mean he will be able to play till 40. Most western country people have thick bones. Even if they are skinny, they look healthy. They are mostly outdoor people too. They indulge in lot of physical activities on weekend, at all ages. So, they have better physical structure to support them in sports, even at advancing age."

To anybody living outside of India it is quite obvious that Ruchir's sense of a Western lifestyle is quite misguided, as is his contention that Indians cannot remain as fit as their Caucasian counterparts. Most Western people do not indulge in physical activities, that is why obesity is rampant. Secondly, a person's bone structure has nothing to do with how well he/she can play cricket - they call it skill.

It is also highly irresponsible to suggest that Tendulkar's injuries are a result of him being unfit or under-prepared. His injuries have undoubtedly been a major cause in his lack of form over the past two years. It is hoped that with a bit of luck the injuries will stay away, allowing him to play as freely as we all know he can. Nobody is suggesting that he play till 40, for that is a long way off. Do not forget he is only 33 - hardly the geriatric period for a specialist batsman.

Quantitative vs. Qualitative

No, I do not intend to deliver a mathematics lecture here. But, I would like to refer to a certain Chandra who produced some rather interesting statistics pertaining to the performance of Tendulkar and Kaif, in the comments section of the article I mentioned earlier.

I do not intend to dispute Chandra's statistical data, nor his analysis. However, I would like to refer you to Jabberwock's contention - and one that I wholly support - that every (sane) Tendulkar fan understands that the man "hasn't been the world's leading batsman for at least six years now; he hasn't even been India's best batsman for at least four years, going back to roughly the time when Rahul Dravid had those great series in England and Australia." You do not require statistics to prove this.

It is important to give statistics their due. Having said that, I also believe statistics should not represent the be all and end all of a case for the in/exclusion of a cricketer from a particular team. Our over-reliance on statistics has led to many a situation where a Ranji star has been picked for the national team based on a stunning average, when honest subjective analysis would have highlighted that he clearly lacked the gumption to put in what international cricket demands.

Quantitative objectivity has its merits, but in a game that so heavily relies on touch and timing, too often we conveniently forget the insights that our very own eyes and brains can afford us.

Here's to hoping that common sense prevails and SRT can remain injury-free and be allowed to play like we all know he can over the next few years. I am all for introducing new blood, but, the kids will simply have to find another road into Team India - for now.

The Woolmer Murder: Is The Tablighi Jamaat Involved?

The Enigma — Wed, 28 Mar 2007 04:48:47 EDT

Cricket commentators that have kept a watchful eye on the Pakistani team over the past 2 years have often commented on the not-so-minor role that religion has played in uniting the players towards a common goal. Some have even suggested that the focus has been shifted from cricket to religion.

In fact, PCB Chairman Naseem Ashraf thought strongly enough of the issue to suggest that the focus of his national team should return to cricket and religion should play a secondary role in the thinking and workings of the team.

Prem Panicker happened across an interesting article by B Raman, former Addl. Secretary in the Indian Cabinet Secretariat and current counter-terrorism wonk.

Raman references an earlier article (apparently written just before the World Cup) by a Pakistani columnist, that described links between a "jihadi" organization, Tablighi Jamaat (TJ), and the ultra-religious faction within the Pakistan team. It is said that Inzamam-ul-Haq was the leader of the faction within the team and the group included the likes of "Mushtaq Ahmed (the bowling coach), Mohammad Yousaf, Saqlain Mushtaq, Shahid Afridi, Shoaib Malik, and Yasser Hameed."

Apparently, Inzamam's faction are all members of this conservative Islamic organization and Inzamam himself regularly preaches its beliefs across Pakistan. The organization's clergy are often seen leading players' prayer sessions and organizing meetings with international chapters of the organization during overseas cricket tours.

Raman believes, although he has no concrete evidence, that Woolmer may have questioned or criticized TJ beliefs or practices, leading to rather disproportionate action being taken in revenge by a TJ member.

