Things IPL can do without

The IPL - apart from the surrounding controversy - was a huge success. The crowds thronged the stadium like they do for an India-Pak match. The cricket was good; in fact the second half of the tournament saw an equal contest between bat and ball which made the cricket more exciting. A lot of youngsters like Rayadu, Tiwari and Vinay Kumar came into prominence which can only be good for the Indian cricket.

But there were a lot of things that irritated me no end. Every time I saw them, it made me angrier. My list of things which IPL can do without :

Salesmen behind the micorphone: I think the commentators were conspicuous by their absence. Their place was taken over by salesmen selling sixes and catches and 'could have been' sixes and 'could have been' catches. I am sure even the commentators did not like doing it. It was quite apparent whenever Harsha Bhogle was talking about the MRF blimp or a DLF maximum. It was like a kid made to apologise for an offence he had not committed! I wish the IPL do away with the salesmen and bring back the commentators.

Ads between balls: Another irritating feature of the IPL was the sight of Virender Sehwag and Gautam Gambhir fighting over a phone between two balls of the same over. As cricket fans we have learned to live with ads between overs, sometimes missing the first or the last ball of the overs, but ads coming in between the balls is a bit too much to handle. Its irritating not only when the ads actually come up but even when they do not. There is a constant fear after every ball,will the ad come now or after the next ball? As a result, the flow of watching cricket is interrupted abruptly.

Cheerleaders: After every DLF maximum, err.. a six, more screen time was given to the cheer girls' skimpy outfit than the replays of the shot. I can understand the commercial reasons for calling a six a DLF maximum or introducing ads between balls, but I cannot find any logical reason for the presence of cheerleaders. I don't think anyone watches IPL matches just to see cheer girls.

Camera on the Commissioner of IPL : Lalit Modi made good use of the private jet he bought recently, or did he just charter it! Anyway, the point is he was present at almost all the matches of the IPL. The energy of the man is laudable, but is it necessary for the camera to zoom on his (smiling) face every second over with the commentators repeating for the nth time - "Lalit Modi - the commissioner of IPL, blah, blah, blah...". Please guys, a little less of Modi and a bit more of cricket will definitely cheer up the fans.

Strategic timeout: If the strategies discussed during the 'Strategic timeout' in all the IPL matches is published as a book, the book will have no pages, only the front and back covers with sponsor's logos all over it. Probably a picture of Lalit Modi too! The timeout is more disturbing than the ads or cheerleaders because it actually changes the rules of the game. Imagine if Football is played in four quarters instead of two halves.

On the whole, I really enjoyed the IPL, the intensity shown by the players was good, the skills displayed - especially the fielding - was world class, some of the captaincy moves were exceptional. Yet, the above listed things were a bit of a spoilsport. I hope next year's IPL will cut down on these irritants and provide a better coverage of the real thing.

The Magician from Mumbai - Sachin Tendulkar

“He’s done it, he’s done it”, screamed my colleague at the top of his voice. We all gathered around his computer to look at the scorecard, not that we were doing anything else for the last half an hour, ever since Sachin crossed 180. Once we made sure Sachin had indeed reached 200, we heaved a sigh of relief and tried to go back to work. In the last 30 minutes, none of us remembered the bugs that needed to be fixed, the test cases that had to be executed or the e-mails that were to be sent. But that’s what Sachin does to you, doesn’t he? It’s amazing how a little man, hardly 5feet 5inches tall, manages to hold the collective attention of a billion people.

Ever since I started watching cricket, Sachin has been a hero. In any Indian stadium( and in a lot of stadiums abroad), whenever Sachin is due to bat next and a wicket falls, there is a momentary silence, more as a formality, and as soon as Sachin steps on to the ground the cheering starts. The intensity of the cheer increases slowly as he walks towards the pitch and continues right till he takes his guard. As the bowler charges to bowl the first ball to Sachin, another round of cheering begins and reaches a crescendo when his bat connects with the ball. And in case, just in case, Sachin gets out the first ball, such is the intensity of the deafening silence that even a deaf will turn around. This happens every single time Sachin comes on to bat. There is no other player- anywhere in the world- who receives this kind of a unique reception from the crowd.

