Desicritics Category: Sports: Management

Bangladesh And The "Globalization" of Cricket

Kartikeya — Fri, 19 Sep 2008 00:05:37 EDT

Bangladesh is Test Cricket's newest exponent. It is also, unarguably, the worst of all time. As of now, they have played 53 Test matches, won 1 solitary Test match, and most importantly, lost 47 outright. The slowest starting Test playing nation of the 20th century - New Zealand, also had just 1 solitary Test match win in their first 53 Tests, but they managed to draw 25 of those 53, while Bangladesh have managed to draw just 5. The comparison between New Zealand and Bangladesh is obviously problematic - we are comparing different epochs, a different commercial climate and a vast difference in the variety and quality of opposition faced by these two teams. It took New Zealand 30 years to play their first 53 Tests, it has taken Bangladesh less than 8. But Bangladesh's numbers a particularly troubling.

It was a matter of time before something gave in Bangladesh, and with the mass exodus of senior Bangladesh Cricketers as well as some upcoming ones to the newly minted ICL franchise - the Dhaka Warriors, it seems as though that time is upon us. What is interesting here is not the uniqueness of the Bangladesh situation, but of how familiar the reaction in Bangladesh, of the Cricket Board and Cricket Fans has been. Utpal Shuvro describes events in Bangladesh. There have been discussions about patriotism, there has been talk of lack of support from the Board - if you didn't know better, you could easily think this was taking place here in India.

The ugly beast that is franchise driven Twenty20 Cricket has reared its head again. Several senior Bangladesh players, led by former Captain Habibul Bashar "retired" enmasse from international cricket to take up places in the Dhaka Warriors outfit. The Bangladesh Cricket Board (BCB) has reacted sternly, rejecting the letters and banning the said players for 10 years! Now, Habibul Bashar couldn't care less about the ban, but several younger players, such as those who recently went with the academy side to Australia and have now signed up for the ICL, will suffer terribly if the ban is implemented fully or even substantially.

The Bangladesh situation is an important insight which ought to temper pipedreams about "globalizing" cricket. Bangladesh's problems come down at the end of the day to one simple fact - they can't win. Even more importantly, they can't even compete. In the eight years since they became a Test playing nation, Bangladesh have played 53 Tests and 108 One Day games against their fellow Test playing nations. They have won 1 Test and lost 47. In One Day Cricket, they have won 19 out of 108 games, losing 87. Of those 108 games they have played 29 times against Zimbabwe and hold at 15-14 edge over them. So their record against the top 8 Test playing nations in ODI cricket since they acquired Test status is - Played 79, Won 4, Lost 73. The Zimbabweans have not distinguished themselves in this decade by any means. They have played 180 ODI's against their fellow Test playing nations, and won 34 of them, losing 142. Leaving out games against Bangladesh, Zimbabwe's record reads - Played 151, Won 20, Lost 127.

That Bangladesh have been competitive against Zimbabwe is obviously because Zimbabwe have slipped, rather than any improvement on Bangladesh's part. After 50 Tests, and 108 ODIs, Bangladesh beating any of the top 8 Test playing nations in any form of the game is still considered a tremendous upset. Bangladesh sent a side to compete in the Duleep Trophy a couple of years ago, and that side got hammered by the weakest Zonal sides in India.

My point is this - globalizing the game deals centrally with building more competitive teams. So far, in this decade, Cricket has in effect lost one side (Zimbabwe), despite having added Bangladesh to the ranks of Test playing nations. Nobody even pretends that Zimbabwe and Bangladesh can seriously compete with any of the top 8 Test teams, either home or away. With neutral umpires, Bangladesh don't have the luxury that Sri Lanka did in 1985-86 when their home umpires helped them win Test matches against India and Pakistan. Even here, i am being uncharitable to Sri Lanka, because even by 1985, three years into their Test Match adventure, they had shown great promise, nearly beating a strong Pakistan side at Faisalabad.

In their first eight years in Test Cricket, Sri Lanka played 29 Test matches, and their batsmen made 19 Test hundreds in those games. These hundreds were made by 9 different batsmen. By contrast, in their first 8 years, in 47 Test matches, 7 different Bangladesh batsmen have made 11 Test hundreds between them (not counting tests against Zimbabwe to make it a fair comparison). If you are looking for competitiveness, Test hundreds are probably the best measure of this competitiveness, because the nature of Test Cricket is such that batting big keeps you in the game and keeps the opposition from winning.

That in a nutshell is Bangladesh's problem - they can't compete at the level of the top Test playing nations. I disagree with those who say that Arjuna Ranatunga made Sri Lanka a top Test playing country. He was important without question, but the basic ability to play was already present. If you looked down the Sri Lankan line up of say 1985, you would find a serious middle order there with the stylish Roy Dias accompanying Duleep Mendis and Arjuna Ranatunga - batsmen with batting averages in the mid-thirties. Compare those with the record of Bangladesh's best batsman - Habibul Bashar. Bashar averages 29 against good opposition, Ashraful averages 25, while Nafees averages 27.

The average Sri Lankan team score in a Test innings in the 1980's was 242. This accounts for their first 8 years in Test Cricket. The average team score in a Test innings for Bangladesh, in their first 8 years is 180.

At this point, i think i have driven home the point that in their first 8 years, try as they might, Bangladesh cannot compete in international cricket against the top tier teams, while a side like Sri Lanka, in its first eight years showed enough quality to justify their promotion to Test Match status. This has nothing to do with leadership or team spirit or anything else, for if there is one thing that is true in Cricket, it is that there is limitless scope for an individual demonstrate his skills and ability. Just ask Andrew Flower or Heath Streak, or even Shivnaraine Chanderpaul or Sachin Tendulkar (in portions of the 1990's). Mohammad Ashraful is a sub-standard Test Match batsman because he hasn't yet demonstrated the basic ability that any Test batsman worth his salt must have. Merely possessing the ability to play every stroke in the book is obviously not sufficient.

The problem Bangladesh face is a difficult one. When playing international cricket against a top level side, the opposition is too good for their players. When playing domestic cricket at home, the opposition is poor. Only Zimbabwe at this point in time are comparable to Bangladesh in terms of ability.

The problem is complicated even further by the nature of the various Cricketing contests. Bangladesh will not be taken seriously as a top Cricketing nation unless they are able to compete at Test Cricket. They will not become competitive at Test Cricket by playing Twenty20 or ODI's, and learning to play that game. The ever increasing focus on limited overs cricket, away from first class four day cricket, which, like it or not, is the best breeding ground for solid, high quality cricketers, is not helping Bangladesh.

