Desicritics Section: Sports

India Wins Wrestling Bronze in Beijing Olympics

sufferingsocrates — Wed, 20 Aug 2008 10:30:50 EDT

How often does one get to see such a sports headline (courtesy CNN IBN) in India, without any cricket news? Look on the side for the cricket match which is going on at the same time. Well, for once, the whole of India is looking up and noticing and more importantly following the other sports India is faring well in, and that too at the International level. First hailing Abhinav Bindra and now, wrestler Sushil Kumar who won bronze in the 66kg category a short while back.

The newspapers, too, have cricket in the last page, even though India is fighting out in Sri Lanka. The Olympics has taken centre stage (as it well should) over cricket and this is the opportune moment for SAI and other Indian sporting organizations to join hands and build the momentum for a gold winning India. India is supremely talented in the craftsman like sports and the agile ones. This is where the focus should be on. To build on the laurels, to reward accomplishments of these sportsmen and encourage the common Indian, that Sports is a well rewarding profession.

As for cricket, one need not say much, since any cricketer joining IPL makes enough money for many years. Besides, one other reason why India's Sri Lanka tour is not being followed or given as much importance could be due to the lack of excitement in the 50 over format. So, even a debacle in the first ODI did not get much of a chiding from various quarters, while expectations were running sky high for Akhil Kumar.

Could this be the turning point in India's sporting chapter? Will there be encouragement to take up sports such as Shuttle Badminton, Table Tennis, Wrestling, Boxing, Shooting, Archery where India is emerging as a real force to reckon with ? Undoubtedly, with 2 medals in this year's Olympics, India has things going well, and should make sure that the Commonwealth Games in 2010 is given prominence in terms of media coverage and importance than the 2011 Cricket World Cup. The moment is RIGHT NOW ! Can India grab it? We shall see the results in the Commonwealth Games!

Sporting Bindra, Unsporting India

Kartikeya — Thu, 14 Aug 2008 00:41:12 EDT

Abhinav Bindra gave an interview after his winning effort at the Beijing Olympics, in which he basically underlined the fact that the Olympic medal was just one moment in his life, and that in his sport, the difference between winning and losing is so miniscule, that some luck is inevitable to success.

I think it is an important and non-trivial distinction between wanting to be better at something relentlessly, and wanting to be an Olympic champion. The former is an aspiration, the latter is a reward.

The overwhelming narrative about Abhinav Bindra has focused on his ambition and his success against the odds (tremors, a tampered gun). This narrative misses the point and in constructing a bollywoodesque hero myth, does Bindra serious injustice.

The whole point of Abhinav Bindra's success, as revealed in his interview, is that he wants to be the best shooter that he can be - that he's obsessively interested in training and working hard, enjoys the tough training regimens and has basically committed his life to his sport. The Olympic Medal or the World Championship Medal (both of which he has won now) are merely the biggest prizes on the way.

This is not unique to Bindra.

There is a difference between focusing on a given contest when it is at hand and bringing the entire might of one's powers to it, and aiming for it obsessively — coveting the prize. The point of being a sportsman is not being an Olympic champion. The point is to be the best sportsman you can be. Because we don't seem to understand that, we are unable to respect those athletes who have qualified for the Olympics but may not come away with podium finishes.

I have read more than one news article in the last couple of days which says something to the effect that "Indian athletes have a habit of not performing when it matters". That is not only rude, it is also hopelessly misguided.

There is a whole other aspect of this issue which has been written about ad nauseum, and Dileep Premachandran has this version of it. It refers to unprofessionally run Sports Associations which makes a complete pigs breakfast of managing and helping athletes compete at the international level.That is a bureaucratic problem, and as such is not too difficult to solve.

What is far more important, as Rajaraman points out, is our view of sport and sporting ambition. Cricketers who wake up in the morning in distant suburbs in Bombay and make their way to dawn training sessions on the maidans in town don't do it thinking about playing for India at every stage. They do it because they love playing the sport.

