Sportizen

Wikileaks Exclusive: Dhoni’s secret & sensational plot to help India win the World Cup!

2011-03-24T13:52:00.008+05:30

By H Natarajan

This is quite sensational – and incredibly bold, bizarre and desperate. One would never have believed it, had it not come from the undercover Wikileaks – no less.

Away from the prying eyes of India’s media hounds and even away from Indian team members, captain Mahendra Singh Dhoni and coach Gary Kirsten met at an undisclosed destination whose security would have done Fort Knox proud. This was not just another meeting. It was a Top Secret plot that Dhoni had masterminded in conjunction with the BCCI. There was one hitch: The plan was possible only if one man agreed – Sachin Tendulkar. “Operation TRS” (reverse of SRT and short for Sachin Ramesh Tendulkar) was extremely dangerous.

Kirsten and Dhoni huddled in the conclave to plot a new strategy that would help India win the World Cup. It was a desperate situation and the solutions were desperate. Both men agreed that the World Cup can only be won by Indian by minimizing the reliance on the rest of the Indian team! But what was shocking was the modus operandi unveiled by Dhoni.

Excerpts from the conclave:

Dhoni: Gary, we have to accept it: this team cannot be relied upon any longer to win the World Cup and make our common dream come true. We have to think of something revolutionary.

Kirsten: Hmmm…

Dhoni: Sachin has to do more than what he has done so far.

Kirsten: What?! What more can he do? He has scored two scored hundreds in this World Cup , has thrown himself on the field like a 22-year-old and has been sharing with the team all the wisdom that he gained over 22 years in international cricket. What more can he do?

Dhoni: This may seem bizarre, but this is the only way I think India has any hopes of winning the World Cup.

Kirsten: Hmmm…

Dhoni: You got to get Sachin to bowl… not as stop-gap, but as a front-line bowler… ten full overs.

Kirsten: Are your crazy?! He is not a bowler, MS.

Dhoni: Says who? He has got 154 wickets in ODIs. Jog your memory to the Hero Cup semi-final against South Africa. None of India’s frontline bowlers wanted to bowl that decisive last over against South Africa. Just six runs were needed and South Africa had Brian McMillan at the crease. And Sachin bowled India to victory in the cauldron of Eden. How could you forget that! You are a South African!

Kirsten: But Sachin can’t run through sides with his bowling.

Dhoni: Not true! He has taken five wickets in an innings – against Australia and Pakistan. Besides that, on four other occasions he has taken four wickets in an innings.

Kirsten: But that was long time ago… Anyways, if that’s what you want, I’ll ask Sachin to bowl 10 overs.

Dhoni: Gary, that’s not all! You need to ask Sachin to bowl more than 10 overs!

Kirsten: Did you have one peg too many, MS!

Dhoni: You know I don’t have alcohol - milk is my favourite drink. I have read the rule book well. And after consulting a high-powered legal team of the BCCI, I’m advised that we can punch holes in the wording of the rule book which will allow Sachin to bowl 10 overs of left-arm!

Kirsten: I’m convinced, you have not had alcohol; you are on drugs!

Dhoni: I come from a very principled family whose value systems are very strong. I don’t even know what drugs look like. I’m merely punching holes in the rule book, much like Greg Chappell did when he asked his brother Trevor to bowl underarm. By the time the ICC makes amendments to the rules, we would have achieved our goal of winning the World Cup. I’m convinced that if Sachin bowls left-handed at 50% of his ability, he would exercise greater control than Ashish, Munaf and Sree. And what’s the big deal about being left-handed? Sachin is left-handed as well. Everybody knows that. The world has seen him signing autographs left-handed.

Kirsten: So you want me to ask Sachin to bowl 20 overs? Anything else?

Dhoni: Yes!

Kirsten: Yes!!!!

Dhoni: I want you to get Sachin to bowl 30 overs.

Kirsten: I think you need to get a MRI of your brain. NOW! You have lost it, MS. No doubt about that. Stop reading the newspapers, watching TV and giving so much importance to what’s said on Facebook and Twitter and you will be less stressed out.