Players as poles apart as Virender Sehwag and Steve Waugh will tell you that they are where they are because they learnt their trade in the first class game - playing on bad wickets, on good wickets, being run gluttons and running up mountainous scores. Even before he played Test Cricket, Virender Sehwag already had a first class innings of 274 to his name. The highest first class score by a Bangladesh batsman in 2007-08 was 168. Imagine how the Bangladesh Cricket fraternity must have felt when the South Africans visited and Graeme Smith and Neil McKenzie both reeled off double hundreds against the best bowling Bangladesh could throw at them. The highest first class innings in the 2008 First Class season in England was 270, while in the 2007-08 season in Australia it was 306, in New Zealand it was 268, in Pakistan it was 300, in Sri Lanka it was 285, in India it was 319, in South Africa it was 218, while in West Indies it was 208.

These are not coincidences, neither are they one-offs. What they reveal is a basic strength in the first class cricket in these Cricket playing nations. The general quality of first class bowling attacks in all these nations is superior to that in Bangladesh, which tells you something about the quality of batting. While bowling is central to succeeding in first class cricket, it is batting which drives the quality of first class cricket. Bowlers cannot know how good they actually are unless they come up against the best quality batsmen possible.

Bangladesh's two most celebrated batsmen are Habibul Bashar and Mohammad Ashraful. Bashar has a career best first class score of 224, but a first class average of 33, while Ashraful has a best first class score of 263 to go with a first class average of 30. Both Ashraful and Bashar have played at least as many if not more Test matches than they have played first class games (42 Tests in 84 first class games for Ashraful, 50 Tests out of 87 first class games for Bashar). If you isolate Ashraful's first class batting, his batting average is still only 35. This is the most gifted batsman in Bangladesh. There is little doubt that Ashraful can bat, the problem is that he doesn't most of the time.

This just illustrates how difficult it is for a new team to break into Test Match cricket, and how important a solid first class set up is to maintaining quality at Test Match levels. The challenge for Cricket in the face of Twenty20 Cricket is twofold. First, established Test playing nations have to ensure that their first class setups remain robust and prolific (in terms of number of games), even if domestic twenty20 tournaments emerge as major money spinners. Second, if Cricket is to grow, and if we agree that any serious expansion would involve the development of new Test playing nations, then Cricket needs to show foresight and investment for the long term (and by that i mean 50-75 years) by encouraging serious cricket of the long form variety in a handful of nations and building up the equivalent of first class cricket in those nations.

The only thing which justifies Bangladesh's presence in top level Cricket, is the popular enthusiasm for the game in that country. Of course there are those who will argue that we should leave everything to the market - that the future of cricket is best decided by the volume of the audience and sponsorship, but that does not guarantee quality. Thats where the corporate/commercial crowd (and by this i mean those who believe in a market fundamentalism of sorts) has it backwards. Twenty20 is successful because of the superstars created by tough, legendary Test Match battles. What draws an audience is the promise of high quality cricket. Now, you can create an artificial illusion of quality, but i suspect that this has a limited shelf life.

At the end of the day, you have to have teams that can play. Bangladesh have demonstrated how hard it is to build those teams.

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.

Indian Hockey Federation Suspended by Indian Olympic Association - Games We Play

Shantanu Dutta — Mon, 28 Apr 2008 12:51:51 EDT

The suspension of the Indian Hockey Federation by the Indian Olympic Association will raise many questions about reviving hockey – supposedly India’s national game and once the one discipline where India could be assured of a medal. This happened after the International Hockey Federation advised the India's Olympic body to take over management of the country's hockey after a bribery scandal plunged the game into crisis.

A larger question will go unanswered in the midst of all this murky ruckus; the question of how many games we as a country ought to play. That focus will help in allocating scarce resources on a select few instead of investing in every game under the sun and ending up mediocre in practically all of them. At the moment the Indian Olympic Association is the classic show case of India’s famous “Unity in Diversity” slogan and the Association recognizes every thing from Atya Patya, Ten Pin Bowling and Thang Ta. Check out the IOA’s web site for a whole lot more games that the Association supposedly supports. Of course, none of these games are Olympic sports and will ever be in the foreseeable future but no one care’s.

Apart from all these obscure games, of course India plays all the better known ones – Basketball, Baseball, Volleyball, Ice Hockey, Throwball - you name it and we play it and play it mostly terribly. Even in those games, where we have some modest success, like tennis or chess or perhaps badminton, there would be perhaps one or two players or one or two athletes who hold the flag in a country of India’ size and population. And they usually have discovered long ago that they will gain little from the somnolent and ineffective sports federations that preside over them like deities in a pantheon. Remember the cynical, sneering, pan chewing official running Women’s’ hockey portrayed in Chak de India? The film maker had to have picked up his cues some where!

No nation in the world plays as many sports disciplines as we do with official blessings and perhaps as poorly as we do. Whereas at one level sports is a pastime and recreation and any one can play any thing, professional sports is a different game altogether. Since sports is never ever going to be a strategic concern in a country like India, it will always be at the bottom of the pile in the budget allocated to the larger social sector. One would assume therefore that the little piece of cake that is available would be used judiciously. But that does not appear to be the case.

India’s sports policy is fairly recent having been drafted in 2001. However the policy does not address this issue and if any thing , in an attempt to be all things to all people, talks of broad basing sports. Of course some aspects of broad basing are pretty good – like making opportunities available to a wider section of the population ; encouraging traditional sports and so on. But the policy ought to have drawn a line some where but it hasn’t and the day may nor be far off when playing kancha (marbles) and lattu(spinning top). The pits to which sports administration has fallen as revealed in the hockey scandal should make us think a bit. Of course it is no one’s case that hockey should be axed but it may be a time to introspect as to which games enjoy official patronage and budgetary support. It is better to be involved with fewer sports, allot them more money out of the little that will be available and then manage their administration better. It is time for a newer and more achievable sports policy perhaps !

India-Australia Cricket Controversy - Move On Please!

sufferingsocrates — Fri, 1 Feb 2008 01:22:35 EST

So, India has flexed its financial muscle to downgrade Harbhajan's ban to 50% fine for the Sydney Test match. While bringing down an initial 3 test match ban to 50% fine for a match and nothing more is quite a huge climbdown by the ICC, as an Indian I just want to ask the cringing and whining Aussie players and media - "We are the cricket superpower. Now what?"

