Desicritics Category: Sports: Management

Why is Billion Strong India a Laggard in Sports?

Sandeep Bansal — Sat, 21 Nov 2009 02:21:54 EST

A few days ago, I wrote a post on India’s chances to host the 2020 Olympic Games. I disgusted to see the reactions of people who laughed at this mere suggestion. They mocked the Indian Sport persons. This post is for those morons who have no idea to Sports and perhaps don’t watch any sport other than Cricket. They have no idea how much sports has changed.

I am starting this article by covering some of the sports which I follow.

Hockey

Hockey is the national game of our country and India has won the Olympic Gold and World Cup several times. However, field Hockey moved from playing on grass to synthetic surfaces in the early 90’s.

India does not enough of these which are costly. Moreover each surface has only a fixed life. No wonder, India has hardly done well at either the World Cup or in Olympics. The lowest point came when the mens team failed to even win a medal at the 2006 Asian Games. They even lost to China. Infact the Chinese went on beat Pakistan as well and finish second on Mens Category and won the gold in Womens - can you imagine that!!! Indian eves however saved some grace for the national sport by winning the bronze medal. I suppose by that logic sooner Chinese might even win the Gold in Kabbadi as well.

Chak de India, a Bollywood sport movie based on Indian Women’s Hockey clearly showed the difference. While Australia’s coach was strategizing based on video footage and printouts, India’s coach was merely encouraging his players.

India’s current Hockey coach, Brasa from Spain is realizing this lack of facilities. According to him, India badly needs a sports psychologist, GPS system, heart-rate monitoring machine, a software to analyse matches and some laptops for the coaches. Till date he has only received promises. (Source)

Tennis

Vijay Amritraj (former World no 16) is perhaps the only singles player (of good quality) that India has produced. Though he never won a Grand slam, he defeated John Mc Enroe four times. Sania’s best rank was 37th and even she has hardly defeated any top ranked players. On the doubles circuit though, Leader and Mahesh have been a dominant force.

The reasons are not hard to guess. It is a herculean task for any Indian player to rise in the ranks. Top ranked Tennis players usually prefer to compete in tournament in the Europe and the US. This is because of the higher prize money. This means that the local talent gets to see and play higher ranked players thus improving the standard of play. An Indian would have to spend a lot of money just to travel and compete. Better training and coaching facilities abroad further aggravates the gap. As a result, higher ATP points are given for winning a tournament in Europe than a one in India. It is no wonder that generally the top ranked players hail from Europe, US and Australia.

Ten years ago there were just 8 Indians among the top 2000 men and women. Today there are 50. But just one woman is among the top 100 while none in case of men. Yuki Bhamri, the number one junior player essentially trains abroad. Prakash Amritraj also has a US passport and play there.

Mahesh Bhupati in partnership with Apollo Tyres launched the Apollo 2018 mission with an aim to produce singles Champion by 2018. It aims at selecting young talent and providing them with the best training. However, this has run into financial troubles due to recession.

Badminton

This is surely an upcoming sport in India. This sport is dominated by the Chinese. In the past Prakash Padukone and Gopichand have won the prestigious All England Cup. Saina Nehwal, perhaps the best Indian singles talent, has been doing a great for the past couple of years. She reached the last eight in the Beijing Olympics.

But even this sport is not without any fiasco. Recently Saina had to miss a major international event because the Badmintion Association officials didn’t send her entries. As a result her rankings dropped from World No. 6 to World No.8.

Not long ago, she had almost missed out on participating at the Yonex Sunrise World Super Series Masters Final in Malaysia because she hadn’t received her passport in time from the regional passport authorities of Hyderabad. Only when The Times of India intervened on behalf of the teen did she receive the documents from the Chief Passport Officer in New Delhi. It took him just a few hours on Saturday, which is usually an off day. (Source)

Shooting

Shooting is perhaps the most promising non-cricket sport of all. We have producers winners like Rajwardhan Rathore, Abhinav Bindra, Gagan Narang, etc. We have got a realistic chance of producing many more Olympic medals in Shooting.