Dhoni: Chill, Gary. Just hear my plan in it’s entirely… Sometime during the course of the game and before he has bowled a single ball, Piyush (Chawla) will leave the field to go into the dressing room and a substitute will take his place. In the next over, Sachin will also go inside the pavilion and another substitute will take his place in the field… an expert quick-change artist, flown especially from America, will be in the dressing room…

Kirsten: Can we talk tomorrow when you are sane - hopefully?

Dhoni: All visionaries who thought out of the box have been laughed at, so I don’t blame you for laughing at me. Allow me to complete what I have to say…

Kirsten: You think nobody would find out that it’s Sachin masquerading as Piyush?

Dhoni: Nobody in the world would ever doubt Sachin’s credibility. He is God! How can God lie? Oh, I forgot… During the makeover, a Hollywood whiz who will be part of the operation would stretch a Piyush-lookalike rubber mask over Sachin’s face. Trust me, even Piyush’s mom won’t recognize that it’s not her son!

Kirsten: What’s the big idea of making Sachin look like Piyush?

Dhoni: I want you to get Sachin to bowl 10 of Piyush’s overs as well!!!

Kirsten: I think I’m going to faint. Let me leave…

Dhoni: Relax, Gary. Sachin turns the leg-spin long way more than Piyush can ever hope to. With Sachin bowling 30 overs, Zaheer and Ashwin bowling 10 each, our bowling would suddenly look brilliant. As a backup, we have Yuvi.

Kirsten: This is crazy.

Dhoni: No, this is cricket’s Mahabharat. You should have been the Krishna, but somehow I have to be the Krishna and you are the Arjuna. I know Sachin is very correct and extremely conscientious, but sometimes white lies have to be told if Dharma has to prevail. Even Yudishtra – the epitome of truth - had to lie to his guru Droncharya on the advice of Lord Krishna. Tell Sachin that his Dharma is towards his motherland. It’s his duty to defend her at ALL COSTS. Ask him to reflect at the number of times he was given out by biased umpires. Ask him to think of the times the Kalyug ka Raavans adopted foul means to get his wicket. All that I’m imploring you is to ask him to protect Team India from outside forces… and, if I may say so, even inside forces! Sachin is very patriotic and he is also very devout Hindu. Appeal to those two reasons.

Kirsten: I’m confused…

Dhoni: All is fair in love and war. And the World Cup is cricket’s World War!

Kirsten: But the batting problem remains, MS. The team has embarrassingly collapsed far too often in the qualifying stage of this World Cup.

Dhoni: I have a plan for that as well!

Kirsten: Now what else?!!

Dhoni: My plan goes thus… Unlike his normal practice, Sachin will take strike to the first ball of the innings. And then take a single off the last ball… and he will have to be asked to continue keep taking singles off the last ball of every over … till the 50th over if we bat first or till our target is achieved, if we are chasing!

Kirsten: I saw a Hindi movie recently… (scratching his bald head) what is the name? …. yes, Sholay! In that there is a dialogue (Kirsten says in his South African accent) …"Gabbar ko pakkadna hai, aur who bhi zinda! Gabbar koi bakri ka baccha hai?” You made it sound as sound so simple MS!

Dhoni: Look at the mountain of records Sachin has created. Did anybody in his wildest of fantasies ever think all those were possible? Yet he achieved it. There is nothing Sachin can’t. There is always a first time, and for that first time there is nobody better than Sachin! If you get Sachin to follow my plan, he can bat 50 overs all by himself! Now see the probability of India winning the World Cup with Sachin batting the FULL 50 overs and bowling 30 overs! That’s 80 overs in Sachin’s control! Wow!

By the way, this is the plan for the quarter-final game against Australia. If you can get Sachin to implement my plan and win the game, then India lifting the World Cup itself is assured. The semi-final and final have been taken care. Now I don’t know how, but I’m told they have been! We don’t have to do anything other than just go out and play without any pressure of winning! It’s difficult to strike deals with Australia, hence my master plan is for Australia.

I would like to reveal a secret. The Aussies will be forced by the umpires into going for their two UDRS very early in the game. After which decisions will be in our favour as they would have exhausted their two referral options. Everything has been planned to perfection. It’s a high-powered operation involving lot of power people in high places.

Kirsten: What if your grand plan fails. Is their a Plan B?