Honestly, there isn't much the Aussies can do than accept the verdict and behave in a more civilised manner. Without going into the stump cam transcript, fact of the matter is, unfortunately, India can flex its financial muscle and get away with it. Of course, it is not for the good of the game. But, it was high time Australia realised they can't get away with everything.

Racism as a word has been so often used in the past month that one needs to introspect what it actually means. To be frank, an Indian calling an Aussie white can also be termed racist. So, Indians are not that innocent either. It is just that India has never come out openly, and never the BCCI, in such strong defense of its players. And one also needs to take into account the track record of one Mr. Ponting before Mike Procter blindly accepted whatever Ponting, Clarke, Symonds and Hayden blurted out. Ponting has had disciplinary issues of his own, forget Harbhajan's.

Australians would be foolish to taunt the Indians on the field at MCG or at the other ODI venues in the triangular series. For if the reception turns hostile at Australia, God help the Aussies when they come to a cricket mad India later this year. This is where common sense should prevail. As an Indian, it is impossible to control the antics of an Australian fan at a ground in Australia. Similarly, it would be impossible for an Australian to stop the antics of an Indian fan at an Indian cricket ground. In fact, there will be absolutely no surprise if both these events happen. How on earth is it possible to ask every fan at a cricket ground to behave properly? And how many of the spectators can be removed from a ground or for that matter monitored in order to bring down racist taunts?

Just like the word Monkey can be such a serious racist slur, God knows what bastard can mean to an Indian? Brad Hogg was let off the hook by the Indians. I would say, Harbhajan should not have been penalised at all. But the Australians are now becoming cry babies. Losing at Perth was probably hurting them so much; they wanted something back to be still called the World Champions.

If Symonds feels Monkey is a racist slur against him, then the other 10 Australian players also will have something which they might consider racist. Should the competing teams be handed over a list of words which they should NOT be calling each other? And should this list be also provided to all the spectators in the ground? Maybe announcements such as "Dear spectators, please do not make monkey like gestures which might be a racist offense for the opposition" be made at a cricket ground? Pray, how much can anyone on earth control the behaviour of spectators on the ground? The best solution would be to just forget this incident, and play the game.

Australia seem to be becoming the cry babies of the world. Understandable, since their firm grip on the game is rapidly slipping as are the retirements of half of their once invincible team. In a span of one year, they have lost the services of Damien Martyn, Shane Warne, Glenn McGrath, Justin Langer and now Adam Gilchrist. Clearly, a sign of change. Australia will continue to be the team to beat. But never again, the unbeatable one.

The Future of Indian Cricket

Angshuman Hazra — Sun, 20 Jan 2008 07:32:04 EST

I could not believe my ears when I heard Maninder Singh defending Yuvraj Singh in the face of questions raised on his form and fitness in a tele-discussion on dropping Rahul Dravid and Sourav Ganguly from the one day side.

Upon being reminded of Yuvraj Singh’s inability to last long in any of his Australian outings Maninder argued that Yuvraj is mostly getting dismissed through slip catches in the first class matches; however since Yuvraj bats at number four / five in ODIs & T20s there will be no slips when he comes in and he should score! Whether that comment was more insulting to Ponting’s captaincy or Yuvraj’s batting ability is for you to decide.

I have long been supporting the cause of picking only those players in ODIs who are either good batsmen or good bowlers depending on their trade but who necessarily have the accepted ‘plus’-es called good ground fielding and deft running between wickets. The philosophy is more rigidly applicable to T20 teams.

I have always believed that Rahul Dravid and Sourav Ganguly should have retired from ODIs just after the 2007 world cup. Both are very good batsmen. But unlike Sachin Tendulkar the Lords 1996 twins do not have quick feet; they are neither skilled ground fielders nor quick runners between wickets. They are not going to contribute that little extra to the team in normal ODI / T20 conditions where we need slip fielders (Dravid’s specific plus) for only 10-15 overs and part time seam bowlers (Ganguly’s specific plus) only in overcast conditions. This means they are susceptible to finger pointing and selection hazards even if they do not perform in 2 or 3 games. You don’t want to see players of their calibre facing it.

However Australia is a place where the Golden generation boys’ batting assumes greater importance than that of the next generation of batsmen simply because the men hold their performances in these shores while the boys have been unable to do so. It happened during the 2003 tour and it has happened this time too in Test matches. I see no reason for that not happening in ODIs unless the matter is as simple as explained by Maninder.

These two ex-captains should have deserved serious thought from selectors just as the right, experienced horses for the course. There are horses by the dozen for Indian courses but the away courses have not yet been happy for the colts. The benching of the senior pros could be postponed by one series in this context.

Moreover, the specific ‘plus’-es of Dravid and Ganguly (and even Laxman’s catching, for that matter) come into play so much more in Australian conditions.

Let us ignore that all. Now we go to their ‘minus’-es, i.e. lack of the commonly accepted pluses. Since both were dropped after a very short run of failure in ODIs and don’t look likely to be considered for a re-admission we can safely attribute their dismissal to their minus-es which can no more be improved unlike form.

Surely we can then safely assume the chosen few for the ODI side for the tri-series to have those ‘plus’-es.

Let us check up on the facts with the names in the announced squad. We will call them the ‘Future Guys’. Bowlers first.

S Sreesanth
Speciality: bowler
Plus: Virtually None - not much batting, was not impressive in the outfield in the last series he played, is coming back from injury

RP Singh
Speciality: bowler
Plus: Virtually None - not much batting, not the quickest outfielder.

Ishant Sharma
Speciality: bowler
Plus: None - No batting at all, quick legs but lousy outfielder.

Piyush Chawla
Speciality: bowler
Plus: batting has never clicked in international matches, but a good outfielder.

Irfan Pathan:
Speciality: bowler
Plus: Has developed into a very good outfielder, good runner between wickets
Plus 2:. Very capable with the bat

Praveen Kumar is unknown to me. Harbhajan is an adequate selection displaying some plusses for his lower order batting and decent outfielding in ODIs.

The batsmen’s list: Mahendra Singh Dhoni (capt & wk), Sachin Tendulkar, Yuvraj Singh, Virender Sehwag, Dinesh Karthik, Robin Uthappa, Gautam Gambhir, Suresh Raina, Rohit Sharma.

All the batsmen are good outfielders, and most are good runners between wickets. Some are excellent catchers.