Revelations are coming to light pertaining to the command that Inzamam had over his players, and the lack of control that Woolmer was able to exert over them. In this light, it is quite reasonable to assume that Woolmer may have questioned the players' commitment towards the game, as compared to their religion. After all, a coach's job is not to stand by idly as a cricket team transforms itself from a group of focussed players to wannabe jihadi clergymen.

Quite correctly, Raman ponders whether the Jamaican Police have explored this avenue in the course of their investigations. These claims are quite different to the common themes revolving around shady characters that fix matches.

Assuming that the Jamaican Police were unaware of these details, one cannot help but wonder whether they were able to ask the right questions during their interrogation of the Pakistan squad.

I do not believe a Pakistan squad member had a direct link to Woolmer's murder. However, a seemingly innocent conversation between a player and another TJ member could have sown the seeds for what transpired in Woolmer's hotel room on that fatal night.

The question remains, did the police ask the right questions? Moreover, does the Pakistan team know more than it is letting out?

Captain Tendulkar? Never Again, Please

The Enigma — Tue, 27 Mar 2007 14:37:44 EDT

How can so many people, with so much "experience" and "wisdom" be so short-sighted? Discounting the fact that the Indian media tries its shameful utmost to create the news, rather than merely report it, many supposedly knowledgeable elder statesmen are pining for the reappointment of Sachin Tendulkar as Indian captain.

Instead of calling for mindless "blood-letting", cricketers whose opinions are solicited or opportunistically offered should wisely consider their views before creating unnecessary drama. Indian cricket has suffered far too much and far too long at the hands of self-promoters. For once in Indian cricket history, the people that matter are called upon to unite and restructure the game in a manner that will promote success in the long-term. Taking decisions and spouting needless rubbish on a whim is not what the doctor ordered.

Let me preface my views below with the information that I am an unashamed and long-standing fan of Tendulkar. Regardless of the fact that he has failed to win pressure matches in recent times and seems unable to overcome a mental block that is prohibiting him from wowing us with his true genius, he has been one of the reasons (quite often, the only reason) why many of us have continued to watch Indian cricket. He has also been a big part of the little success that Team India has achieved over the previous decade and a half.

I will continue to be a fan of Tendulkar until my dying day. This has not, and will not, cloud my judgment pertaining to his true worth to Team India. I believe the calls for his axing or retirement are premature and irresponsible. I challenge the proponents of this school of thought to name one emerging player of considerable talent who will be able to consistently outperform Tendulkar over the next few years. Emotional and illogical arguments aside, not one name will be half of what Tendulkar can be over the coming years.

Sachin Tendulkar's worth to Team India is indisputable. However, his qualifications to lead the side leave a lot more to be desired. His two previous stints in the top job were nothing short of disastrous. He would have, undoubtedly, matured as a person and developed as a leader in this time. This should not paper over his blinding inability to inspire and cajole his troops to perform during his previous attempts.

Instead of discussing potential replacements for Rahul Dravid, the question that needs to be considered is whether Dravid deserves the sack. Tendulkar was not alone in being unable to convert his players into a cohesive and focussed unit. Mohammad Azharuddin also suffered the same problems. Azharuddin only survived for as long as he did thanks to politicking and a lack of desire within the BCCI to try and improve the game they are supposed to manage (obviously, nothing has changed to this day). A second failing of Azharuddin, Tendulkar and Ganguly was their significant decline in form while they were captain.

Rahul Dravid has only been in the job for 18 months. In that time he has shown that his batting has prospered, or at the very least, not suffered. He has also shown that he has the ability to lead his players to out-perform their potential, as evidenced by the 17 straight ODI victories while chasing.

Moreover, he has shown that he wants to be his own man. Nobody quite knows what prompted him to take the collaborative route for the World Cup, but he has also shown in the past that he has an ability to isolate and remedy his shortcomings - remember how he wasn't good enough to play ODIs.