Such is the confidence in Sachin that as long as he is there, still batting, no Indian supporter ever loses hope. And when he gets out, however strong India’s position is, even the most optimistic of fans can’t help but get fidgety. Over the last two decades, India has produced some very fine players like Dravid, Ganguly, Laxman and Sehwag, but the groans are the loudest when Sachin gets out.

Sachin is a player liked by purists and masses alike, by children, by youngsters and by the older generation. People love to see him whether he is playing Twenty20, ODI or Test. Forget the batting, there is a buzz around the ground, an anticipation, whenever he comes on to bowl. And during fielding, whenever he dives to stop a ball, the crowd appreciates it as if it’s the best fielding display ever! In short, anything Sachin does on the field, absolutely anything, people love it.

There are some who disapprove of Sachin’s greatness. They say he has not won enough matches for India and that he doesn’t play well in finals (must confess I had been one of them). But even his most ardent detractors will admit that once he is on the field, anything is possible. That is why even while they criticize Sachin, they know if he is out, most of the time, India’s hopes are also out with him.

Sachin has already broken a lot of records, and will definitely break many more by the time he retires; but his greatest legacy will always be the joy he imparts to his fans, the way he raises the hopes of a billion people whenever he walks in to bat, the way he breaks their hearts when he untimely gets out with India at the door step of victory, the way he makes me, my colleagues and millions of other fans forget the grind of the daily lives and be totally mesmerized with his batting. Tomorrow, somebody else may score another ODI double century or break any of his innumerable records, but there cannot be another Sachin. There is and always will be only one.

At the risk of sounding clichéd, I must say that I am really fortunate to have been born in an era when Sachin played. A banner in Sharjah once read
“I Will See God When I Die But Till Then I Will See Sachin.”

I don’t think his diehard fans will disagree.

Champions League T20

A big talking point in the recently concluded Champions league Twenty20 tournament was the inability of any of the IPL teams to qualify for the semi-final. While Deccan Chargers were knocked out in the first round, RCB and Delhi Daredevils only managed to reach the super eights. This point has been used by all and sundry to ridicule the IPL as an over-hyped tournament without any “real” cricket. I would completely disagree with this point of view.

There is a big difference between IPL and other domestic teams. The players in the other domestic teams play together for the whole year, and not only the T20s but also other forms of the game. This allows the players to gel together and play as a team. On the other hand, the IPL players get together for a very short span before a major tournament which doesn’t allow them to bond together and it shows in the results.

Secondly, teams like NSW have a history behind them and money is not their only motivation. Continuing the legacy of stalwarts like the Don Bradman and Waugh brothers (all of whom played for NSW) is as important as the money they earn. If they lose, they not only let themselves and the team down, but also these cricketing greats. In contrast, the IPL players are mostly in the team to earn some good money. True, no sportsman wants to lose, but there isn’t any motivation to win either. As Dale Steyn famously said after the IPL-1, “IPL was a paid holiday”. This after RCB lost 10 of their 14 matches and finished seventh out of eight teams! I wonder whether he would have made this statement if he was representing his national or even the state team.

So, will the situation always be the same for the IPL teams? Will they just make up the numbers in tournaments like Champions league? I don’t think so. It will take time, at least couple more years, but IPL teams will get there. The other day in the match against Otago Volts, Ross Taylor received such a big reception from the Bangalore crowd that he must have thought he is in New Zealand. No, that’s not quite true; he doesn’t get this kind of reception even in New Zealand! From now on whenever he goes to bat for RCB, he will not only carry the million dollar cheque, but also the hopes of RCB fans. He will not only be accountable to Mr. Mallaya, but also to thousands of RCB fans. Once the players start associating themselves with the team, they will get that added motivation to perform, which in turn will allow the IPL teams to be more competitive. Also, the more matches they play together, the better will be the team spirit and better will be the performance.