What does this mean? It means that there is inherent value associated with participating in sport — serious, organized sport — that contributes to the sport as well as to the sportsman. School cricket is competitive in Bombay and children who are serious about cricket move to better cricket schools, in order to pursue better cricket. A very famous cricketer once moved from IES English in Bandra to Shardashram Vidyamandir in Dadar in the mid-eighties, so that he would be able to play cricket. A illustrious friend of his travelled 50 kilometers a day to study at the same school so that he could play good cricket as well. Both went on the perform well for Bombay and India.

They did this not because they were driven by the ambition to play for India, but because they were interested more immediately in playing cricket, and in being as good at it as they could be.

Gold and Cash

We have to stop this medieval, feudal practice of showering winners with gold and cash, for it reveals a very poor attitude towards the sport.

All these agencies, which have been falling over each other to announce cash awards to Bindra (these awards range from the absurd to the downright silly), should stop and think about the other Indian athletes at the Olympics. Instead of giving the money to Bindra, they ought to contribute it to a corpus of some sort which athletes can dip into if they want to go somewhere to train or buy expensive equipment.

Bindra's Wikipedia page provides a summary of the awards he has won:

"Bindra was rewarded by various Indian state governments and private organizations for his achievements. These include the state governments of Punjab - Rs 10 million (approx. US $250,000), Harayana - Rs 2.5 million, Maharashtra - Rs 1 million, Karnataka - Rs 1 million, Tamil Nadu - Rs 0.5 million, Madhya Pradesh - Rs 0.5 million and Chattisgarh - Rs 0.5 million."

The Wikipedia page also highlights free life-long railway and airline passes from Indian Railways and Spicejet Airways, respectively.

The states of Maharashtra, Karnataka, Tamil Nadu, Madhya Pradesh and Chattisgarh have absolutely no connection with Bindra. Neither does Amitabh Bachchan. Bachchan has, in fact, gone one step further, by drawing attention to his silly World Tour in the process.

Everyone wants a piece of Bindra right now. Nobody really cares about the other Indian athletes at the Olympics, neither is anyone really interested in the sport that Bindra competes in. I'm pretty sure that none of the luminaries in question will be able to write or speak one coherent paragraph about the sport of shooting.

Misguided Souls

In short, nobody really cares about sport. Everybody cares about the winner. In doing so, they contribute nothing to the sport - indeed they undermine it at every turn. They are no different from those misguided souls who burnt effigies of Indian cricketers after the world cup. To them, as to those vandals, sport is merely a site of prestige - it has nothing to do with joy or skill or excellence.

The bureaucracy, associations, etc. etc. are all secondary issues. There is a reason why cricket is a thriving sport in India - because it is played on the streets, by middle-class kids with proper bats and balls, and by poor kids with makeshift stumps and handmade balls. Because interest in cricket goes above and beyond India winning or losing. Because Ranji Trophy cricketers can make a living playing domestic cricket in India today. In such an atmosphere, it was a matter of time before India's bare fast-bowling cupboard filled up.

The BCCI manages cricket quite well, but cricket thrives in India because it thrives in communities. That's where other sports have to gain a footing. Otherwise, all we will have is parasites like Amitabh Bachchan clinging on to Abhinav Bindra's gold medal-wearing back.

In a Land of a Billion

Blokesablogin — Tue, 12 Aug 2008 01:05:54 EDT

My husband decided to celebrate my birthday in a most "un-Indian" fashion. The usual visit to the temple followed by an Indian restaurant high-calorie dinner was substituted by a crazy trip down the American River in a yellow raft! We went white water rafting for the first time! Response from family and friends ranged from incredulity to happiness. A few wanted to know what it was like.

This foray into an adventurous life broke new grounds (waters?) in our family traditions. I could well imagine the experience of Lewis and Clark as they went on an expedition to chart a way to reach the Pacific across the continental US.

I wondered what made the average Indian who comes to the US, adventurous as a student but who morphs into this staid, serious, married professional preferring to reduce the risk factors in life. This train of thought led me to the current status of few competitive Indians at the Olympics.