Admittedly, his tactical awareness and ability to innovate went distressingly MIA when the going got tough. However, to be fair to Dravid, he is not the only international captain that suffers from this affliction. Only Stephen Fleming, and Michael Vaughan to a lesser extent, have consistently displayed the ability to come out on top in difficult situations. The few times that he was strenuously tested, even Steve Waugh lost the plot.

If Captain Dravid's only drawback is that he needs to improve his tactical nous in difficult situations, does he need replacing? Do we have a ready-made candidate who is a shoo-in for both teams and also has the ability to captain like Fleming? I seriously think not.

Captain Tendulkar, is the worst thing that could happen to Indian cricket in these troubled times. We do not need to change the captain, we need to change the system that produces his players. Concentration on the issues that need addressing rather the shuffling of deck chairs on the Titanic is the need of the hour. The decisions that need to be made are tough, but the reasons for making them are simple and require only common-sense.

Unfortunately, we all know that the likelihood of the BCCI making common-sense decisions is the same as George Bush capturing Osama Bin Laden.

Cricket India: The Rot Starts at the Top

The Enigma — Tue, 27 Mar 2007 01:20:12 EDT

After what is easily the worst ever performance by an Indian team at any edition of the Cricket World Cup, I am still struggling to believe it actually happened.

It is blatantly obvious to anyone with half a brain that the archaic structures and systems that have sustained Indian cricket for the last 20 years are inadequate for the needs of today's game. They will continue to prove themselves ineffective and inefficient as long as the game is governed by a haphazard, illogical and inept organization that is manned by equally worthless and petty individuals that care for nothing more than their own selfish, personal agendas.

Despite the said structures and systems many good men have invested much thought, sweat and courage in trying to ensure that at least the national team can enjoy the right environment in which it has the opportunity to prosper. A building is only as safe as its foundations. Unfortunately, and far too soon for the hopes and wishes of many supporters, the building that is Team India finally gave way. I am inclined to argue that it is a true wonder that it has remained somewhat erect for so long.

Now that India have finally been ousted from the World Cup, I must say that I strongly agree with Sharad Pawar in that "harsh" decisions are required for the good of the game in India. But, that is where our agreement ends.

I maybe numb, but my sense of reason has not deserted me. Thinking through the events of the past week has made me angry. Very angry. Angry that a bunch of misfits and idiots posing as managers of the wealthiest body of its kind still have a job, as honorary as it may be. Pawar has come out with the same rhetoric that we all expected of him in the current climate: something about more youngsters and planning for the next World Cup.

Where does he plan to pull the said youngsters from? From a soft and bloated domestic competition structure that is not worth its first class status? From a situation where players bribe selectors to make it to Ranji squads (remember the DDCA)? From an environment where a pitch is known to be a strip of mud, devoid of any substance, in the middle of a green oval? From a system where 30 year old men with 5 year old children are still playing in various under-16 age-group tournaments?

Pawar needs to own up. The majority of the "blame" for this unfortunate defeat lies with him and his cronies, along with all those that have come before them and deigned it unnecessary to execute their duties with due care for the game. Greg Chappell and his staff are not to blame. Rahul Dravid and his players could have done things a little better than they did. However, it is Pawar and his calamitous group of fools that have no interest in making India a superpower of the cricket world - on the field - who are the real culprits in this drama.

All the BCCI's greenbacks are of no use or importance when it continually fails to employ them for the right purposes. Forget trying to help potential Olympians to reach their goals, it needs to look after its own pathetic backyard first. As obnoxious as it sounds, the simpletons that damaged the player's houses and burnt their effigies should have done it to Pawar and his mob instead. He is not worth the seat he occupies and it has become a waste of the nation's resources to listen to the unending gibberish he spouts.