Dhoni: Of course! If things go completely awry, Plan B is to fake a terrorist attack! “Terrorists’ would be taking positions at strategic places in the ground before the game against Australia starts. A Supreme Commander appointed for this very purpose will be told if and when to give the green signal to the ‘terrorists’ to create panic – mind you, there will not be any killings. Once the ‘terrorists’ swing into action, a Swift Action Force (SAF) would huddle the Australian team into safety. The Australian team management would be informed about the ‘terrorists’ and give them the choice of staying back or getting airlifted out of the country in a waiting chopper next to the stadium. You know the Aussies… they chickened out of the Sri Lankan leg in the 1996 World Cup due to fear of terror attacks. They WILL leave. Once we know that they are well and gone, it would be announced that the ‘terror’ attack was a prank – an advance April 1 joke. Of course, the ‘terrorists’ would be ‘captured’ and taken to an unknown destination. In reality, the ‘unknown destination’ is Andamans, where they will be on a fully-paid vacation with their families! Since the Aussies would have packed off, the match would be forfeited to India.

I know you can be trusted and that’s why I’m confiding what I’m going to tell you now. Please don’t reveal it to anybody. Actually Sharad Pawar is part of the master plan. He wants India to win the World Cup during his tenure as ICC president. He also wants to get back at the Aussies by ensuring that they can’t shove him off the stage during the post-presentation photo-shoot by the global media! And for that to happen, the Aussies would have to be stopped in the quarter-final itself!

When the nation of 1 billion celebrates India’s World Cup triumph, the terror prank will be forgotten… and the IPL that starts six days after the end of the World Cup will ensure that!

You and Sachin can go back to your respective families and live happily ever after with your common dream of winning the World Cup fulfilled! And, yes, my dream to figure in the Forbes List of richest men in the world would also take a giant leap!

(Disclaimer: The above piece is pure fiction. It’s just a spoof and none of the incidents mentioned ever took place nor anything about the people mentioned in the article is true)

(H Natarajan is the Executive Editor of www.cricketcountry.com)

“Dharmaraj” Tendulkar ‘walks’; makes the nation proud!

2011-03-22T10:48:00.008+05:30

By H Natarajan

The great Barry Richards once said: “The Australians will walk only when they run out of gas!”

His reference was to the Australian batsmen and their philosophy that it’s not for them to walk if the umpire has given them not out, even if they know they are out. While the romantics would believe that winning is not everything, the Aussies believe that winning is the only thing.

Rewind to the 1981 Benson & Hedges World Series Cup at Melbourne Cricket Ground, Australian captain Greg Chappell ordered his kid brother Trevor to bowl underarm to prevent Brian McKechnie from hitting a six off the last ball and tying the game.

Flashback to 2007-08 series against India when Ricky Ponting raised a ruckus after Michael Clarke caught the ball that obviously came off the ground. Ponting came up with Oscar-winning histrionics to hoodwink the umpire into giving a decision against Sourav Ganguly. It was another chapter in the history of ‘Ugly Australian” image.

But one Australian who was an anachronism of his times was Adam Gilchrist - the epitome of honesty. He was the last of the dinosaurs who played his cricket the way it was in the pristine past when it was a gentleman’s game.

One of the finest examples of Gilchrist’s honesty came in the 2003 World Cup semi-final against Sri Lanka when he “walked”. Yes, in the semi-final of a World Cup! Here was a true gentleman who knew he had to obey the dictates of his conscience, no matter how big the theatre. If something was not right, it was not right. Period. Integrity cannot be circumstantial. By the way, the appeal against Gilchrist was turned down by umpire Rudi Koertzen.

I don’t know how much Gilchrist was appreciated in an Australian team that was brought up with values that was Polar opposite to that of his own, but it did not matter to him what anybody in the world thought of his actions. It was in the fitness of things that Gilchrist’s nickname is “Church”!

One sportsperson who enjoys divine status is Sachin Tendulkar. Here is a man who, in an international career spanning three decades, has reached dizzying heights. While his head is lost high somewhere in the clouds, his feet are firmly planted on terra firma. The middle-class values that have been inculcated in him by his humble family are still intact despite the surreal trappings of fame and money that can so easily set astray mere mortals. But Tendulkar is anointed as “God” by an adoring nation. And God cannot be seen doing something that is wrong.