But all is not well. For instance, at a major international event, India performed exceeding well (as compared to the previous edition of the Games). Soon after the team lands, the Chief Coach resigned because he was sick and tired of delays in ammunition.

Abhinav Bindra, India’s lone Olympic Gold medal winner comes from an affluent Sikh family and his father had setup an indoor shooting range at their home in Punjab. He was someone who got the right training. Sports have moved beyond the sport fields and into the research labs. For instance, Shooting at the highest level involves controlling your heart beat. Not many Indians can afford this.

On back of their strong performance, National Rifles Association of India(NRAI) recently got Sahara as its sponsor. Top 15 shooters got Cricket styled graded contracts. “ Abhinav Bindra’s absence in the National Rifle Association of India’s (NRAI) graded contracted system is just the most apparent lapse, it’s hardly the only one. Kynan Chenai, who won a gold at the Youth Commonwealth Games in Pune last year, has more national and international accomplishments than Shresyasi Singh. And yet the latter is placed in the higher slab — Rs 12 lakh per year — while Chenai gets Rs six lakh per year. Shresyasi also happens to be the daughter of the NRAI president Digvijay Singh. ” (Source)

Cricket

Cricket, the most popular game in India is played in just a handful of countries. There are just nine Test playing countries. Of this, we all know the standard of Bangladesh Cricket while West Indies Cricket has been struggling for quite some time now. That leaves just seven countries that play good standard of Cricket. Yet there is immense popularity of the sport in India. There two reasons for it – first Cricket is a team sport which makes it much more interesting to watch, second, unlike other sports India has in the past has won all the major Tournament (World Cup, World T20, and Champions Trophy).

Now just picture this, India’s population every year increases by an amount that is roughly equal to the current population of Australia. Yet our team (of which most of us ardent supporters) is thrashed by a team that was essentially composed of Australia’s reserves.

Reasons are not hard to guess. There are 27 teams in the Ranji Trophy (at least one for each state). These are divided into two divisions – Elite (10 teams) and Plate (17 teams). This number was even higher in 2007 when there were 12 teams in the Elite division. The number of reduced following India’s humiliating exit from the 2007 World Cup. Ideally this number should be further reduced to eight (something that is hard to do). Dhoni who played for Jharkhand( a Plate division side) made it to the Indian side shows that the systems is well equipped to promote talented players even from the Plate Division. Only difference is that, Had Dhoni played for a bigger Ranji team like Mumbai or Delhi, he might have made his debut by time he was 19. He eventually made his debut at an age of 23.

Compare that to Australia which has just six teams in its domestic structure. This means every Australian has to fight hard just to keep his place in the state side, forget the national side.

Infrastructure has improved compared to the past. But picture this; UP an Elite-division team has been very well for past few seasons. Some of the top player like Suresh Raina, Praveen Kumar and Piyush Chawla hail from here. But until very recently they did not have a full time physical trainer. You can surely imagine what would be the condition of the Plate division teams.

IPL has brought in the money, but has it really improved the quality? Earlier this year, IPL tournament just preceded the T20 World Cup, seemingly an ideal preparation for it. The defending Champions were badly beaten. One of the obvious reasons is that there are as many as eight teams in IPL. Most teams have just one or at max two good bowlers. As a batsman you would try to play out these bowlers and attack the rest.

You all can imagine what would happen to the standard of Cricket when the number of teams is increased in 2010. Domestic T20 tournament in Australia has six teams with each team allowed just two overseas players as opposed to four in IPL. And what I find really hard to understand how people can support any of these teams? I asked some of my colleagues who hail from Hyderabad, why were they support the Team. That team hardly had any players from Hyderabad or AP for that matter. Other than the foreign recruits most of the Indians in the team hail from other states.