So even if the omission of Ganguly & Dravid looks unjustified if we look at the bowlers, it looks less debatable when we see the people they are competing with. If some of these guys can perform like a Ganguly or Dravid in his prime over the upcoming tri-series they would be justifying the selectors’ faith in them as the ‘Future Guys’. They would have then rightfully ousted the two iconic batsmen from the ODI squad simply by being better than them.

What if they do not live up to it? It has already happened once, and the same Ganguly was at the centre of it.

We will all be watching. We have been hearing this ‘blooding youngsters’ theme for sometime now. We have seen how our youngsters can be relentless in 20 over games some months back. And we have also seen in the very next ODI series against Australia how they start looking like amateurs in longer games. We have seen confirmation of it in the ongoing Test series.

We remember that these same ‘Future Guys’ fielded incompetently and batted poorly for first half of the ODI series at home against Australia. That they won two matches out of seven. That the 1st win came from the bats of Sachin & Ganguly, the second from the bats of their bowlers and they wasted the platform to win a third that was laid by – who else – Sachin and Ganguly.

It is not the fault of the ‘Future Guys’ themselves. Many of them are talented, agile and intense (enough for T20s) but have not yet acquired the stamina required for long games. Moreover Sourav and Rahul are greats – and to replace such people you must develop their successors over a period of time. You can’t just select their replacements in the hope that you will be as lucky as the guy that picked the two of them for the same trip 12 years back. The system they came up from did not ensure Sourav and Dravid were excellent by the time they played in the national team – they just turned out that way. Are we living in the hope that such players will just emerge out of nowhere?

We hope the concerned people – the selectors, the board members, all that are party to this young team theory - have studied the reasons of failure of the earlier ‘Team building for the future’ effort ahead of the 2007 world cup. We hope they have ensured that the youngsters included in the sequel to the big flop are adequately groomed. If not then I’m afraid the whole exercise, even when done with best of intentions, can look like one big and dangerous experiment quite resembling a conspiracy against the seniors to replace them with inferior players. Just as it did the last time.

Suresh Raina has already faced one such ‘battle with oldies’ in his first stint with the national team. It may not be good for people like him if they are to be declared losers in this ‘war’ the second time round. The missile, however, has been launched now.

The future of Indian cricket will look healthy if the Future Guys achieve the double bill of performing well right throughout the series. However if they do not then people representing the BCCI selection process should accept their inability to develop (as against ‘select’) replacements for the older generation in public and ask the rich board of India to arrange a detailed training for them from Cricket Australia.

Meanwhile, the effect this selection has on the team morale ahead of the Adelaide cruncher remains to be seen. I would have no doubts on the effect if Dhoni was also the Test captain. However Kumble’s absence from the ODI side should help calm down the dressing room infinitely.

PS: Let’s give the selection guys, at least one of them, some relief. Vengsarkar picked and backed Ishant Sharma all through and must be complimented for the way he identified this boy’s gift of natural bounce and accuracy.

The Spirit of the Game

Kartikeya — Tue, 15 Jan 2008 00:44:55 EST

The preamble to the Laws of Cricket state that "Cricket is a game that owes much of its unique appeal to the fact that it should be played not only within its Laws but also within the Spirit of the Game. Any action which is seen to abuse this spirit causes injury to the game itself. The major respons[i]bility for ensuring the spirit of fair play rests with the captains."

I won't go into the laws any further, because they seem to indict Ricky Ponting at every turn as far as the Sydney Test match is concerned. In the light of Anil Kumble's expressed desire to move on, this seems to be the right thing to do.

I cannot help but observe that at the end of the day, the only generous offer, the only expressed concern for the game came from Kumble. Ponting's great concern has been narrowly limited to his own team - "We want to be loved... ", "We take the criticisms on board", "There was only one incident at Sydney and it did not involve us".

For Ricky Ponting, it seems to be a public relations exercise. Anil Kumble on the other hand has revealed a tremendous sense of regret about events in the Sydney Test, and a terrifically farsighted concern for the game. He offered to apologize to the Australian side for the Harbhajan Singh issue even though he was convinced that nothing wrong had been said on the field. He even remarked that he felt this would be viewed as weakness or admission of guilt. How right he was.

His goodwill (in the matter of the catching agreement) as we all saw was abused by the home captain without as much as a second thought. Ironically, it is Kumble's credibility and integrity which is likely to be questioned as much as Ponting's even though the latter has been demonstrably shown to be economical with sincerity on the field.

At all times in this matter, Kumble has had one eye on the welfare of the game itself. Having played for 18 years, without a single visit to the match referee for disciplinary issues, and as the Indian captain, Kumble knows a thing or two about how issues like this latest racism row blow up. It comes as no surprise that India have unilaterally withdrawn the charge against Bradley Hogg. The Australians doubtless are delighted, and have had the cheek to call it a "generous gesture". Further, the match referee has called it a "magnificient gesture". With respect, Mike Procter should not be talking about magnificient gestures. He has singularly failed to uphold even the simplest and most accepted laws of fair play and natural justice in this new year, let alone lofty ideals like the Spirit of the game.

I wrote in my previous article that there would be all the right noises, nobody would mean anything they said and move on to battle at the WACA. I was wrong. Anil Kumble has in one statesmanlike gesture shown us that there are in fact cricketers who worry about the game, at least amongst those who visit Australia as part of touring cricket teams. Cricinfo reports that the catching agreement has been scrapped, and the only reason for it is that Ricky Ponting broke it. That must one of the highlights (or lowlights) of this entire episode.

What then is this spirit of the game of cricket? If the Sydney controversy has shown anything, it is that there is no longer any authority in the game which commands the respect of the two teams. The umpires are respected, but they failed at Sydney, lost control of the game and with it their ability to command the respect and faith of the players. The Match Referee wields enormous power, with zero accountability. He is shielded from press scrutiny (and rightly so), but this becomes a frustrating thing when he is seen to be selective in his use of his authority.

Given this lack of authority, it would seem to me, that the best description of this spirit, would be that it essentially appeals to the standards that one sets for oneself. What is permissible and what isn't, can never be completely satisfactorily listed in the rule book. In order for cricket to stay the special sport that it is, the players have a responsibility to set standards of conduct for themselves. The quality of the game depends on how the players choose to conduct themselves.