Someone needs to do us all a favour and dethrone Pawar's pitiful administration. In fact, it is high time that he did us all a favour and stepped down of his own volition. The most unfortunate fact is that it's not going to happen and the professionals who should take his place are never going to surface.

The blame, Mr Pawar, lies with you.

Ricky Ponting's Chip

The Enigma — Mon, 12 Mar 2007 10:45:17 EDT

I refer to the rather ostentatious mold of anti-matter that resides on his shoulder. If he has not done enough damage to his tattered reputation by being regularly disciplined by match referees for gesturing, on-field irregularities and shoving Federal Ministers off it, the Australian Captain has now resorted to taking pot-shots at Sunil Gavaskar.

In what can only be described as the pathetic venting of a long-held angst against the former world record holder, Ponting has again proven that Cricket Australia has forever cheapened the institution that is the post of Australian Captain by appointing him to it.

Insipidity and a dearth of real leadership qualities have characterised Ponting's captaincy and have led to his charges looking and feeling lost when the pressure is unexpectedly applied to them. This lack of ability to think on his feet has tarnished his legacy as a cricketer and was quite evident when he was quizzed on the topic of Gavaskar airing his views on Australia's recent demise as the unchallenged occupiers of Mount Cricket's summit.

This Cricinfo article accurately points out Gavaskar's propensity to lambast the Australians for their many on and off field transgressions. When asked for his views on Gavaskar's latest comments, Ponting blurted:

"Have a look at how many Test matches they [India] have won. He [Gavaskar] has been a big part of that, he has been a selector and he has been on the coaching committee. They might want to start to look at the way they play their own cricket rather than looking at us."

It baffles me as to how Cricket Australia could appoint this man as its captain when he clearly does not have the intellect or the skill, to represent his country like a real statesman should. At the very least, Ponting should not have fabricated facts and made dubious links between the subject and an uninvolved institution.

The only selecting that Gavaskar has performed in recent times has been of the ICC World XI for the disgrace that was the Johnny Walker Super Series, and if you really want to stretch it, he was a member of the committee that interviewed and recommended Greg Chappell for the post of Indian Coach. In short, the only interest Gavaskar has in Indian cricket is purely an emotional one and as a commentator and columnist.

Furthermore, at no time, whilst criticising Australia's ways has Gavaskar compared them to the current Indian team.

It is blatantly obvious that Ponting has either no sense of the world around him - the same world that has been his life for the last decade - or he has willingly and deliberately employed his limited creativity to insinuate titles and linkages that clearly do not, and probably have never existed.

Cricket Australia would not have sent its team to the Caribbean without a Media Manager. It should now hurriedly shoot an email to its daft captain advising him to desist from any further public displays of ineptitude, instead deferring all questions to the said professional.

One wonders at the length of time it will take for Ponting to reduce the aura of the title of Australian Captain to the rubble that epitomised the Pakistani Captaincy in the days of W Akram, W Younis, R Latif and M Khan.

God have mercy on the legacy of Bradman, Border, Taylor and Waugh.

Chetan Chauhan, Have You No Shame?

The Enigma — Wed, 7 Feb 2007 00:14:21 EST

That particular question should be posed not only to Chetan Chauhan, but also his band of brown-nosing fools who control the affairs of The Board for Veteran Cricketers in India (BVCI). According to Chauhan, the BVCI is an organisation that aims to utilise the talents of former cricketers to provide them a means to earn a living and entertain. Very noble indeed.

Then, in this context, the decision of the BVCI to appoint Mohammad Azharuddin as captain of the India Veterans team can only be described as a cheap, ill-judged and unpatriotic publicity stunt - with no inherent semblance of nobility.

The Hindu reports that the Indian Veterans will play their Pakistani counterparts in a three-match one-day series, featuring big names of yesteryear such as Venkatesh Prasad, Manoj Prabhakar, Nayan Mongia and Chetan Chauhan, among others.

Nobody, especially not ex-cricketers, should need reminding of the circumstances around which Azharuddin was banned from participating in any official cricket matches and his record purged.