Inefficiency and Corruption in cricket is even higher at junior levels which are by and large outside the media glare. IPL has addressed this to a certain extent but it has also made players less enthusiastic of playing for India, since they can make enough money even if they never get to play for India. Most of the support staff around the world are Australians. There was time when there were as many as five Australians as National Coaches – Greg Chappel (India), John Bucchannan (Australia), Tom Moddy (Sri Lanka), Dave Whatmore(Bangladesh) and John Dyson(West Indies). The best umpire till very recently was also an Australian. Surely there is something in the Australian setup.

Our Sports Administrators

Most of the times, it is the sportsmen who face the ire of the fans. The public is completely oblivious to what happens behind the scenes.

• National Games to be held in Jharkhand in 2007 have been delayed four times and still no dates as to when they will be held.

• Our Commonwealth Games preparation is going shamelessly slow. Though IOA has assured that they will be done on time for the Games, Indian sportsmen would not get any home advantage because lack of practice and thus would cost us lot of medals.

• A certain Monica Devi missed out on the Beijing Olympics because the Indian Olympic Association withdrew her name after she tested positive during a drugs test. When she asked for another test, it was found that she was, in fact, innocent, but by then it was too late for the Manipuri to participate at a competition that just about every sportsman dreams of. (Source)

• PT Usha, the doyen of Indian athletics was denied proper accommodation at the National Athletics Meet in Bhopal. The 'sprint queen', as she is known as, was asked to share her less than spectacular room with five others. The room did not even have hygienic conditions or running water. (Source)

Forget the money, if we can just remove these inefficiencies, a quantum jump in performances can be achieved. With improved performance money will come as is shown by the recent contract won by Vijendra Singh.

The way forward

If money alone would have been the issue, then Africa or North Korea would never win medals at the Olympics. Surely they have something right in their sporting structure and it is not marred by the corrupt and inefficient practices. Perhaps this is not just the story of Indian Sports alone, this is a story of all Indian Systems across the board, be it civil administration, police, judiciary, etc.

Sports are a way of life. Sports can also play a major in raising nationalistic feelings. In India, the North-East and in particular Manipur has a sporting culture. In the last National Games, Manipur and Assam were at second and third spot respectively in the overall medals tally, quite disproportionate to their population size. This region is capable of producing Olympic Champions. Cricket is not the only sport in this region. More encouragement and better facilities could produce better results. These regions are also insurgency prone and sports could act as a means to integrate them with the rest of the country.

BCCI is perhaps the only Sporting organization in India that has loads of money. It has recently started supporting other games. It has promised 25 crore to help the Indian Football over the next two years. However, it can surely be more innovative and invest in long term projects that can produce lasting results. For instance, it can invest in an Institute of Sports Science.

Sport science is a discipline that studies the application of scientific principles and techniques with the aim of improving sporting performance. Human movement is a related scientific discipline that studies human movement in all contexts including that of sport. The study of sports science traditionally incorporates areas of physiology, psychology, motor control and biomechanics but also includes other topics such as nutrition and diet, sports technology, anthropometry kinanthropometry and performance analysis. (Source).

Andrew Leipus, India’s physio during 2003 World Cup had a Sport Science degree from an Australian Institute. If we could have a local institute to produce physios, most Ranji sides could have a physio and thus India’s perennial problem of fielding could be solved. Fitness in other sports would also greatly improve. Likewise, Indian sports need Sports Psychologists.

If Indian sportsmen still manage to win so many accolades, it is not because of the system, it is despite the system. Let us not mock these sportsmen who bring glory to our nation.

Rio de Janeiro,2016 - Delhi-2020?

Sandeep Bansal — Sun, 18 Oct 2009 08:12:05 EDT

This post is perhaps late by a couple of weeks. Nevertheless, it is still worthwhile to discuss.

After China, Brazil became the second country from the much talked BRIC to win rights to host the Summer Olympics. Brazil is today among the 10 biggest economies in the world by GDP and winning this bid is a testimony of its growing economic clout. It has already won the rights to host the 2014 Football World Cup.