If batsmen walk, it becomes a better game. If fielders claim catches sincerely and are willing to give the benefit of any doubt to the batsman, then it becomes a better game. It follows naturally, that whatever standards players set for themselves, must be enforced by them at all times, irrespective of the match situation. If you have one standard for Day 2, and one standard for Day 5, then it is obviously a problem. Having these standards and sticking with them reveals character and a fundamental respect for the game.

Consider the respective actions of Kumble and Ponting in this entire issue. Ponting requested the catching agreement, then breached it. Cricinfo has been very polite in saying that he appeared to breach it on Day 5, but have left it there. He made an ill-advised charge against Harbhajan Singh, which has since blown up into a huge controversy despite being warned by his more experienced counterpart about the possible consequences. Kumble and his team showed admirable restraint throughout the Test match and have made the only real concession as part of "moving on". Ponting and co. on the other hand have barely budged and gleefully taken what Kumble offered, without any substantial comment (at least so far).

I think we can look forward to more "hard but fair" play at Perth. Issues about the spirit of the game are merely a temporary set back (if that). If a team which has been accused of not playing in the spirit of the game is able to "move on" without offering a public response to it, especially after Kumble's post match sentiments were seconded many times over by an amazing number of people, then it is clear that there has been only lip service to the spirit of the game by hosts (not to speak of a cynical lack of self-respect).

There has been much breastbeating about this issue, without any real desire on anybody's part to engage in an earnest debate about events on the field. Everyone has taken sides while pretending not to take them. Taking Cricket's side has invariably meant making grand comments about the spirit of the game and how the captains can and should get together to solve things. This alas contravenes more than just the spirit of the game of cricket, for it is not sincere. It cannot be sincere to paper over actual events on the field and shove generalities down everybody's throat. I much prefer the partisans on either side, who are at least sincere about their partisanship.

In the final analysis then, the spirit of the game is like one of those shelved government reports - usually ignored, occasionally referred to (mainly when it is convenient), perpetually shelved and at best serving the purpose of being an irritating inconvenience to the business of winning. We are told that when we make mistakes and when we find ourselves in the midst of disasters, we must take a step back and reflect on things. What cricketers do is to reach for that little book on the shelf. The few cricketers like Kumble who actually want to do something about these disasters, are fighting a losing battle.

India vs. Australia: Cricket & Race

Amrita Rajan — Tue, 8 Jan 2008 01:15:02 EST

Welcome to 2008! A week into the new year and we’ve already plunged into a fresh cricketing scandal. This time around it’s a race row between India and Australia – with an Australian cricketer alleging he was racially abused by an Indian player. Ah, sports in the global village. Never a boring moment.

It all started way back in October when Australia were touring India. A bunch of spectators in Vadodara marked Andrew Symonds, an England-born Australian player of West Indian and British descent, as the “enemy” thanks to his on-field clashes with Indian hotheads Sreesanth and Harbhajan Singh - two players least likely to take it like proper Indians - and began baiting him in the presence of a South African journalist.

Said journalist was more than a little taken aback when the Indians around him began imitating monkeys. He asked one guy close to him what he thought he was doing. “He looks like a monkey,” the man apparently replied. There are two ways to take this comment: one, he was alluding to the fact that Symonds was “black” and that he thought black people are less than human; two, he thought Symonds, literally, looked like a monkey.

The first would clearly be an example of a racial slur. The second would have been mean but entirely his opinion. We don’t know which it was. Either way, it wasn’t very nice. If it was indeed a racist comment then it was despicable and I hope he felt it burn when Symonds went on to smash the ball all over the place. If it was his idea of a clever bit of namecalling, I hope he’s sitting at home watching the current drama play out on TV and fast coming to the realization that wit is not his forte.

The South African journalist later reported the incident to a member of the Australian press contingent and wanted to know if Symonds had mentioned anything. The Australian said no and asked Symonds about it. Symonds appeared to have forgotten all about it but when quizzed, replied yeah, he remembered something of the sort but didn’t make much of it.

Next up, Mumbai where a massive row broke out when a group of idiots were captured on camera, scratching their armpits and hollering and jumping about. If they were looking to make it onto TV screens, they got their wish and more. Symonds was reportedly very upset and charges of racism were made against the crowd. Everybody fell over themselves excusing / castigating those men in the crowd who were eventually arrested but then released.

The best explanation, without doubt, was the one offered by one BCCI official that the monkey was sacred in Hinduism and thus the crowd was praying to Hanuman. That’s right, people – the sight of Symonds on the field brought out intense religious fervor in Indian cricket fans. And they invariably pray by yelling “monkey” and scratching their armpits. It's an old and honored method of worship. Ladies and gentlemen, a pause for applause here for the Board of Control for Cricket in India. They never disappoint.

In the middle of all this, Indian bowler Harbhajan Singh apparently tried his hand at sledging and ended up calling Symonds a monkey. After the match was over, Symonds came over to the dressing room and gave Harbhajan a short lesson on racism. Calling someone a monkey, where he came from, Symonds explained, meant that person was sub-human, an inferior breed. A charge that Australians are especially sensitive to because this attitude informed (white) Australian attitudes towards the Aborigines for years. Harbhajan, much contrite, said he’d had no idea and would never do it again.

Australia won that series in India and two and half months later, the Indians showed up in Australia for a rematch. The first test ended in a defeat for the visitors but the second test proved to be a real fight and the visitors put on a good show in spite of what seem to be rather more frequent umpiring errors than usual. (Understatement: it’s an art I practice.) Then came the ugliness.

Sachin Tendulkar and Harbhajan were at bat. Brett Lee was bowling. Harbhajan hit a delivery and ran down wicket for a run and along the way patted Lee’s butt with his bat. Maybe this is how people express their affection in Jalandhar or perhaps he felt he hadn’t hit the ball hard enough and therefore needed to hit the bowler as well to show the strength of his arm – hell, maybe it was the cricketing version of what basketball players do with their hands. Who knows what he was thinking? Harbhajan hasn’t yet explained and Lee has been absolutely mum on the subject. But Symonds got an eyeful of this and, perhaps because he enjoyed needling Harbhajan, decided to stick up for his teammate. So he and Harbhajan exchanged a few words.

And according to Symonds, this is when Harbhajan called him a monkey. Again. And not just any monkey but a “big monkey”.

I’ve heard a lot of people, by which I mean Indians, talk about how “monkey” is not a term of racial abuse in India and so Harbhajan never meant it like that. And as far as that goes, while “monkey” is definitely not a term of endearment (well, okay it can be but I don’t think that’s how they’d use it while sledging or having an altercation), they’re right – Indians don’t use it in the sense that Westerners do.