He gave an exemplary account of his status when he walked after nicking Ravi Rampaul, even as the umpire was nodding his head sideways to turn down the West Indies’ appeal. Even if the matter was referred to the third umpire, the replays would have been inconclusive - in the absence of Hot Spot and Snickometer – and the challenge would have only resulted in the benefit of the doubt going to the batsman. But Tendulkar’s high integrity ensured that the matter did not have to go that route.

Tendulkar’s act on Sunday in the 2011 World Cup was in sharp contrast to Ponting’s, less than 24 hours earlier in the game against Pakistan. The Australian captain refused to leave, despite knowing full well he was out. It needed technology to issue him an undignified exit.

Some people may say that it was an inconsequential game and hence Tendulkar walked. They are wrong. These are the cynics who would also say that Tendulkar is self-centered and is obsessed with his own records. Yes, this was an inconsequential game. By that token, here was a fantastic opportunity for him to score without any pressure and chalk up hundred that would have given him an incredible hundred centuries in international (Tests + ODIs) cricket. Chennai’s Chidambaram Stadium is one of his favourite, high-scoring venues, and here was a game in which West Indies did not have Kemar Roach – their lynchpin.

People like Tendulkar are made of a different mettle. They will simply not cheat. In that sense he is like the great GR Viswanath, who recalled Bob Taylor in that 1978-79 Jubilee Test – a gesture that cost India the match. Ask GRV if he regretted that generosity and he would tell you that he would do that every time! The outcome is incidental; what matters is the intent.

Tendulkar has been a victim of many wrong decisions in his career. That is only to be expected as umpires are humans as well. Many batsmen around the world justify not walking by saying that “these things even out” over a period of time because they have been wrongly given out at other times in their careers.Tendulkar does not cater to such thinking.

And that’s incredible because in an era where corruption in thought and action has become a way of life in India, where the Radias, Rajas and Kalmadis show the way to impressionable minds that there is no percentage in ethical behaviour, where the nation’s fabric and soul is destroyed by politicians who are systematically destroying the country, Tendulkar stands as a paragon of virtue.

To all those who unfairly indict him of being selfish, here was an act to show that he is like a lotus in a filthy pond. In my book, he emerged a bigger hero today. He showed a generation of young people that there is place for honesty in a dog-eat-dog world of cut-throat professionalism where anybody can be ethical – if he wants to.

Tendulkar made India proud - yet again! And how!

( H Natarajan is the Executive Editor of www.cricketcountry.com )

Home truths before India and Dhoni

2011-03-11T00:22:00.004+05:30

By H Natarajan

The optimists bracketed India among the pre-tournament favourties while the jingoists hailed the Men in Blue as champions-in-waiting. But only a miniscule minority of realists squeaked, amid the hype and hoopla, that’s India’s progress in the 2011 World Cup hinged heavily on the side’s anemic bowling.

For a long time now, the potency of the Indian batting has covered up glaring deficiencies in the bowling department. This weapon, many felt, would be considerably enhanced on the flat tracks of the subcontinent. There was also the belief that the subcontinent wickets would blunt the warheads of teams like Australia, South Africa and England that relied heavily on pace while at the same time place a team like India, banking on three specialist spinners, in a favorable position.

As India found out quickly, reality check does not bounce! The first reality was that a total of 300-plus can no longer be considered a match-winning total – a point that was spectacularly hammered home by Ireland when they successfully chased England’s target of 327 and England’s near-successful chase of 338 in that tied game against India. The second reality check is that quality pace bowlers can cause considerable damage, whatever be the conditions as Mitchell Johnson, Lasith Malinga, Kemar Roach, Tim Bresnan and Zaheer Khan have proved so far in this championship.

India is sitting on top of the heap in Group B. But that position will give the team little comfort, given how the matches have panned so far.

So where have things gone wrong for India for me to strike the note of guarded optimism, if not downright pessimism?
The first mistake is a well-documented one: The resurrection of Piyush Chawla and the overlooking of a proven performer like Pragyan Ojha. Chawla was creamed by the English tailender that India almost lost from a winning position. He failed yet again against Ireland and was surprisingly chosen to play a third successive match – this time against Netherlands.