What about the future of Champions league? The TRP ratings were recorded at 1.6 for the event, while it was 4.6 for IPL-2. The matches not involving any IPL teams were played in front of largely empty stands (Thank god the commentators did not make a fool of themselves by uttering the clichéd “What an electric atmosphere”, as they did in IPL-2).

But I think the tournament will only improve from here. Once the fans start relating with the foreign teams, the viewership will increase. In fact, even in this addition of the tournament, a lot of fans who did not support any team to start with, started supporting T&T by the end.

On the whole, Champions league was a very good tournament with some high quality cricket, though it would have been more enjoyable had any IPL team done better. Hopefully, the next edition of the tournament will bring more joy to the IPL fans

Rahul Dravid...The Perfect Cricketer

There are few cricketers in Indian cricket, who have had as big an impact on Indian cricket as Rahul Dravid. On the field and off the field he has been a perfect gentleman, a guy young cricketers can look up to. In fact, the cricketing journey of Rahul Dravid offers some important lessons even to non cricket fans.

Dravid was inducted into the Indian team in 1996 and quickly established himself as a Test batsman. He was thought of as a batsman with compact technique and flawless defence and more suited for Test matches than the one dayers. Another aspect of his one day cricket which made him unbefitting for the shorter version of the game was his running between the wickets. Unsurprisingly, he was dropped from the one day squad. The fighter that he is, Rahul Dravid fought back into the one day team by ironing out the flaws. He still had the compact technique but along with it added some more shots to his arsenal which helped him score quickly. He dramatically improved his running between the wickets which not only allowed him to improve his strike rate, but also took off the pressure on him to go for big shots. The result – he ended up as the highest run getter in the 1999 world cup. To accept his omission from the ODI squad in true spirits, come back to the national team and be the highest run getter in the world cup shows the guy’s character.

Rahul Dravid has always put the team above self. From 2001 to 2005, Rahul Dravid was going through a dream run and was the number one batsman for India – both in test and one day cricket. In order to accommodate 7 batsmen and improve the team balance, the team management asked him to keep the wickets in ODIs. Being both batsman and wicketkeeper can be a challenging task for anyone – especially when the last time one kept wickets was at under-16 level. Also, as the number one batsman in the team, he could have easily declined to keep wickets. But again, keeping the team’s interest in mind, Dravid accepted the additional responsibility of wicket keeping and did it with distinction.

To be successful in international cricket over a longer period to time, one has to continuously keep on improving. Rahul Dravid is not known for his fielding, however, the effort he puts in to improve his fielding is commendable. Among the senior players, he is the only one who uses the sliding-stop technique to field the ball. Even the relatively younger players like Virendra Sehwag and Zaheer Khan can’t do it.

When compared to his teammates, Rahul Dravid is probably the least naturally talented of all. He doesn’t have the hand-eye coordination of Sehwag, the elegance of Saurav Ganguly and Yuvraj Singh, the wrists of VVS Laxman and the overflowing talent of Tendulkar. And yet, in the last decade and a half, along with Sachin, he has been the most successful of all the Indian batsmen. He has won more test matches for India than any other batsman – including Sachin. He is a perfect example of how hard work and dedication can take you places.

Rahul Dravid will always be remembered as a selfless and committed cricketer who played his heart out for India. If some of the other Indian players had his attitude, India would have been the number 1 team in the world long time ago.

Test or Twenty20

Chris Gayle’s comment the other day, “To hell with Test cricket, I love Twenty20”, has reopened the debate on Test cricket getting marginalized by Twenty20. Okay, these weren’t his exact words, but they nevertheless raise some important questions on how a contemporary cricketer views Test and Twenty20 cricket. Chris Gayle is not the only one with such views. His teammate Dwayne Bravo is unfit for Test matches, but surprisingly fit for Twenty20. Going forward, I think more and more cricketers will get these kinds of mysterious injuries which rule them out of (only) Test cricket.