However, that hasn't stopped us from feeling hurt when the term has been applied to fellow Indians in other racial contexts like the US state of Virginia where senatorial candidate George Allen referred to a young man of Indian descent as a "macaca". Nobody expects Harbhajan to follow the ramifications of incidents that occurred during political campaigns halfway across the world but if he did use the term in Sydney, he did so after being informed of the connotations that the term carries in Australia – and as such he deserves condemnation.

The key question though, is did he use the term?

Michael Clarke, Matthew Hayden and Andrew Symonds say he did. Sachin Tendulkar and Harbhajan Singh himself say he didn’t. The umpires didn’t hear anything and the stump mics didn’t pick anything up. So it basically comes down to whose word do you believe?

Mike Proctor, the South African match referee, decided the Australians had it right in this instance. He said, as a South African he recognized a racist attack when he saw it and it was quite clear to him that Harbhajan had not only said it but that he meant it as a racial slur. Since Proctor is so well versed in racism, then he might also understand the point that many Indian fans are making today: black man, known for sledging, accuses brown man, known for temper, of racism -> brown man denies it -> umpires don’t hear it, stump mics don’t pick it up -> another brown man says he was right there and he didn’t hear it -> two white men say they heard it loud and clear -> white man says he believes the two white men over the lone brown man.

The character of a gentleman should give everybody involved the benefit of the doubt in this instance. Just as we don’t want to believe that Tendulkar flat out lied to protect his teammate and that Harbhajan is a racist, we shouldn’t jump to the conclusion that this is some sort of orchestrated campaign by the Australians to bump an effective bowler off an opposing team. Given the lack of hard evidence, it could have been resolved on field as a matter between gentlemen. But it wasn’t (and some people would say it’s because the Aussies have proven themselves to be no gentlemen) and Proctor, for reasons best known to himself, couldn't bring himself to come out with a "not proven" or "inconclusive" result.

However, if Ricky Ponting actually believed such a incident had gone down, he was perfectly justified in doing what he did. A fact that nobody pointed out more strongly than Ponting himself. Racism isn’t acceptable just because the target is a white man (Symonds isn’t but there have been other examples in the past) and a white team has every right to report an incident if it feels wronged.

But now that he’s taken this step, it’ll be interesting to see how things play out over the years given Australia’s propensity to sledge. Some people, like Peter Roebuck, have called for Ponting’s head (for his attitude as well as his actions) and indeed, Australia may well come to regret this incident, but in the years to come? I think Ponting did everybody a favor.

I suppose in the short time to come you’re going to see some amount of retaliatory action, just like some allege the Australians are doing right now, but now that race has come into the open as a factor in a sport as fanatically beloved as cricket, there is no way it can be swept under the carpet by fatcat cretins like the BCCI who came out with this remarkable statement:

"India's national commitment is against racism. Our national struggle is based on values which negate racism." [Pawar said.]

Now that the top dog in international cricket has stepped forward to make use of race laws, it should open the floodgates for other teams. After all, if Australia the hardy world champions don’t think it’s whiny behavior to stand up against racial abuse, why should other teams feel shy? And now that words like “monkey” and “bastard” are deemed racially sensitive, look for sledging to subside because really, who knows what might be culturally sensitive?

Thus we come full circle and decide that abuse is abuse, whatever we call it. If you want to call someone names, make sure it’s someone from your own team because that’s the only way to ensure that you’re not stepping over some invisible line.

Good for all of us. Hard luck for Harbhajan, though.

A Tale of Three Catches: The Case Against Ricky Ponting & Mike Procter

Kartikeya — Mon, 7 Jan 2008 12:44:35 EST

Here is the crux of the integrity argument against Ricky Ponting and his team. The "spirit of the game" which Ricky Ponting claims was upheld by both teams through out the Test Match, but for one incident (in his view the Harbhajan-Symonds incident).

This is the video of the Dhoni Catch. The argument is a matter of three catches really. In the first innings, Ricky Ponting made a difficult attempt in the slips and came up with the ball and immediately declared it a bump ball. Then on the 5th day, first he went with Michael Clarke's claim of a catch, which everyone including Gilchrist suggested was good. Finally, the third catch which Ponting claimed was this one against Dhoni.

As the speakers in that discussion in the video point out, it was obviously an incomplete watch, because the ball touched the ground even though it was in Ponting's hands. Law 32 (3) states the following:

3. A catch shall be considered to have been fairly made if
(a) throughout the act of making the catch
(i) any fielder in contact with the ball is within the field of play. See 4 below.
(ii) the ball is at no time in contact with any object grounded beyond the boundary.

The act of making the catch shall start from the time when a fielder first handles the ball and shall end when a fielder obtains complete control both over the ball and over his own movement.
(b) the ball is hugged to the body of the catcher or accidentally lodges in his clothing or, in the case of the wicket-keeper, in his pads. However, it is not a fair catch if the ball lodges in a protective helmet worn by a fielder. See Law 23 (Dead ball).
(c) the ball does not touch the ground, even though the hand holding it does so in effecting the catch.

Given the law above, it is obvious that Ponting's claimed catch off Dhoni was incomplete. In the process of obtaining control over his own movement, the ball touched the ground, even though it was in his hand (32 - 3(c)). Ponting appealed for the catch.

Similarly for Michael Clarke's catch, even though replays can be said to be inconclusive, the replay's were conclusive enough to show that it is inconceivable that the ball did not make any contact at all with a single blade of grass. Therefore, that catch would have to have been rightly judged in favor of the batsman.

None of this constitutes cheating in itself. But consider the pre-series agreement with Anil Kumble and Ricky Ponting where it was agreed that in the case of disputed catches, the fielding captain's word will be honored. The Umpires it appears were aware of this agreement, for Umpire Benson asked Ricky Ponting for his opinion in the matter.

Given this agreement, any appeal for a catch by Ponting himself has to be necessarily viewed in its light. It follows that Ponting should be extra careful, having taken on the extra responsibility himself for being the final judge of disputed catches, where Umpires cannot tell by themselves and would usually go for the TV Replay.

The most charitable explanation for this is that Ricky Ponting doesn't know the law. This stretches the bounds of credibility given the fact that he has been a tireless campaigner for taking the fielders word in the matter of disputed catches. No captain other than Kumble has agreed with him. Kumble, as he said in that press conference, approached it from the point of view of honesty - he expected everybody to be honest.