Chawla’s disastrous outings have read: 10-0-71-2 vs England; 8-0-56-0 vs Ireland; 10-0-47-2 vs Netherlands. In all three games, he was India’s most expensive bowler. It’s human to err, but it’s downright stupid to persist with an error. Foolhardy obstinacy can never be a virtue.

Harbhajan Singh was expected to be one of the two strike bowlers for India, alongside Zaheer Khan. But he has taken just two wickets from four outings in this World Cup and has been restrictive at best. When you factor the performances – rather, the non-performances - of the two spinners and juxtapose their report card with that of the Indian fast bowlers in this tournament, it does not augur well for India.

Shantakumaran Sreesanth was clobbered for 53 runs in five overs by Bangladesh and lost the confidence of the team management; Munaf Patel has been inconsistent while Ashish Nehra has been unimpressive in first outing in his own backyard of Delhi. One shudders to think the plight of the team had Yuvraj Singh not come to the rescue as a match-winning bowler.

Yuvraj is doing for India in this World Cup what Mohinder Amarnath did in India’s victorious campaign in 1983. But Amarnath played a great supporting role as a bowler; here Yuvraj is asked to be the lead actor! And that’s where they have to get it right if the script has to unfold to box office expectations.

Had India been chasing against Bangladesh, the script would have been lot different. That spirited performance by Bangladesh, against a mammoth Indian total of 370 for four, put the Indian bowling in proper perspective in the very opening game of the tournament.

The Indian batting machine, powered by Sachin Tendulkar’s hundred, scored 338 against England, but what seemed a match-winning score was made to look woefully inadequate as Andrew Strauss made mincemeat of the Indian bowling. It was only Zaheer’s genius with the old ball that brought about a dramatic transformation in the game and, in the end, allowed India to tie the game.

If there was further confirmation needed about the insipid Indian bowling, then successive matches against Associate nations Ireland and Netherlands gave ample evidence. In fact, had Mahendra Singh Dhoni or Yusuf Pathan got out early, India may well have lost the game to Ireland. And against Netherlands, India needed more than 50 runs with just the bowlers left to bat. But for the second time running, Yuvraj Singh bailed the side out if a possible ignominy.

The single biggest gain in the last one year has been Virat Kohli’s exemplary batting. At No 4, Kohli is a sane and stabilizing influence in a side loaded with ballistic batsmen. But the run out against Ireland and the tinkering with his batting slot would have negated much of the confidence he had gained from that marvelous century on his World Cup debut. It will be suicidal for India to do anything that will dent the youngster’s confidence.

If sides like Bangladesh, Ireland and Netherlands have caused much grief to India, the alarm bells would be ringing in the Indian camp for the matches ahead. Dhoni has very little at his command to juggle around in case of bowling emergencies. In the light of frontline bowlers failing in a heap, it would make sense for India to abandon the four-bowler theory and go in for a fifth specialist bowler.

The team management cannot waste any further time in inducting the talented Ravichandran Ashwin in the eleven. Ashwin should open the bowling in place of Zaheer, who will be lot more dangerous with the old ball in the middle overs. And the time to unfold that strategy would have to be against South Africa on Saturday. It’s a game I would also like to see Sreesanth coming back into the team. He has done well against the South Africans in the recent series and it his confidence against the Proteas will be that much higher. Sreesanth is a strike bowler and if he finds his form and confidence, it will do immense good in the crucial matches ahead.

Matches are won on the field and not by TV hype. The team has to take their game to a higher level. If not, for at least four more years, Ritesh Deshmukh will not be able to eat chocolates, Sajid Khan will have to eschew non-veg, John Abraham will have to stay away from veg and Akshay Kumar will probably die of hunger! Get the point?!

( H Natarajan is the Executive Editor of www.cricketcountry.com )

Ireland’s display against India shows why they are ready for big league

2011-03-08T11:10:00.002+05:30

By H Natarajan

The ICC effected a subtle change in its “beyond-the-2.5 meter rule” with regard to lbw referrals under the UDRS system. As per the amendment, if replays indicate that the ball would travel in excess of 2.5 metres from the point of impact, the batsman can still be given out if Hawk-Eye shows the ball striking any part of the middle stump at a comfortable height.