Importance of Hosting an Olympics

Hosting an Olympics is a gigantic exercise that involves building massive infrastructure. It requires coordination between scores of departments of the respective Governments and also the city municipality and local governments. While it is still a hotly debated topic whether hosting the Olympics is actually beneficial or not, the games can surely serve as an image building exercise for countries. For e.g. Germany hosted Olympics in 1936, Japan in 1964 and recently China in 2008. Former president Kalam wrote a book India 2020 calling India to modernise itself by 2020. That could be the time announce by hosting the Olympics.

The Games help create permanent physical infrastructure and temporarily boosts the local economy. It also helps showcase the country as a possible investment and tourist destination. This is particularly important for our country because we are constantly bracketed along with our troubled neighbours. It is important for us to ensure that the world perceives India to be different and is secure.

Perhaps it was this which prompted the NDA Government to bid for the Commonwealth Games and thus gain experience in hosting mega-sporting events.

So when will India host the Olympics

The success of China and now Brazil gives hope to our chances. They too are developing countries. Just like South Asia is plagued by terrorism, South America is plagued by drug trafficking. Just today Rio de Janeiro was in news about a drug gang war. But still the Olympic Committee chose it over others major economies like Japan and the US.

But for that India really needs to pull up its socks and ensure that we host a great Commonwealth Games. For the moment, the IOA seems to be involved in an ego clash. India lost the 2014 bid to host the Asian Games. It was said to be an extremely messy bid. India has already indicated that it may bid again for 2018 Asian Games. The Olympics committee would decide in 2013 for the hosts of the 2020 games.

Possible Competitors

The Wiki page lists a whole of possible bidders which includes New Delhi. The biggest competition to Delhi in my view is going to come from South Africa. Like South America, Africa too has never hosted the games and this could just be the opportunity. South Africa has an excellent track record in hosting various cricket events like Cricket World 2003, World T20 2007, IPL 2009 and Champions Trophy 2009. It has also hosted other major events in Hockey, Fencing, Modern Pentathlon, Cycling. The infrastructure in South Africa is way ahead of us and it has a good chance of winning the bid.

Other competitors include UAE, Qatar, South Korea, Japan and US.

Other Roadblocks

Besides the infrastructural bottlenecks, India needs to improve its medals tally at the London Olympics as the Olympics committee would not like the host country without winning any medals.

How Good are the Preparations for the Commonwealth Games?

Ashish — Tue, 15 Sep 2009 14:30:40 EDT

First of all, it is difficult for an individual to really find out what the current state of the preparation for the Commonwealth Games is. The current reality is that there is a lot of work needed to be done at various fronts - the Delhi Government has set in process a huge amount of infrastructure improvements to give the city a modern feel and look. This includes improvements to the transport infrastructure (new roads, modification of roads to reduce jams and increase speed of transport, more metro stations), improvements to the existing stadia to make them capable of handling huge international sports (for example, the Indira Gandhi Indoor stadium leaked a couple of years back when there was an international badminton event), provision of adequate power, housing, and water supplies.

There are multiple levels of responsibility in all this - there is an Organizing Committee of the Indian Olympic Association headed by Suresh Kalmadi, and of course the Delhi Government headed by Shiela Dixit is responsible for the progress of the various infrastructure initiatives. It is worthwhile to remember that one of the biggest problems quoted for infrastructural project cost over-runs in the past is poor project management. I stated in the beginning that it is difficult for an individual to assess, however, there are many other authorities who do take such assessments, and it is hard to determine whether we will follow the time honored method of Just in Time, or will there be a comfort margin before all these efforts are done.