There was no way a honest captain with full knowledge of the laws could have claimed either of those catches on the 5th Day. Ricky Ponting did. Hence the question about the two faces of Ricky Ponting. It was a valid question borne out of a careful viewing of both appeals and of Law 32. Given that Ricky Ponting questioned the competence of the said journalist, id say he owes him an apology. It was not an assault on the Australian captain's integrity per se, but on his judgement. He himself made it out to be an assault on his integrity and sought the moral high ground.

Which brings us to Mr. Procter. Four years ago he issued a ban against Pakistan captain Rashid Latif for claiming a disputed catch. Given his arguments on that occasion, how can he possibly not bring Ricky Ponting to book for having claimed the Dhoni catch? How can the Umpires not report him especially in the light of the pre-series Agreement? If anything, Ponting's offence looks worse than Latif's, because not only is he a captain, but is also party to the said agreement with Anil Kumble.

The same question can be asked of the Umpires in the matter of Andrew Symonds's embarrassing claim about having edge the ball on Day 1. He was still not out when he made the admission, thus putting Umpire Bucknor in a terrible position. There is a strong case for a hearing for a Level 1.7 breach of the ICC Code of Conduct.

Then there is the question of the overrates. As i have shown before, the Australian over rate on Day 3 was exceptionally lower than the overrate by either team on any of the the other days. Why has this not been investigated?

Is it simply too much work for Mr. Procter and the two Umpires to run the Test match according to the rules? They completely lost control of the situation and let Ponting run riot.

They say that if every rule was applied every time it could be applied, no player would survive a year without a hearing. But when you have Harbhajan Singh being found guilty allegedly on the basis of pure hearsay (no witnesses other than Australian players, who cannot by definition be impartial witnesses in this case were called by Symonds, and there are reports that there was no audio or video evidence available) after a 6 hour hearing by the same referee in the same game - just imagine how much justice he could have meted out in those 6 hours in these other matters! Is it any surprise that India have found it necessary to suspend the tour?

Anil Kumble's invocation of Bill Woodfull's famous Bodyline line was apt. Ponting in the meanwhile, appears more and more as a modern day Jardine. He seems similarly oblivious to anything other than his view of what right and what is legal. There are three things for which this Sydney Test will be remembered - the Cricket, the Umpiring and Ricky Ponting. Not necessarily in that order.

It has now been nearly 2 days since the Sydney Test ended. Are you trying to tell me that Ricky Ponting cannot read the Laws of Cricket, specifically Law 32 especially in view of the furore which has been caused? If he did read it, how can he possess any decency at all and not make a public reference to it, instead of merely parroting the usual line that "there was only one incident in the game, and it didn't involve the Australians"?

Peter Roebuck has called for him to be sacked!

India vs. Australia: Rumble Down Under

Chandra — Tue, 4 Dec 2007 09:14:57 EST

India is on the way to completing a victory over Pakistan in the three test series. A 2-0 or 3-0 or 2-1 victory will be a good start for Captain Anil Kumble. Good for the captain.

However, the sternest test to Anil Kumble and Indian cricket begins 24 days from now. On Boxing Day, India will commence one of the most important series during the last 4 years.

As I watch the Indian bowlers toil under the sun against an average Pakistani line up, I fear for this team when they tour Down Under.

The kind of pitches prepared and the practice planned for before the series does not portend well at all. The fact is that the Indian team is so thoroughly under-prepared for the Australian series that a 0-4 series as forecast by Stuart Clarke cannot be ruled out.

Batting

The batting resources are almost the same as 2004 except that they are three years older and a little slower. Our opening woes continue with Dinesh Karthik increasingly getting the edges that eluded him an entire day in England. Jaffer has produced some great knocks but is inconsistent. The "wall" Dravid looks far more solid now than during the last 18 months but then, lack of a big score and not having scored against quality attacks is a big disadvantage. VVS has been consistently scoring in important matches but has become increasingly susceptible to genuine fast bowling. Sourav's susceptibility to the bouncer is well known and you don't get a better bouncer than in Australia.

Only Sachin seems to be in great nick and should hopefully do very well in the series. The enterprising Dhoni, as usual, is expected to play quite a few good knocks. One of the biggest problems is the huge difference in conditions between playing in India and Australia. However, a total of three match days are planned for practice before the first test match.

In summary, get set for a batting collapse during the first test match. It has happened during every single visit by the Indians to Australia during the last 15 years.

One issue being debated is what one should do with Yuvraj Singh. Unlike others I have no doubt that he will do very well given an opportunity in Australia. When and how will be decided by circumstance. The recent test averages for the top-7 batsmen means there isn't a case yet for replacing anybody. However, one or two matches in Australia will restore sanity to the inflated averages and make decisions simple. Yuvraj can play a very important role in Australia in terms of taking the attack against Stuart Clarke and Mitchell Johnson.

Bowling

If the batting resources are shaky, the bowling resources are even more worrying. It has been a long time since Anil Kumble has come up with a match-winning performance and Harbhajan is nowhere near the prowess of the 2001 series. The pace attack holds more promise than in 2004 with expectations that Zaheer and RP lead the attack well.

Again, Zaheer is a moody player and let us hope he turns up happy on all the match days. In the event that we play three pacers, the choice of third pacer is a clear problem. Sreesanth's bowling has been brilliant in patches while Munaf is struggling with something that none of us understand. Either way, we will need to take both of them assuming they are fit.

Having said that, the Australian batting line-up is the best batting line-up and it is only fair to expect them to notch 500+ runs in all innings that they bat. Unless, of course, we are better prepared and we have more than one session of Agarkar brilliance.

Way Forward

One way to prepare well will be to allocate more time to practice than has been budgeted for. As of now, no such practice is planned but if the Pakistan series is at 2-0, I don't see any reason why key members of the team can't sit out the Bangalore test and instead hit bouncers at Mohali for a week or so before traveling to Australia. The second option, if feasible, is to prepare a bouncer friendly pitch for the Bangalore test. Over and above this, I am not sure if anything else will help so late in the day. As usual, the BCCI is fast asleep worrying about things that are of no consequence to Indian cricket. God bless Indian cricket!

PS: There has been a talk about how crowds do not turn up to watch test matches in the Sub-continent. However, both tests (Delhi and Kolkata) have been well attended. Test cricket has its charm and there are enough fans who love watching and following test cricket.

Cricket Selectors - Muppets Headed by a Joker?

