Who will criticize the critics?

The mighty have fallen, and how? The Australian team reached a new low when they were bowled out for 98 in the first innings of the Melbourne test; but today they slid further down, thanks to some senseless rants by their captain Ricky Ponting directed towards a world class umpire. If at all one needed a proof of Australia's desperation and their journey through a hole which gets deeper by the day, this was it.

But this article is not to analyze the reasons of Australia's decline or ways of preventing it. This article is to take a look at the performance of those who analyze the game for a living. Yes, I am talking about the so-called experts of the game, mostly former players. How prescient these guys really are?

The reason I brought up the decline of Australia is to juxtapose it with reasons offered for the dominance of Australia in the last decade. "Australia has the toughest first class structure in the world. That is the reason why it churns our so many world class players", they reasoned. I wonder then, how come the "best first class structure" stopped producing world class players? Has the standard of the league declined? If yes, why? If not, how did Australia manage to produce so many world class players with the same standard? Clearly, there was more to Australia story than just a good first class structure, which most of the 'experts' missed

My objective of pointing out the mistake is not to bring down the these experts, some of whom are truly the greats of the game, but to just point out that there is no way to judge the opinions/predictions of these gentlemen. If the players can be judged for their performance, then why don't we judge those who judge the players?

Another glaring example of an error is a comment made by the former Australian captain and one of the most respected commentators of the game, Ian Chappell, when he questioned the motive behind the continuance of Tendulkar. In the early 2007, right after India were ousted from the world cup, Chappell wrote "At the moment he looks like a player trying to eke out a career; build on a glittering array of statistics. If he really is playing for that reason and not to help win as many matches as he can for India then he is wasting his time and should retire immediately." You can get more details on what he said by clicking here. In fact, almost everything he told in that article has come back to bite him. But nobody seems to remember that.

If so much air time and column space is provided to these experts, I wish they are also scrutinized like any other professionals, so that they think twice before they speak. Otherwise, a few sane voices out there will drown out in the cacophony of irresponsible views.

P.S - In spite of Ian Chappell's blunder he has got it right most of the time and I still respect him a lot. What rankles me that nobody remembers the blunder! If nothing else, it should be a black mark in his commentary career - the same way Greg Chappell's instruction to his brother to bowl underarm will always be held against him or how Chetan Sharma will always be remembered for giving a last ball six.

Pathetic TV coverage of cricket in India

Today afternoon I was watching the second test between India and South Africa. Tsotsobe was bowling to Sachin Tendulkar. The ball pitched short of a length and moved away after pitching, Tendulkar edged it, the ball flew to the slips, Kallis caught the ball and a young college going boy started cutting onions in a restaurant! No, it is not a typing mistake. As soon as Kallis caught the ball, cricket was off the screens and the advertisement of a latest mobile phone took its place instead.

The joy of watching cricket is not only about watching the ball sail over the boundary or a reverse swinging yorker scatter the stumps. These things no doubt are a treat to watch, but the real joy of watching cricket is seeing the happiness on the bowler's face after he takes a wicket, the disappointment a batsman experiences after he edges one to the keeper, the emotions a young player like Tsotsobe shows when he takes the wicket of a legend like Tendulkar. Without these things watching cricket becomes a monotonous activity and something which you don't mind skipping.

Who is to be blamed for the mess? Naturally, the tendency is to blame TV channel broadcasting the series. But we will be missing a point if we do that. They have, after all, spent billions of dollars for acquiring the telecast rights and have every right to increase the advertising revenues. The fault lies with the BCCI. It is the BCCI which is supposed to be the guardian of cricket in India and not the television companies. Before awarding the telecast rights the BCCI should frame certain rules regarding the quality of coverage. One very simple clause can be that ads can be shown only after a ball is 'dead', not before that, as it now happens regularly after the last ball of the over. Sure, the telecast rights may not be sold for as much amount as they currently do, but the quality of coverage will be much better and the biggest stakeholders in cricket, the viewers, will not have a reason to complain.

Alas, having watched the way BCCI works, it doesn't inspire much confidence that any positive step will be taken in this direction. Till then the Indian viewers have to make do with watching 'The Ashes' and other series telecast by Channel9.

