Why should I support RCB ?

Here is a question. In the Formula one championship if Karun Chandok is on the racing track, whom will you rather support? Karun Chandok or the team Force India (Owned by Vijay Mallaya)? I would rather go with Chandok than supporting a supposedly Indian team without any Indian drivers.

I have a similar dilemma with the IPL. For the last three years I was a die-hard fan of RCB. RCB had some of the stalwarts from Karnataka in Anil Kumble and Rahul Dravid along with promising players like Robin Uthappa, Vinay Kumar, A Mithun and Manish Pandey, all of whom played for Karnataka in the Ranji Trophy. Having these players in RCB gave me a reason to support the franchisee. The support to RCB was almost natural as there was continuity in supporting Karnataka and RCB.

Now that none of the above mentioned players are in the team except Mithun ( Kumble as a ‘mentor’ doesn’t count), I am finding it difficult to support my ‘home’ team. In fact, in RCB’s first match against Kochi, when Vinay kumar got Virat Kohli’s wicket, it made me happier.

So, the question comes, why should I support RCB? Is it because it has ‘Bangalore’ in the team name or because it plays all its ‘home’ matches in Bangalore or because its owner is based in Bangalore? Frankly speaking, none of these reasons excite me enough to support RCB.

It is not possible for any of the Franchisees to have all the players from the local region, but if at least 4-5 players are from the local team, it is easier to build a fan base and gain support.

Come April 19th and the match between Rajasthan Royals and the RCB and I might just support the Royals.

The art of taking power plays

In the second ODI between India and South Africa at Wanderers, South Africa required 46 runs from 19 overs at a rate of 2.42 with 7 wickets still intact,when they opted for batting powerplay. 5 overs later they had lost 3 more wickets, while scoring runs at a rate of 4 per over and the match was back in balance. India went on to win the nail-biter by 1 run.

Whether South Africa would have won the match if they did not opt for the powerplay is a hypothetical question which is anybody's guess; but the fact of the matter is that opting for the batting powerplay is a decision which most of the teams find tricky, especially during a run chase. There are so many variables attached to the decision that it becomes clear only in hindsight whether the decision to opt for the powerplay was a correct one or not. Consider the ODI between India and SA; if Smith and Miller had managed to score some runs by hitting over the infield, losing at most one wicket, taking the powerplay would have been hailed as a master stroke, with the argument that it allowed the batsmen to break free from the pressure created by the bowlers. Alas, that was not the case and South Africa lost their way during the powerplay.


Why Batting Powerplays don't work

Most of the time when a batting team opts for the powerplay, it is as if they are obliged to score runs quickly and quite surprisingly, they try to do so by slogging. Even batsmen with good techniques go for the horizontal bat shots and play across the line. Some times they do succeed, but most of the times they falter.

Another reason why powerplays don't work is the unreasonably high expectation teams have from them. Consider a scenario where a team is, say, 220-1 after 35 overs with two well-settled batsmen. The team aims for a minimum of 50-60 runs from the powerplay as the batsmen are well settled. On most occasions , the over-ambitious batsmen lose their wicket.

Sometimes the powerplay breaks the batting team's momentum. The batsmen would be scoring largely in singles and twos till the start of the powerplay and suddenly they find that the gaps in the field are plugged. One or two quite overs and the momentum shifts to the bowling side. This is not the case with the first powerplay, which coincides with the start of the innings or with the bowling powerplay, which most teams take right after the first one ( on a side note, its a surprise that there haven't been any innovative use of the bowling powerplay).

There are exceptions, though

However, sometimes the batting power play does work out for good. I remember the last ODI series between Australia and South Africa, where South Africa chased big totals in couple of tight games with the help of batting powerplay. Albie Morkel utilized them to perfection and scored some heavy runs during the powerplay which eventually won South Africa the matches. But again, such instances are quite rare.


Since there are so many pitfalls in taking a batting powerplay out of turn, most teams take it after the 40th over when batting first, preferably from 44th to 49th over. There is very little chance for things to go wrong at that stage of the innings. The decision is trickier when the team is chasing. No team or captain has mastered the art of taking the batting powerplay at the right time during a stiff chase. The ability of the captains to utilize the powerplays to their advantage ( or at least prevent it from being a spoiler) might just be the deciding factor in the world cup.

The curious case of Saurav Ganguly

So finally, no one bid for Saurav Ganguly. A great career coming to an unfairly ignominious end. Why did the franchisees choose not to bid for a player of Ganguly's caliber? The following could be the reasons:

Performance - In the 26 matches that he has played in IPL, Ganguly has a strike rate of 104.67. Compared to this, batsmen like Dravid, Wasim Jaffer and Laxman, who have a reputation of being slow scorers, have strike rates of 120.68, 107.44 and 105.45 respectively. Whichever angle you see it, Ganguly's batting performance was a big let down in the last 3 IPLs. This simple fact was perhaps drowned by his reputation.

Captaincy - Ganguly was one of the best captains India has ever had. There is no question about it. He had a keen eye for talent and had the guts to back it all the way. That is why the team he built had some talented young players like Sehwag, Yuvraj and Zaheer, all of whom he backed to the hilt. But given a team, which did not necessarily have the advantage of being more talented than the other teams, the important question was - Can he bring the team together and inspire them to punch above their weight, a la Shane Warne? Sadly, the answer was a big no. In the first and the third edition of the tournament, where he captained KKR, in spite of having a decent team he was not able to take KKR to the semi-finals.

Reputation - Saurav Ganguly has always had a reputation of someone who is a difficult person to handle. Right from the time when as a 19 year old he refused to carry drinks (something which he denies doing) to his altercation with Greg Chappell, he has been controversy's child. In a tournament like IPL, where players from across the world come together for a very short duration of time, the ability to get along with the players and coaches count for a lot.

Base price - The combination of the aforementioned three points makes it very difficult for any of the franchisees to bid for him. Add to it the base price of $400,000, it becomes impossible. Perhaps, Ganguly would have found few takers at $200,000, which was his initial base price.

It will be interesting to see how the Kolkata crowd reacts to Ganguly's omission from the IPL. Having seen the fanatic support Ganguly commands in whole of Bengal, I would be surprised if KKR gets any support from the crowd. But that is still some time away. The IPL auction has shown one thing for sure - stature counts for little in this big bad world of cricketainment.

Is Dravid the new Laxman?

Over the last 5 years or so, ever since he moved out of selector’s radar for ODIs, VVS Laxman has had the Damocles’ sword hanging over his head. Every failure made his critics ask “Is it not the right time for Laxman to retire gracefully and give the opportunity to a match-winner like Yuvraj?” But the year 2010 has changed that. By playing some crucial knocks in the second innings to win/save important test matches, he has shut his critics’ mouth. But the critics have found a new victim – Rahul Dravid.

It was hardly two tests ago that he played a masterful innings of 191 against the New Zelanders, but failures in the first two tests against South Africa has prompted the critics to yet again question his style of batting; arguing that he slows down the scoring rate for India and hands over the initiative to the opposition. The only reason the critics are not asking for his head yet is that there is no obvious replacement. Raina inability against short ball has been exposed (yet again!) and even if you include Pujara in the playing eleven, it still leaves one slot open.

If Dravid fails again in the third test he may still keep his place in the side but one thing is sure – the sword hanging over his head is unlikely to go away. A good knock may push it away for a while, but like a swinging pendulum it will come back to its ‘rest’ position. In that sense, Dravid has become the new Laxman.

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.