Sports, by definition, demands taking risks. Until the very end, we can never be too sure who will win. Of course, if the film Jannat is to be believed, cricket matches are mostly fixed and the underworld money speaks in above-the-board activities of the sport. Hence the huge financial support for that game in our country. Given the connection between Bollywood, cricket and moolah, it can well be believed.

For the most part, life in India is a matter of survival for many. Necessity forces skills onto her populace. These skills are not for excelling. They are meant for survival. Be it at the work place or school or leisure, skills are mainly honed more for what purpose they would serve for our survival rather than being "moved by passion" to excel in a certain field. Skills with innate talent is only half the way towards achievement.

Hand in hand with skills go strategy. Here is where we miss out on taking a shot at international contests such as the Olympics. As a nation and as an individual we fair very poorly in this. Be it working towards clearing the 10th grade exam to getting into a 'good" job, very few use strategy. Most slog it out. Strategy is where America leads the way. It is systemic and highly developed into an art form.

If you look at the way the athletes are trained in America, it is in strategy as much as in skill. The Chinese excel for the same reason. Strategy ensures that it is reproducible. We had a P T Usha who "almost" missed the bronze in the '84 Olympics. But we never systematically trained people to achieve and improve upon her performance. Of course the highly bureaucratic process of gaining government sponsorship makes up for all the "strategizing" on the athlete's part, leaving very little for the sport.

At a more subtle level, there is much we need to work with our self image. We are very good critics. We are poor "newsmakers". Some of the best opinion pieces and editorials are written in the Indian press. Very little original work comes out of it. In the US, the publishing industry thrives on original work. People care two hoots for "others' opinions". This deep rooted sense of self worth manifests in the sports arena.

The ultimate "winner" is one who knows his skill is matched with strategy. Gone are the days of the "innocent" Olympians who were amateurs. Professionals have entered the arena enforcing higher standards of strategic excellence. It is time to create a strategic plan to get our talent "showcased". The greatest edge India can have over the rest would be the dispassion as demonstrated by Abhinav Bhindra. That attitude coupled with the rest will ensure a gold mine of medals.

Abhinav Bindra Wins Gold Medal At The Olympics

sufferingsocrates — Mon, 11 Aug 2008 06:41:44 EDT

In news which just came in, Abhinav Bindra won India's first ever individual gold medal at the ongoing Beijing Olympics. The world could say, a first after a century of Olympics ? Nothing to harp about. But for a country, starved of sporting heroes aside of cricket players, which is not even an Olympic event, this is indeed a welcome change. Come to think of it, in Athens 2004, India won its first ever Silver medal through Rajyavardhan Rathore who also featured on Times Magazine's top 100 athletes to watch at this Olympics. And in 2008 India has gone one better.

India needs to shake off it's days of orthodoxy in the field of studies and expand its horizon of fields. There is no dearth of talent in the country of billions. It is a matter of a mental makeover. But, this cannot start without the support of the Sports Authority of India (SAI). With medals at any event, there needs to be a need for greed, to win more, AND more.

SAI needs to take good care of its medal winners, be it at Olympics or at Commonwealth or the Asiad, monetarily and by recognition to encourage sports in the country. A normal middle class family would want to see monetary rewards in their children's sporting honours, to encourage them to participate further. It is encouraging to note Geeth Sethi ,Prakash Padukone, Lakshmi Mittal coming forward to sponsor players, who are genuinely talented and encouraging them.

The best part about today's media is just this. The recognition (sometimes unduly necessitated) that they give to performers and hopefuls is certainly a welcome change, and can only help in India projecting itself as a Sporting nation too. Cricket may earn millions, but unless other sports, which are part of the Olympics are given due importance and recognition, Abhinav Bindras maybe far and few in between.