It need not, and does not, matter that he was one of the most talented players of his generation. I too was an Azharuddin fan before the match-fixing scandal broke. What matters is that he sold his soul for a few extra notes in his back pocket and he betrayed hundreds of millions of his fans. Azharuddin sold out his team mates and connived to pull the rug from under their feet. He does not possess the decency or integrity to make an honest buck and for this he should be labeled the traitor that he is.

People like Azharuddin do not deserve to rehabilitated and accepted back into society. People who attempt to do so obviously do not have the courage to call him a liar and a cheat and ostracise him for committing one of the most heinous betrayals of faith possible in life.

Chetan Chauhan and his cronies at the BVCI should be ashamed of themselves and admonished for trying to make a quick rupee by using the name of a traitor. I loathe people who feel they need to partake in an entrepreneurial undertaking that glamourises cheats and traitors, whether they be players or spectators.

All talk about how patriotic we are as a nation amounts to pure and utter dribble when our own do not have the common sense to place personal integrity and national pride above their own back pockets.

Azharuddin deserves to rot, and rot alone. Harsh, but true.

Cricket: Does Team India Need Virender Sehwag?

The Enigma — Fri, 2 Feb 2007 04:49:34 EST

The most recent performances from the ODI version of Team India would be enough to coerce many an Indian "fan" into answering, "No!" The team is doing well, posting scores well in excess of 300 without Sehwag, bowling out the opposition without Sehwag and taking stunning catches without Sehwag.

Why on God's dear Earth would you want the said Sehwag to return to the fold when all is so supremely hunky dory without him? Right?

Wrong!!

Dilip Vengsarkar and his wise friends finally took our advice and dropped Virender Sehwag, so that he could return to domestic cricket and find his touch again. Only that, there is a distinct dearth of domestic matches being played for Sehwag to go back to basics in.

Thankfully, the Almighty has instilled enough sense into the powers-that-be within the Delhi & Districts Cricket Association (DDCA) for them to organise a practice match or two for the fallen Indian hero. As a result he has been able to show us that he can take a trick. Sehwag has lost weight, scored runs and grown a beard - the quintessential mark of wounded tiger (read, man) poised to pounce once more.

The real story is that Virender Sehwag got lazy and tired. Every professional faces a point in their career where they need a break, a change of scenery, maybe even a jolt that awakens them from their deep slumber. Sehwag will return to Team India all the better for his own personal jolt. He will return to international cricket knowing how it feels not to be there.

Do not commit the mistake of assuming that it is only Sehwag that needs Team India. This is as much a give and take relationship as any successful marriage (I don't necessarily mean in a typically Indian sense, either). Virender Sehwag provides attacking options and prowess that a captain would die for. Whether that be at the top of the order or in the middle of it. A fully fit and in-form Sehwag coming in to bat in the 28th over will give opposition captains big headaches.

For all of Team India's heroics over the past couple of weeks the middle order is still brittle. Suresh Raina has seemingly forgotten how to hold a bat, Yuvraj Singh is badly undercooked and I remain hugely skeptical of the Dinesh Karthik experiment. With Mohammad Kaif unlikely (and rightly so too) to be selected for the final World Cup squad, a middle order inhabited by both Karthik and Raina is a gamble that India cannot afford.

For all the success achieved by comeback kid Sourav Ganugly (more on him later), my man Robin Uthappa and Gautam Gambhir, there is still plenty of space for Virender Sehwag.

Team India needs Virender Sehwag if they are to win the World Cup.

There! You have that in writing.

Vengsarkar Returns Cricket To The Bad Old Days

The Enigma — Tue, 5 Dec 2006 09:56:37 EST

What were Dilip Vengsarkar and his new band of brothers thinking when they decided to inflict ignominy on Indian cricket by returning it to the dark ages? Back to the day when selection for Team India was based on who you knew rather than merit. The days when selectorial whims were given higher priority than talent. The days when "for the good of Indian cricket" was just a pretty phrase that held no significance for the 5 wise men.