Where does the problem lie? Does it lie with the cricketers because they prefer money over playing for their country? Or does it lie with the ICC, which is still in denial about the impact of Twenty20 cricket and refuses to create a window for a tournament like IPL, which though a domestic event, has become the number one tournament in world cricket?

Let’s see this from a cricketer’s perspective. Chris Gayle will potentially earn $800,000 annually playing for Kolkata Knight Riders, and that too by playing only for a few weeks. Should he be chastised for thinking he should be left alone for this period to earn some decent money? Moreover, the West Indies-England test series was not even in the FTP, it was a hastily arranged series to justify television deals. Isn’t he entitled to be a tad angry? Many former cricketers and experts are making condescending remarks about how playing for the country is the ultimate glory for a sportsman and that money can never buy it. I wonder how many of them would have made that choice if IPL had started in their playing days. Besides, cricketers play in IPL for only a month, the remaining time they are free to play for their country.

This brings us to the role ICC can play to fix the problem. First they must understand how big IPL is - both in terms of money and popularity - and create a window for the event. This will spare the players from making a choice between their country and franchisee. As they say, if you can’t beat them, join them.

Secondly, the ICC has to look into the issue of player burn out. As it is, the international cricket calendar is so crammed that players hardly get any breathing space. Now with IPL and possibly some more twenty20 tournaments, it will become virtually impossible for cricketers to play all forms of game throughout the year. And the form of cricket that gives sufficient rest with least financial loss is Test cricket. Naturally, cricketers will skip Test cricket to be injury free for the more lucrativeTwenty20 and ODIs – as Mahendra Singh Dhoni did last year by skipping the Test tour to Sri Lanka.

Something has to go and the most feasible candidate is the one day cricket. Test cricket cannot go and the cricketers (and administrators) will not let Twenty20 go. ICC has to slowly decrease the number of ODIs, which anyway have become largely uninteresting and predictable. In fact, the main reason for the arrival and popularity of Twenty20 was the monotonous nature of one day cricket.

Its high time ICC prioritizes the different forms of cricket and finds a way which preserves the importance of test cricket as well as takes care of player’s interest. Otherwise it won’t be long before players are dropped onto the field by a private jet on a Test match morning - that is, only if they decide to play.

Australia on decline ?

India crushed Australia by 320 runs in Mohali to win the second test and take a 1-0 lead in the series. India is the only team to have consistently competed with Australia in last 10 years. Be it Kolkata 2001, Adelaide 2004 or Perth 2008, India did have the measure of Australia in some important games. Still this victory in Mohali is unprecedented in many ways and may be a reflection of what we see in future. The era of Australian dominance over the world, may finally be coming to an end.

A surprising thing in the defeat was the way Australia played. Winning and losing are part of the game and even the best of sides can have an off day, but the way you play determines what percentage of matches you win. I remember the second test at Edgbaston in 2005 Ashes series, where Australia was set a target of 293. They resumed the final day, with an almost hopeless situation at 175-8, but played aggressively, fought till the end and eventually lost only by 2 runs. Though Australia lost the test and series, they played like a champion team and lost like one (and mauled England 5-0 in the next Ashes series).
But in the Mohali test, Australia was defensive from the outset and lacked the aggression and fighting spirit that made them the no. 1 team in the world. After India piled up 469 runs in the first innings, the Australian team of yesteryears would have counter attacked and taken on the Indian bowling, instead this Australian team crawled to 269 from 101.4 overs at a run rate of 2.6! Also while chasing 515 runs in the fourth innings they over-attacked and were reduced to 58-5. Though this may seem to be aggressive cricket, in reality it was a desperate move by a team lacking in confidence. It was as if they accepted the defeat even before the innings started. Successful Australian teams in past scored over 4 runs an over by just playing their natural game, not by trying to hit every ball out of the ground.