Beijing Olympics - Indians and Desis Missing in Action

commonsense — Sun, 10 Aug 2008 13:10:08 EDT

With the Beijing Olympics well under way, we are yet again bombarded with the usual myth-making machines in overdrive. The biggest myth of course is that these games are actually about sports not business. None of us is stupid enough to understand this simple point. However, the irritating advertisement blitz notwithstanding, it is a lot of fun to watch the games. For sure it gets my goat when the TV screen is constantly bombarded by the alleged “official product car/paint/drink/condom of the Games” etc. And when the hypocritical so-called “world leaders” make the usual noises patronizing noise about China’s “behaviour” vis-à-vis human rights while simultaneously signing up as many business deals as they can.

When some gold-medalists will test positive for doping, as surely they will, there will be the usual breast-beating about cheating and lack of integrity, as if other spheres of our global existence are beacons of the same. And of course, there will be the usual commentaries on the crass commercialization of the games. As if sophisticated commercialism or consumerism might be any better.

Back home in desi-land, the usual question, raised every four years, will be prominent once again. What exactly explains the spectacular absence of desis from this mega global display? Why are they always missing in action, when it comes to the Olympics? What are the best possible explanations? The usual suspects will wax eloquent about the alleged fact that desis are a cerebral lot and couldn’t care less about such trivial corporeal pursuits. Some will contend that only those who are supremely lacking in confidence really need to shamelessly strut their stuff for the world stage. The Ministry of youth affairs and sports in India and their equivalent in other South Asian nations will be blamed. They in turn will perhaps blame corruption that allows our athletes and officials to treat the Olympics like a free foreign junket, a shopping spree that might be otherwise beyond financial reach. Some will argue that we need not waste our precious resources on such trivia as sports. Others will point out that since we are apparently already on our way to becoming a superpower, who cares if over a billion people are conspicuous by their absence, not just on the medals tally, but in most of the events too. Not even the proverbial “also rans.”

It is difficult to pick a specific cause or determine what are the plausible explanations for this puzzling situation. Perhaps it is not at all a big deal after all. Any plausible, tentative explanations for this state of affairs?

The New Roger Federer

Nishit — Sat, 26 Jul 2008 09:24:50 EDT

Let me start with some facts. Federer has not won a single Grand Slam title this year, he may not even defend his US open title. Heck, Federer has not even won a single Masters series this year. He lost on his favourite turf, Wimbledon, to his arch-nemesis Rafael Nadal. His lead at the top of the ranking will be cut down to sub-300 by end of this week and definitely subsequently will be given to Nadal. He may not be year-end number 1.

Here is my answer: I DON'T CARE!!! Not that the Wimbledon loss did not hurt. Not that after almost 250 weeks Federer will have to give up his #1 ranking wouldn't wrench my heart. This was supposed to be the year where he could potentially have a golden slam (four Grand Slam titles and an Olympic gold, only achieved by Steffi Graf -- men or women), but it has been totally the reverse. A consensus has been reached by fans who have realized that the time has come to accept that their hero is a human. Stupid journalists are getting courageous enough to ask questions like "To some extent, do you agree with Justine Henin's decision to retire at the peak of her career?" only to see Federer red-eyed and replying "Do I agree with that? Not today. Ask me another day. Please don't kill me with questions like this."

In spite of all these points, I am still looking forward to the rest of the year. I will not even say how I have savoured being a Federer fan with not just winning but subtletly and perfection that took the tennis to a new level. I will stay in present. As Monx put it, now is the real time to be a Federer fan. I will no longer be a supporter of man-at-the-top but an underdog. An underdog, whose competition now will not only be with Rafael Nadal but also with the rest of the world. An underdog, whose every victory will not be taken for granted and an underdog, whose win will pump up the adrenaline rather than "yeah.. it was just another victory" For long Rafa fans have enjoyed his dark horse status and Federer fans have faced the questions "oh, so he lost? Is that end of Federer?"

No more my friends! NO MORE! All Rafa fans around me, beware. As wonderful a player as Rafa is, be prepared to face the taunts as he is the number one, while I sit back and see my hero challenging #1. Go Roger!