All the commendable weening performed by Kiran More and his gang, spurred in no small manner by Greg Chappell, has been drastically undone in the space of two selection committee meetings. More and co were eventually persuaded to take tough decisions for the benefit of Indian cricket. The twin goals of ridding the team of conflicting influences and under-performing stars and injecting fresh talent were successfully achieved.

Players like Sourav Ganguly, VVS Laxman, Zaheer Khan and Anil Kumble were jettisoned from one or both teams (Test and ODI) for a multitude of reasons that included fitness issues, prolonged loss of form and attitude. The new talent that took their place was asked to exhibit the right attitude and a willingness to learn and develop their games. Along the way, the new blood was given the opportunity to display flashes of brilliance.

After achieving resounding success in their first season, international cricketers have found the going a lot tougher in the subsequent period. Opposition teams work on the player's weaknesses and/or the player may also lose the touch that had earlier befriended him.

Question being, after you have decided to bite the bullet and commit your resources to developing new talent, would not your investment in youth be better served by creating and testing a pool of new players, in the event that one or two of them lose form or are found to be unfit for international cricket? If a young player has lost form after an extended run, would it not make more sense to ask him to return to domestic cricket whilst replacing him with a another talented young gun who has been performing as well, if not better than the experienced players that were initially dropped?

Most people would answer with a resounding, YES!

What has Ganguly achieved in domestic cricket to warrant a recall to the national team? A solitary century at a strike rate of under 50, against an attack of Ashish Nehra, G Singh, J Sharma and and R Sharma does not maketh a champion again. Anybody who thinks that Ganguly is back in form is kidding himself.

While Ganguly is pointing to a lone century, what magnificent feat has VVS Laxman performed over the last two months in domestic cricket to earn a recall to the ODI team? Nothing. When he was given a chance to prove his ODI credentials, his fitness (surprise, surprise) was found wanting. Surely, it would have made more sense to replace Rahul Dravid with any one of Gautam Gambhir, Robin Uthappa or even Rohit Sharma.

Furthermore, what was the rationale behind handing the vice-captaincy to Laxman? I have been opining for some time that Virender Sehwag (and Suresh Raina, for that matter) needs to play some domestic one-day cricket to find his touch again and work out what works for him in the game's shorter version. However, was it necessary to strip him of the vice-captaincy just before he was required to lead his team on the field of play for the remainder of the ODI series. Was it necessary to give it to a man who is not guaranteed a place in either team? I think not.

A struggling team is not going to be helped by the presence of out-of-form players, no matter how experienced they may be. Experience has its place in sport, but, not if it is not supported by form.

The only signals emanating from the Vengsarkar selection committee is that if you engage in enough politicking through the media and can produce one significant performance in a whole year of domestic cricket, you will have done enough to qualify for selection. Hell, Laxman has proved that you do not even have to score meaningful runs to earn an esteemed leadership position with the team's management structure.

We all rejoiced when many of the old ills of Indian cricket ended with the inception of the John Wright era. We can all cringe now, for those very ills are well and truly back.

Thank you Dilip Vengsarkar, you are doing Indian cricket proud.

Cricket Doping Scandal Sentences - Injustice For Shoaib Akhtar

The Enigma — Sat, 4 Nov 2006 06:00:16 EST

At least that is how I would look at it if I were Shoaib Akhtar. There is simply no other way it can be said - the three member panel that adjudicated on Shoaib Akhtar and Mohammad Asif's guilt have treated Shoaib Akhtar unjustly in this instance.

By now, we have all heard of the sentences handed down to the two drug cheats. From the outset, I had very little doubt that these two were as guilty, as guilty could be. Moreover, after being given the option, the pair refused to have their B-samples retested. This, over and above all else, is the most damming evidence to date that both players knew exactly what they were taking and why it has been banned from practically every sport played on this planet.