Kartikeya — Tue, 13 Nov 2007 13:33:04 EST

When Marvan Atapattu branded the Sri Lankan national selection committee as "muppets headed by a joker", he was merely echoing the thoughts of every self-styled cricket pundit in India vis a vis the Indian selection committee.

Atapattu is a former Sri Lankan captain who started his test career with scores of

0, 0, 0, 1, 0, 0, 25, 22, 0, 25, 14, 4, 7, 10, 26, 19, 29

His first 17 innings yielded 175 runs at 10.29. At that point, you can be sure that there were others calling the Sri Lankan selectors "muppets headed by a joker" or something similarly ridiculous. Was Attapattu's appearance in the Sri Lankan Test team sporadic during that period? Atapattu made his debut in the 1156th official Test match. His horror run continued until the 1376th Test match. Sri Lanka played 47 Test matches during that time, over a period of 7 years, and won a World Cup to boot. The point of this is to suggest that the selectors did not lose faith in Atapattu's ability (even though he caused them to stretch their imagination considerably during those 7 years). They were repaid for it, as Atapattu went on to make 16 Test centuries in his next 72 Test Matches.

So what does selection involve, and how do we view it? It is clearly not a science (never mind exact science). It is at its core a judgement - a judgement about players and a judgement about the team. Players are considered for their potential output - in the short term and in the long term (as in the case of Marvan Atapattu), while teams are built with a view towards achieving the best possible balance keeping in view the available individual skills and talent. Its a difficult job. It is also a thankless job. By definition, all but 15 candidates end up disappointed by the selectors work. By definition, the supporters of all but 15 candidates end up disappointed by the selectors work. If you add to this the fact that in a reasonably good team (such as India), thanks to the selectors doing a good job, about 9-10 of those 15 positions select themselves. So, if you think about it, all but 6-7 candidates are invariably rejected by the selectors.

Each of these candidates have regional supporters and factional supporters in BCCI (all though i don't think this is as true today as it might have been 10-15 years ago). Above all else however, is the disgruntled fan - disappointed by the most recent defeat and waiting for an opportunity to lash out. Every one of these people has an opinion, and invariably has a newsworthy opinion. More newsworthy than the (necessarily) mundane explanation by a selection committee about the decision making process itself. It might actually be interesting if BCCI were to hire someone like Salman Rushdie (not for a moment am I assuming that he would take the job), with his gift for using the English language to announce and explain decisions to the press. A year of this, and the selectors would in all probability (provided Rushdie doesn't lose his mind!) be rock stars.

Some of the most astounding allegations have stuck more persistently than others. Throughout the late 1990s and early 2000s we had allegations of the "quota" system. These were quite stunning, because when one looked at the Indian cricket team, one found Kumble, Dravid, Srinath, Azharuddin, Robin Singh, VVS and occasionally a few others like Sunil Joshi, Sadagoppan Ramesh, all from South Zone in the same XI, not just in the same squad! John Wright wrote about sitting through a selection committee meeting, and being astounded by the kind of trades that occasionally went on. But think about it - take both these facts together - if there are no stand out talents for a given position, if there is no real way to make a reasonable assessment that of three players under consideration for a particular slot, there is no real way of gauging who's most qualified, or who has the most ability, is it not reasonable that the position should go to the most under-represented region amongst that group of players?

Now, outright quota-based decisions make absolutely no sense, but have the Indian selectors been guilty of these in the past 10 years? Look at any Indian team in the last 10 years and see what you find. Sure there are the occasional "Noel who?" situations. But has there been one apart from the Noel David decision in 1997 when Tendulkar asked for Tushar Arothe from Baroda but got Noel David instead? Occasionally, communication does break down. Has there been a correction as a result of that? With every passing year, the captain (especially if he's a well-established captain) gets heard more and more in selection matters.

Just in the past 12 months or so, this current selection committee has made a number of bold decisions, some decisions have been just plainly brilliant. I will point to just two - the return of Sourav Ganguly, and the selection of Dinesh Karthik as a specialist batsman. In both cases the selectors have gone on potential - in Ganguly's case due to his past brilliance, and in Karthik's case of sheer potential. The Ganguly situation provides endless opportunity for cynicism, but it has proved to be a brilliant decision in retrospect. The case with Zaheer Khan is the same. Leaving both of them out for a while and bringing them back worked in both cases. This took place over two seperate selection committees and it is a measure of the maturity of the Indian system that Ganguly's antics vis-a-vis Chappell were not held against him.

Have we credited the selectors for this? Have we credited the selectors for the selection of R P Singh for the Bangladesh and England test tours? It has in each of these cases been up to the players to go out there and perform - that is what ultimately proves the selectors right or wrong. When it proves them wrong, we are quick to pounce on them. When it proves them right, we ignore it completely. Just look at the number of brilliant selections in the last 7-8 years. Mohammad Kaif, Yuvraj Singh, Harbhajan Singh, Dinesh Karthik, Irfan Pathan, Virender Sehwag and many many others made an immediate impact on the international stage - they immediatly confirmed the selectors prediction that they had the ability to play international cricket. The Twenty20 World Championship team was selected by Vengsarkar selection committee.

If you look at Marvan Atapattu's early career, it illustrates the difficult of the selector's job. Here's my point - the selectors get it right far more often than they get it wrong. The Indian team wins more than it loses. Yet, the stray constructive critique about selection (and I don't claim for a moment that this is one of them) gets lost in a sea of angry noise and abusive breastbeating against the selectors. There seems to be a default view that the selectors are stupid and/or dishonest. This is due to a basic misunderstanding about the job that they do.

Why is this important? With an increasingly belligerent press and TV media, interested less in nuance and more in juice, there is the risk that a task such as selection will be overrun by public opinion. Already, there is some indication that the BCCI's decision making is becoming swayed by an ill-informed public opinion - they do things merely to appease the public. The BCCI does not interfere with selection issues, but there may come a time when they might have to, pressured by public opinion. They need to become a stronger institution. But at the same time, the public interest much be informed, with the hope that this will cause it to be more reasonable. The selectors have already minimized the number of press conferences that they must give - with good reason in my view. Their job is fertile ground for juicy quotes and difficult ground for reasoned, nuanced positions. The latter are almost never attempted, the former are a dime a dozen.

Selection is a difficult job. It is also a fragile job. It needs to be respected and protected. Players criticizing selectors is different from the public or the press criticizing them. The public must realize this.