Wimbledon 2008 - Warrior Rafa Dethrones King Roger

sufferingsocrates — Tue, 8 Jul 2008 09:10:31 EDT

An epic final which was like a blockbuster movie. And in the end, a deserving winner. That is what the Wimbledon 2008 final proved to be. It was show time again, with the World No. 1 Roger Federer, up against the ever improving Rafael Nadal on Centre Court. If last year's 5 set thriller between the same two champions was awe-inspiring, the final this time around was breath taking.

It had drama, suspense, excitement, brilliance, perseverance and emotions. Rafa led Roger 2 sets to love, and had taken the fifth set to a tie breaker after a rain delay. It seemed divine intervention as far as Roger was concerned. Rafa had 2 championship points in the 4th set tie break leading 5-2 and serving for the match. Federer incredibly managed to save them both and took the match to a final set decider. With the last set at 2-2 and deuce, rain again came down on Centre Court, and the players took another break. Would this be a divine intervention again for Federer or for Nadal, who got agonisingly close to winning the coveted crown ?

The time was ticking past 9:00 in the late evening at Wimbledon, but the 2 champions fought on, until Nadal broke Federer in the 15th game of the final set. Nadal, the champion that he is, closed out the match at 9-7 in the final set, dropping to the floor, emotions still running high. An unbelievable match, which is truly a tribute to the relentless shot making and ahtleticism of Nadal, against the grace and genius of Federer.

Rafa has been snapping at Federer's heels for more than a year now. Federer has had a moderate year so far in 2008, and the aura of invincibility seemed to be disappearing after a straight sets loss to World No. 3 Novak Djokovic at the Australian Open semi finals. Federer has only won 2 events this year. For someone who is used to winning 2 Grand Slams before the second half of a year, Federer is empty handed this year, with only the U.S. Open to play for. At 26 Federer is not getting any younger, and Nadal is ready to take the mantle of the best player from Federer.

Any gifted player would have felt proud to have played in an amazing 16 grand slam finals, which included all the 4 major slams. But with Federer, he is expected to win all of them, atleast the non-clay ones. That is what he had been doing, whenever he got to any of the Grand Slam Finals except for the Nadal owned Rolland Garros. Federer had never lost a Grand Slam final on any surface against any player other than French Open. With this loss at Wimbledon, Nadal certainly has dented that record. The funniest part is, Federer is so good, he would still make it to the finals of all the Grand Slams. But does he have the mental strength to overcome the relentless Rafa ?

There have been champions and Grand Slam winners who have hated the grass court tournaments and called them as good only for cows. Marcelo Rios, Ivan Lendl and lately Marat Safin. Though there was always a question mark as to whether a clay court specialist and winner (Nadal at Rolland Garros) can in a span of 2 weeks win a grass court title at Wimbledon, the spirit of the young 22 year old Nadal came through eventually. Never did Nadal complain of the grass court not being his favourite surface. In fact he always dreamt of winning the Wimbledon as a kid, and that kept him motivated to win the crown.

Rafa now leads Federer 12-6 (as on 7th June 2008) in their head to head and Federer has many others waiting to clip his wings, as he fights off opponents younger, more spirited than him. Alfred Tsonga, Djokovic and Nadal are definitely the select few in that club. With only 555 points separating Nadal from Federer for the No. 1 spot, things could change by the end of this year.

But Federer, the champion that he is, will always challenge the best, as long as he is fit. Nadal has done so much of running around courts, through sheer will and stamina, he may not be able to withstand this level of performance for very long. Compare this to the grace of Federer, who is elegance personified, and seems to hit winners off impossible angles, one would think Federer would last atleast 4 more years. Nadal doesn't have a great service which comes to his rescue in times of crisis in a match. Federer can hit aces, at times at will. But with Federer, there is always a susceptibility of losses in concentration, which never happens with Rafa. Especially when Rafa plays Federer, he is at the peak of his game, knowing fully well, that a blip in conecntration is the only chance that Rafa has in winning against Federer.

The great rivalry of the 2 champions, whose styles of play are poles apart can only create more tennis followers and inspire children to take up the game. It would be tough to emulate Roger Federer's game, for his is a game of sheer genius. But one can always emulate and be like Rafa, for the hard working, relentless athlete that he is. To conclude, all one can say is, to defeat a Federer one needs to be a Nadal. But to defeat Nadal, you need not be a Federer.