However, I was surprised - bordering on shocked - to learn that Mohammad Asif had received a lesser sentence than Shoaib Akthar. To a reasonable person, this would seem totally inexplicable and unreasonable. Why should two players accused of exactly the same crime, at exactly the same time, be treated differently. Upon hearing this news, my mind raced back to the South African match-fixing debacle where Cronje and Herschelle Gibbs received two vastly different sentences, for exactly the same offence.

The reasons for the disparate sentences are feeble and contradictory. Intikhab Alam was a member of the doping panel and had this to say on Shoaib Akhtar:

"He [Shoaib] drinks alcohol, has an active sex life and he's been part of anti-doping awareness programmes. Shoaib has been around for the last ten years and the written statement that his spokesman gave about him taking dietary supplements and not consulting a doctor, shows he was negligent."

and this on Mohammad Asif:

"We decided to ban him for a year because his English is not that good, he comes from a remote village where he would not have been educated on the dangers of drugs in sport and so he doesn't understand."

Australians who smuggle drugs to Asian countries cannot claim innocence simply because they do not understand the language of a particular country. No matter what language you speak, everybody knows drugs are illegal and dealing or using them attracts harsh penalties. In real life and in sporting life. There should not be any if's or but's on this issue.

Hell, Asif didn't even have to know English to find out if a substance was banned. He could've handed the supplement to his team doctor and got the right information, in an instant. Further rubbishing this reasoning was a categorical statement from the PCB at the outset of this fracas, explaining that all players partake in mandatory and comprehensive drug-education programs. If this indeed was the reason for the leniency afforded to Asif, the entire Panel should hang their heads in shame. I am inclined to believe the real reason has more to do with the need of the Pakistani team to have Asif back in action, at the earliest.

We all know Shoaib Akhtar is no angel, even he would cringe at the thought. The bad-boy image is something he craves and goes to great lengths to perpetuate. However, that should never have been held against him in a situation such as this. For the Panel to consider the fact that he drinks or has sex is unequivocally unjust. Is Alam insinuating that being sexually active makes a player guilty by default? If Alam's conjugal life has a few shortcomings, he should seek counselling. He should not be condemning others for getting a bit more than he.

Both players should have received maximum penalties. However, thanks to the inconsistent signals emanating from the said Panel, Shoaib Akhtar should be feeling quite aggrieved at the minute. If I were in his place, I would be too. Both players were equally guilty of cheating and committing inexcusable crimes. There was no reason for their cases to be judged on different levels.

Drugs have no place in any sport. This was cricket's chance to send clear messages to all concerned. Instead, much like the South African handling the match-fixing scandal, the Pakistani Panel has proven itself to capable of only serving its national interest. It has nobody but itself to blame for all the scorn and disdain that will be heaped upon it after this atrocious decision. It is time that cricket administrators started to take the issue of drugs in cricket seriously. No self-respecting cricket fan wants to see cricket head the baseball way. At least, not I.

Our Cricketers Commit Adultery! Surely Not?

The Enigma — Mon, 30 Oct 2006 02:48:29 EST

The Fourth Umpire provides his insight into the lives of cricketers. He writes:

"...everyone's read about and expressed an opinion on cricket's latest scandal - Shoaib Akhtar and Mohammad Asif failing a drugs test. That Shoaib would partake of a banned substance probably does not come as a surprise to many, but I suspect even the most hardened cynic would be shocked at what goes on in the cricketing world."

and

"...some of the things I have either seen with my own eyes, or heard about from one or more of the parties involved include:

Recreational drug use (okay, that one's not going to surprise anyone)
Discussion of how to start with creatine (not considered doping, although it's banned in many countries), and go on from there
Cricketers on the phone to their wives whilst in bed with someone else (no, this is not one of the ones where I was standing in the room)

Notes being passed between the dressing room and groupies with arrangements of where and when to meet
Requests to officials/management to arrange 'dates' with specific types of women
Exchange of 'love letters' over many years with multiple women (by married cricketers, of course)"

I fear that his writing is the voicing of a common misconception amongst cricket lovers and watchers.