India scored 314 runs in their second innings at a run rate of almost 5 runs per over losing only 3 wickets. I can hardly remember any other innings where Australian bowlers were treated with such disrespect. None of the three fast bowlers or the spinners looked like taking a wicket. The most striking thing was the inability of the fast bowlers to reverse swing the ball, whereas the Indians did it at will. It was hard to believe that it was the same pitch where Australia was bundled out for 269. In past Australian bowlers did have days when batsmen had the better of exchanges, none less than the famous Kolkata test in 2001, where VVS Laxman and Rahul Dravid denied them a wicket for the whole day. But usually this was because of some exemplary cricket by the batting team. In Mohali, Indian batsmen played good cricket, but not good enough to justify Australia leaking 314 runs at a rate of 5 runs an over. The decline in their bowling prowess just shows how important Glen McGrath and Shane Warne were to Australia.

The Mohali test may just not be a defeat for Australia, but a beginning to the end of their dominance of world cricket. Cricket, like any other sport, is played as much in the mind as in the field. You can bounce back after a defeat in the field, but if you lose mentally it requires a big effort to come back. Unfortunately, Australia seems to be losing the mental game. One of the great sights in test cricket was aggressive Australian batsmen scoring fast runs and making a mockery of world class bowlers; which may not happen anymore now. On the other hand, the rest of the teams will no longer fear Australia as they used to. The good part is that games will be more competitive and we will no longer see any 16 match winning streaks, but the sad part is this happened due to lowering of the bar by Australia rather than others raising it.

Roger Federer and the Australian Cricket Team

Roger Federer and the Australian Cricket team(ACT) make an interesting comparison. There are a lot of similarities between them and yet there are some startling differences; differences which separate legends from champions.

Both Roger Federer and ACT have dominated their respective sport in the last few years. Roger Federer has won 13 and reached 17 finals of the last 22 grand slams. The consistency with which Federer played, especially in the grand slams, made him such a force that most of the players lost even before stepping on to the court. Similarly, Australia has dominated test and one day cricket over the last decade. They have won, an incredible three consecutive world cups and have won test series all over the world, including India which Steve Waugh, the former Australian captain called the final frontier. Like Roger Federer, Australia won half the battle even before taking the field.

Surprisingly, the decline of Roger Federer and ACT has also coincided. 2008 is the year where Roger Federer lost Wimbledon, a grand slam which he had won for the last five years. He lost the No.1 ranking which he held for a record 237 weeks. Though, he won the US open, he lost the aura of invincibility which surrounded him. 2008 is also the year in which Australia lost to India 2-0 in the test series, first time in almost 10 years where they failed to win a test in a series. Also, the manner in which they lost has made other teams believe they can also win against Australia. As with Federer, though Australia is still better than most teams, they are no longer invincible.

But there are some big differences between them as well. Australia come across as a group of overconfident and arrogant cricketers, with no respect for the opposition and who would go to any extent to win a match; remember Sydney test? Under the garb of mental disintegration, they were the ones who introduced sledging into the gentleman's game. On the other hand, being humble in victory is one of Federer's traits. He always respects his opponents irrespective of their rankings, although this should not be misunderstood as lack of confidence.

Now that both Federer and ACT are on decline, the differences are even more clear. When Federer lost the epic Wimbledon final, he had nothing but praise for Nadal. In fact, after every loss (and he has lost quite a few this year), he always gives credit to the opponent. He is a perfect example of someone who is gracious in defeat. ACT, on the other hand are sore loser. Mathew Hayden blamed the incidents in the "Third World" for the series defeat against India, as if India were playing in some other world. Instead of accepting that they were beaten by a better team, Australia is trying to find excuses for the defeat.

Federer is humble in victory and gracious in defeat, whereas ACT is the exact opposite. Hope Australia learns a few lessons from Roger Federer and maintain the dignity of gentleman's game. Though I am an optimist, I somehow feel I am hoping against hope !