Rafael Nadal's Wimbledon Win - Birth of a New Champion

Emma — Mon, 7 Jul 2008 10:38:24 EDT

It was the summit of champions. Five sets and almost five hours later, in near-darkness Rafael Nadal scrambled up the Wimbledon stands to embrace his family and break down in tears. And nobody summed up the moment better than the winner himself. Asked how did he feel when he collapsed on Centre Court - in relief, exhaustion and probably disbelief on having dethroned the five-time champion, Rafael Nadal said, "It is impossible to describe it, no?"

It truly was impossible to describe. No player had beaten Federer on grass since 2002, and it had to be an epic final of this kind. Two sets down, Federer staged one of the most incredible comebacks in the history of tennis to ta ke the next two sets in tie-breaks. In the closely-fought 4th set tie-break, the champion even saved a championship point. But 7-8 in the final set, with Nadal serving, Federer finally succumbed. He had converted only 1 of the 14 break points he had and his 25 aces to Nadal's 6 finally came to naught.

Nadal was on course right from the beginning. He broke Federer in the third game of the first set and accomplished what no player had done in the last 15 days: take a set off Federer. The champion came right back breaking Nadal in his very first game of the second set; unfortunately, that was the only break Federer managed to convert in the five-hour final. Nadal broke back using the same tactics as he did in the first set: awesome forehand that just seemed to work and hammering away at Federer's backhand rally. It seemed like a repeat of the French Open final was inevitable: a straight-set trounce of the great champion. But the rain-interruption half way through the third set, when both players were still on serve, helped Federer rethink and recoup. He was simply unstoppable in the tie-break, serving four aces to force a fourth set.

If the game was extended to another set and yet another rain break, it was purely because of Nadal's loss of focus for a moment. Leading 5-2 in the tie-break of the fourth set and on his serve, the challenger played his two worst points of the entire match to give Federer a reprieve and a step-in. The momentum seemed to swing Federer's way. But Nadal was not the one to give up - he probably knew he couldn't let a 2007-final happen again. His athleticism was relentless as was his grit and determination. And finally came that one last shot that Federer couldn't handle. And in fading light, a champion faded into darkness while a new one was born.

Watching Nadal lift the cup with Federer's dejected face in the background, one wished this was one cup that could be split. It wasn't to be. As Nadal rightly put it, "I am very happy for me, but sorry for him, because he deserved this title, too."

Elliot-Sidebottom and Sporting Character

Kartikeya — Wed, 2 Jul 2008 13:05:49 EDT

Gideon Haigh writes about the recent Elliot-Sidebottom episode during the England-New Zealand ODI series, where the bowler Ryan Sidebottom crashed into the batsman Grant Elliot, bringing him down mid-pitch, after which the English fielders executed the run-out and Paul Collingwood claimed it, resulting in Elliot's dismissal, and judging by Haigh's article, a sense of queasy unease. After all, this is the England Captain we are talking about, not the Australian captain or the Indian captain, or even the West Indian captain. Here is the video of the event. Note the commentary - Nasser Hussein and Ian Smith (i think its Ian Smith, though if it were Martin Crowe, it would be even more entertaining)

There is little or no truth to Haigh's claim that "New Zealand's Grant Elliott sets off, stops, restarts, then is inhibited from running wider by his on-rushing partner, and pushed perforce into Ryan Sidebottom's path." The non-striker, judging by the video above, was admirably blameless, and merely sought the shortest route to the batting end - straight down from his starting position at the non-strikers end (Sidebottom bowled left-arm-over).

What was actually happening, was that the striker Elliot, was trying to run between the bowler and the ball in order to reach his usual inside line while taking a run (between the non-striker's line and that of the wicket). As Haigh writes in his article, it has usually been accepted that the batsmen have the right of way, as long as they don't actively impede the fielding side. Batsmen have stretched this privilege over the years (there was the notable incident with Shoaib Malik making a strikingly wide turn on one occasion, inadvertently impeding Zaheer Khan).