First things first. I consider the taxi driver who helped me get to a meeting today, a "hardened cynic". According to him, we should replace all computers, including the one that tells him the location of his next passenger, with papers and pens. Why? "Because, pens don't break down - do they?" I am not sure he realises exactly how much that computer has helped him earn the living that he does. For all intents and purposes, this man should join the Amish community.

Shock horror, shock horror. Why am I talking about a taxi driver (Don was his name, by the way) when our cricket bat/ball brandishing starts are committing sins of adultery and (shock, horror) recreational drug consumption? You will find out soon.

Let me first remind all and sundry that the above statements are mere allegations, not proven by any conclusive evidence, yet. In the case of performance enhancing drugs, it's probably because cricketing authorities are years behind where they should be in relation to their testing programs. Secondly and more importantly, I ask you: what does it matter if these activities do indeed take place on a regular basis, as the Fourth Umpire implies?

I do not condone the use of recreational drugs, for I have witnessed first hand the damage they cause to the healthiest of people. Kids, do not take drugs - of any variety. However, if a cricketer stupidly decides to ignore all expert advice and evidence and consume recreational and/or performance enhancing drugs, he should be punished appropriately.

That is not the point, however. Why should we be "shocked" to learn that cricketers are any different to other sports stars. We have had plenty of instances of cricketers being caught taking recreational drugs. Cricketers in some countries enjoy the same lifestyles and vices of footballers and movies stars. It does not take a rocket scientist to deduce that some have, and will, continue to succumb to the power of fame and peer pressure and pop a pill or smoke a joint off the field. If you thought otherwise, welcome back to the real world.

Additionally, if I was a sportsperson I would also take great offence to the addition of creatine to the list above. Creatine is not, and has never been, considered an illegal substance in the world of sport. The fact that some countries ban it, is no reason to cast a shadow of suspicion over honest people. Some countries ban women from voting, even cynical Don would not consider that an acceptable practice.

The remainder of the Fourth Umpire's list concerns the infidelity of our revered cricketers. No matter what corner of the world you live in, you will know of at least one person who has cheated on their partner/spouse. Unfortunately, it is a very common event in this day and age. We all know that. Then, why is it so "shocking" to hear of cricketers cheating on their wives?

I don't, for the shortest second, pretend that cheating on your partner is acceptable. However, once again cricketers are human beings, just like you and I. That they happen to hit or bowl a ball better than most of us is no reason to expect them to be morally or ethically superior to the rest of their species. I am sure even cynical Don has heard of the many high profile philanderers in the world of sport and is not naive enough to believe that us "normal" people along with football stars and politicians can commit adultery, but not our esteemed cricketers.

The fact that single cricketers enjoy the company of women and seek to spend time with them, away from their profession, should not be cause for concern. The girls involved, almost always, willing partake in the shenanigans. Every boy and his dog has, at some point in his life, wished to live the glamorous life - replete with groupies and good looking women. Then, why do we con ourselves into believing our cricketers are any different to the rest of us. They are living their dream and making the most of their appeal while they can. If they are unfaithful to their partners, they will eventually be found out and punished accordingly.

Even after constant reminders via the media about exalted personalities falling from grace, it astounds me as to why the cricket watching public refuses to believe that cricketers are any different from us. They only have 36 chromosomes, just like you. They only have one brain, just like you. They want to be loved and adored, just like you. Even the "innocent, simple gentlemen" that play our great game are made up of flesh and bones, just like you. Why, then, should they not be susceptible to committing the same mistakes as you?

Wake up and smell the roses, ladies and gentlemen. Even when the spirit is willing, the flesh will always remain weak.