There was a CAG report that stated that the efforts were behind schedule, the media does evaluations from time to time, and in most of them, the efforts are behind schedule, and in fact, from their own project plans, the effort is behind schedule. However, the duo of Suresh Kalmadi got seriously worried when a similar accusation was made by Commonwealth Games Federation President Michael Fennell. He wrote a letter in which he wanted the Indian Prime Minister to get involved to help get this effort on schedule (link to article):

Reacting to Fennell's outburst, Dikshit said she would use every means at her disposal to make it a success, while Kalmadi announced that he would facilitate the CGF chief's meeting with the Prime Minister. Exuding confidence that everything would fall in place, Dikshit said the Delhi Government would complete all work "well in time" although it was little "nervous" about the preparation.
On the recent criticism by the CAG about slow progress of the infrastructure projects, Dikshit said the audit body had prepared the report last month based on status of works six months back. "They have the right to criticise. But we are working very hard. We are looking at all alternatives. Nation's pride is involved with the event and we will do everything possible to make it a success," she said.

By the Delhi Government's own admission a couple of years back, there will be no augmentation of the power generated specifically for Delhi, so this would mean that the Government will have to buy power at that time to ensure that there is enough energy for the Games sites and the Games Village.

In addition to the above problems, there is also the problem of not enough capacity available for the expected inflow of guests. The Commonwealth Games are expected to pull in a huge number of tourists and there are not enough rooms as per the projected demand. And on this end, there are no details available either.

What is the solution? The Government spent 5 years realizing that the pace of development of the country-wide network of roads had slowed down, so not sure whether there will be an increase in the intensity of work. My expectation is that in the last few months, there will be a escalation of the pace of work, and we will just make it in time, with a few loose ends in terms of infrastructure, and for the rest, in terms of better road connectivity for the participants, the Delhi Police will chip in terms of routing traffic so that the traffic is suitable for the Games, the normal man getting screwed will not matter.

10 Reasons Why India Lost And Who Is Responsible!

Kim — Tue, 16 Jun 2009 02:00:52 EDT

As I have earlier confessed, I'm not a Cricket fan.

This analysis is my husband's who is one of cricket's ultimate fans. He watches the Ranji Trophy, every ball of Test Cricket, county cricket and even Mirzapur XI against Rae Bareily XI (if such a thing exists). What can I say? Opposites attract!

Since he follows the game so intently, I have no reason to doubt his analysis, but was wondering what other cricket fans would have to say about it. We'd love to hear your opinions.

In his words:

Well the World Cup is over ... for India atleast ...

We will see a lot of reasons/explanations being given for this state of affairs from experts and a lot more from non-experts. Given below is my list of the top 10 reasons, India is no longer a part of the World Cup.

1. Sehwag Episode
BCCI and Media

2. Dhoni's Batting against West Indies (11 in 23 balls :: SR 7)
Dhoni

3. Jadeja being send ahead of Yuvraj against England
Dhoni

4. Jadeja's Batting against England (25 in 35 balls :: SR 71)
Jadeja

5. Raina's strike rate against WI (5 of 12 :: SR 62) & England (2 of 7 :: SR 40)
Raina & Dhoni (by batting at number 3 in practice and group matches)

6. Ishant's Selection against West Indies 3-0-31-0 (Over RP) and England 4-0-36-0 (Over Irfan)
Ishant & Dhoni

7. Not using Overs of Irfan's inspite of 2-0-9-1 against West Indies and RP's 3-0-13-1 against England
Dhoni

8. India's Top Order's inability to play short ball.
Indian Pitches & Dhoni (for rubbishing the need for practice after West Indies defeat)

9. Fatigue due to IPL
Lalit Modi

10. Cosmic Design to humble MS Dhoni and ensure that success does not go to anyone's head.
Universe

Point to note is that MSD and his charismatic leadership has been given a lot of credit for India's success over last 2 years. I too am a big fan of MSD and his clear, uncomplicated, people driven style of leadership.

However if one goes over the list and the people responsible :- MSD's name pops up 6 out of 10 times. Obviously there is something wrong in his logical reasoning before his actions, because a few of these are big tactical blunders. I wonder how a clear thinker and a keen student of the game can make such mistakes.

As they say, more often than not success & failure are products of the "mind" rather than "skill".

From an MSD Fan.

My husband - Brajesh will respond to comments on this post.
I am just the messenger.

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.