Interestingly enough, Law 37 states that "Either batsman is out Obstructing the field if he willfully obstructs or distracts the opposing side by word or action." The Run-Out Law (Law 38), stipulates that "Either batsman is out Run out, except as in 2 below, if at any time while the ball is in play (i) he is out of his ground and (ii) his wicket is fairly put down by the opposing side.

The operative word there being "fairly". It is debatable whether England put the wicket at the non-strikers end down fairly. I should say at the outset though, that i don't think either Sidebottom or Elliot meant to run into each other. In fact, if anything, it is likely that Elliot was running in a line between the bowler and the ball. As Haigh points out, this is in accordance with convention, which in this instance happens to be at odds with the law (The line Elliot takes would fall squarely within the purview of Law 37, if interpreted harshly). It should also be clear, that the Umpires, and Collingwood acted within the letter of the Law.

But the whole thing looks so unfair - Grant Elliot, not one of the heavyweights of international cricket, walked away shaking his head, and New Zealand, after winning the game thanks to their last pair were probably thinking about it as poetic justice, and decided not to make a big deal about it. I just wonder what the reaction might have been, had it been say Mathew Hayden who'd been run out in the same manner.

There are two ways of looking at this, and in my view, neither one is morally inferior. The first is to see it Collingwood's way - the collision was not intentional, and therefore the run-out was legitimate. Indeed, a case could be made that Elliot was trying to get in between the fielder (Sidebottom) and the ball as batsman usually do with cheeky runs. The other, is to say that Collingwood should have withdrawn the appeal, because, intentional or not, the collision meant that the batsman did not have a fair opportunity to make his ground. I guess the second option would have been the more gentlemanly option, and indeed, in an amateur game, it might have been the norm. Collingwood though behaved professionally, because no law had been transgressed.

In the long run, the Spirit of the Game, as it is written in the preamble to the Laws of Cricket, is best seen as an additional bulwark against blatant transgressions of written Law, but not of accepted custom. So if Kevin Pietersen's switch-hit explicitly illegal? As the law is written, it is not. Is it against the spirit of the game? Most definitely not. What is undeniably is, is something which has punch a big gaping hole through a number of crucial laws (wides, fielding position restriction, LBW just to name three), which were written with a side-on game in mind.

Collingwood's decision to claim the run-out, is another such example, even though he has not identified any loophole. What it does bring to light is the whole question of right of way when the ball is in play. Should Cricket burden the Umpires more explicitly in the matter and have them rule "dead-ball" in the event of any inadvertent collision? This is not as simple as you might think, for it could introduce into cricket a whole new dimension, a bit like "diving" in football. On the other hand, maybe we should just say that since it is acceptable for batsmen to run between the fielder and the stumps, or between the fielder and the ball (as Elliot did), they ought to take their chances with the odd collision and live with the consequences.

In any event, it is difficult to judge which choice is more or less moral in this case. Haigh's article is a different matter though, and his attempt to compare India's vote on the Zimbabwe situation to Collingwood's decision to claim the run-out (the former appears to be rock-bottom in the morality stakes in Haigh's view) is a sneaky, inaccurate and somewhat flippant reference to what is a fairly serious issue. I don't know if the issue interests him enough, but if he chooses to devote an entire article to the subject, dealing specifically the connection between the internal workings of Cricket boards and the relationship of this to a decision by the ICC to kick them out (by this count, should the ICC have kicked Pakistan out at some point during the past 8 years or so?, or at some point in the early to mid-eighties)?

It is strange, somewhat unfair article from Gideon Haigh, about a hard but ultimately fair decision by Paul Collingwood.