The problem with ODIs

Everyday we hear death knells for the format of cricket which has been economically the most rewarding for its big bosses - the one day international or the ODI as they are called. Though the call may be sometimes exaggerated, there is a serious concern among the connoisseurs of the game regarding its future. The test cricket is the real test of abilities and the T20 attracts the crowd, the ODI are neither here nor there, they argue. There might be some merit in the argument, but that is not the real problem with the ODI format. The real problem is the insignificance of the games.

IPL, over the last 3 years has been a humongous success. The format of the cricket sure helps. But the main reason why almost all the matches are interesting to watch is because there is something riding on it - initially a place in the semi-finals and then the IPL trophy itself. Everyone knows who won the first, second and the third IPL. On the other hand, an ODI tri-series or a 3/5 match bilateral contest don't have any context. No won remembers who won the last 'Singer Cup' or the 'Asia Cup' or the 'Compaq cup'. There is no history associated with these matches which make them uninteresting.

That is why I think the administrators are barking the wrong tree when they try to make the ODIs more 'interesting' by adding a batting power play or dividing it to two innings of 25 each. Unless they make the context more relevant, any amount of cosmetic changes to the format will not yield much. When the games themselves are interesting, the format doesn't matter. Even in the last decade when the audience for Test cricket decreased alarmingly, viewership for India-Australia series and The Ashes was intact.

Measures to make ODI relevant

There needs to be an ODI world championship where a winner is announced at the end of every year. An ODI series win should have some points based on the ranking of the countries involved (similar to the ranking system now). Finally, the number 1 and number 2 team should play a 5 match ODI series to decide the winner.

The number of teams in the World Cup should be reduced to 6 and these teams have to be chosen based on their performance in the last four world championship. This way even if you are in fourth or fifth place in the world championship, there is motivation for you to play well and win the matches. Further, the presence of the top six teams will make the world cup so much more interesting and will eliminate meaningless matches.

India in South Africa - Preview

The battle between the number 1 and the number 2 promises to be an absorbing contest. As some say, this might be the best chance for India to win a series in South Africa. Though my heart says that India will win, the head says India might just lose 1-2.

Batting is the strength

The Indian batting line up is probably the best in the world - definitely, when Virender Sehwag gets going. With Gautam Gambhir back to form, the top order looks quite solid. Suresh Raina is the weak link in the batting line up and honestly, I don't think he will survive the 3 matches. In the third test, we might just see Cheteshwar Pujara replacing him. Dhoni's batting form will also be very crucial, especially how he plays with the tail. Rahul Dravid showed glimpses of his old self in his 191 in the series against New Zeland, but an attack consisting of Dale Steyn on South African pitches is a different proposition altogether. In spite of all these, I would still bet on Indian batting to come good. These are proven performers and the fact that this tour might be the last chance for seniors like Sachin, Dravid and Laxman to win in South Africa, will spur them up.

Bowling is a worry

The reason I think India will lose 1-2 is because of bowling. Zaheer Khan is a dependable bowler and we can expect him to perform well and strike a few early blows, but the problem is with the back up. Ishant Sharma has been inconsistent ever since his dramatic entry into the Indian side. Sreeshant has also had an up-down career so far. Nobody knows who is going to be India's fourth seamer (Udankat? Munaf?).With such a scenario it is difficult to believe that India bowler's can take 20 wickets in two of the matches. If you look back the last decade, India always had one, or sometimes two, very good fast bowlers, but very little back up and that has been India's undoing all these years. Coming to Harbhajan, I think South Africans will play him very easily and it will be difficult for him to make an impact. Over the last decade, South Africans have improved their play against spin and with players like Amla, Prince and AB in their ranks, who are excellent players of spin, Harbhajan will have a tough time.

Sreeshanth Ishant the key

Whether India will lose the series 1-2 or win it 2-1 will depend on how Sreeshanth and Ishant bowl. If they support Zaheer Khan well and occasionally bowl those brilliant spell of bowling which we know they are capable of, then India has a good chance of creating history. However, if they are back to their inconsistent self and maintain their current bowling average, then great players like Sachin and Dravid might just end their careers without a series win in the land of Nelson Mandela.