Switch-Hits and Misguided Motives

Kartikeya — Wed, 18 Jun 2008 07:01:38 EDT

Cricinfo reports today that the MCC has approved Kevin Pietersen's so-called "switch-hit" reverse slog for six which drew so much attention this week, because it raised several interesting problems within the existing Laws of the game. This is not the first time Pietersen has used this stroke. Indeed, he has been playing the stroke for over a year now, and i wrote about the problems this raises on this blog on May 20, 2007. That post has drawn a number of hits over the past couple of days, yet the most interesting thing is that nothing that the MCC has said addresses any of the problems raised in that post (Laws wise) which arise as a result of Pietersen's switch hit.

The cricinfo story does acknowledge problems with the LBW Law, which one would think is a fairly fundamental, consequential alteration (the Law was modified only once in the 20th century as far as i know). What is troubling though, is that if one went purely by the quotes offered in the Cricinfo story, then the MCC was swayed by Pietersen's skilfull execution of the innovative stoke, than by legal considerations, which is precisely the sort of thing that the law making body should have discounted in their considerations. Pietersen's innovation is different from the modification of the bowling law, because in the case of the bowling law, new technology brought new information to light and thus rendered the old position untenable. The response to the new information in terms of the new Law is problematic, but at least it was based on serious information.

This is the gist of the MCC's response -

The committee concluded that the "superb execution" of the stroke should not disguise its difficulty. "It incurs a great deal of risk for the batsman. It also offers bowlers a good chance of taking a wicket and therefore MCC believes that the shot is fair to both batsman and bowlers."

This risk argument is not relevant the question at hand. This is because as the Law currently stands, it is precisely because the risk of the LBW is mitigated with balls pitching outside leg-stump that Pietersen and co. can attempt the stroke with impunity - with almost no risk of dismissal.

The tone of the MCC's argument begs the question - what if it was some batsman other than Pietersen playing the stroke? Would they have responded in a similar way? Given all the hoopla in England about ball-tampering with Wasim and Waqar and reverse-swing and the horror with which that innovation was viewed, this is a question worth asking. But it is also a question which is unlikely to ever be answered satisfactorily, so lets set it aside.

It might be more useful to ask - why not allow bowlers to tamper with the ball (they are already allowed to apply spit and/or sweat on the ball, and are also allowed to shine the ball - both actions involve manipulating the condition of the ball), if the switch-hit (which cause huge problems from the point of view of existing Law) is to be allowed simply because it is a fine innovation?

The switch-hit ruling is a slippery slope. Here's why. Lets consider a situation, where the law has been changed - that switching hands (i.e turning from a top right hand to a top left hand), opens up the possibility of the LBW for the left arm spinner (for example) bowling over the wicket, into the rough at the right handed batsman. Now consider a situation where you have a right handed batsmen facing a really good medium-fast bowler, bowling over the wicket. A 7-2 field is in operation and the bowler is aiming to keep it tight outside offstump, and try the occasional off cutter to see if an LBW is possible. What is to stop a batsman in such an event, from switching hands on the bat handle, every time he shoulder's arms? This way, he would never be out LBW even if he was padding up to an off-cutter coming back into the stumps after pitching outside off stump, because the "switch" would be in operation.

So the switch-hits brings with it two very bad options - one, where the batsman is able to counter bowling into the rough outside his leg-stump and effectively sweep without the risk of the LBW, or it could create an opportunity for a batsman (an anti-Pietersen, if the MCC would like) to completely negate the contest between bat and ball as it stands today. Either ways, allowing the switch-hit skews the contest further in favor of the batsman.

All this arises from the misguided (in my view) notion that fours and sixes are what entertain people. Every significant rule change in the modern era has been in favor of the batsman - the rule limiting bouncers, the front foot no-ball rule, the rule with regard to over-rates, ball-tampering rules. Some of these are admittedly good rules, others are problematic. The only rule change in the modern era which can be said to have been to the bowlers benefit is the new bowling law, and this law has in my view been a disaster. The response, given new information has involved defining what is legal, instead of further refining a description of the what is illegal as far as the bowling action is concerned. The old law explicitly described the illegal delivery. The new bowling law, while it has accomodated Shoaib Akthar, Mutthiah Muralitharan and a host of other bowlers, has made Cricket more rancorous and more uncertain.

This switch-hit rule promises to do the same.