And it’s because of the rule change by the ICC, bang in the middle of the World Cup, that saw umpire Rod Tucker reverse his earlier decision and adjudge Ireland's Alex Cusack lbw toYuvraj Singh. The ICC took the decision to bring about this dramatic change following a similar incident in the India-England game where Ian Bell was controversially declared not out.

Commenting in the group Cricket Fans on Facebook, Srinivasan Narayanan hit the nail on the head: “If you can change a rule midway, then why not grant Ireland full status now?”

Srini’s is not a voice in the wilderness. As Ireland soldier on impressively in the 2011 World Cup, they are winning the respect and admiration of opponents, critics, the cricketing cognoscenti around the world and the masses.

Not since Sri Lanka’s compelling and consistent on-field performances, an associate member nation has made such forceful claims for full ICC membership as Ireland. In fact, cricket has undergone a sea change in the near three decades since Sri Lanka got Test status.

It’s now a high-pressure game with the demands on the players scaling stratospheric levels in keeping with the high stakes. It’s in this dramatically different scenario, Ireland has measured up to the best in the business.

It’s all quiet on the Western Front after the din of the day-night drama at Bengaluru. The scoreboard says, India beat Ireland by five wickets. Fairly convincing, it may seem. But what cold statistics don’t reveal to those who had not followed the match closely is how things could have been vastly different with just the loss of one more Indian wicket at a critical juncture.

India were fortunate that one of the coolest heads in the game, Mahendra Singh Dhoni, walked in with India’s score reading an uneasy 100 for the loss of Virender Sehwag, Gautam Gambhir, Sachin Tendulkar and Virat Kohli. Another 108 runs were needed for victory and there was just Yusuf Pathan in the hut.

Had Dhoni got out quickly at this point, the pressure on Pathan would have been enormous as the last of the recognized batsman. Pathan would not have been able to throw his bat as freely as he did. Yes, one wicket was all that Ireland needed at this stage which could have plunged a nation of billion-plus people into a huge disappointment. And another victory would have meant Ireland’s claims for higher recognition was almost guaranteed, as it would have followed that epic, back-from-the-dead victory over England at the same venue.

The Indian captain had ensured that victory was well within India’s grasp when he left with the score at 167. In a manner of speaking, Dhoni ‘took’ the Batting Powerplay by getting out, as the man to follow was that “Dexterous Destroyer”, Yusuf Pathan. And “Air Marshall” Pathan lit the night skies with the kind of pyrotechnics that only he can. In the end, few realized how perilously close India came to losing against Ireland.

There are three departments in the game of cricket: Batting, Bowling and Fielding. Ireland were superior to India in two of the three - and yet lost the game. The Irish bowlers very disciplined, bowling to the field and making the nuclear-powered Indian batting earn their runs. The Ireland fielding was a marvel – I dare say one of the best fielding sides in the world, if not the best. Their commitment and professionalism was top class. Despite the absence of a good foundation back home, their batsmen still showed guts, gumption and character to stand up to international class bowlers. Yesterday, it was the turn of skipper William Poterfield to put his hand up.

The chasm is huge between most domestic cricket and the game at international level. Indian cricket, for example, is replete with ‘kings’ in first class cricket forced to look like paupers at the international level. What the ICC needs to do is to help Ireland give greater and more meaningful exposure to the part-time cricketers of Ireland - with the co-operation of full-member nations - before easing them into Test cricket in a year or two.

What’s most admirable about Ireland is that the talent that you see in their ranks is home bred and not a motley collection of expats. And for a team that did not generate pre-tournament expectations from the world, they had sizable support from their own countrymen in the stands. Obviously, they knew their players better than the rest of the world were willing to believe.

What Ireland needs is a sense of fairplay and justice from the ICC. The ICC has been criticized for its protectionism attitude towards the full member nations – an indication of that is reflected in the World Cup format, which is favoured to ensure the safe passage of the fancied teams into the next stage. Encouragement, if any, needs to be given to the minnows. But then the ICC decisions are governed with one eye on sponsorship moolah. But Ireland has proved emphatically that minnows can be a draw as well. They need the blessings of the ICC to take their game to the next level.

A Shah Rukh Khan would still have been doing insignificant TV soaps had his talented not been noticed and pitchforked into celluloid. A Sonu Nigam would still have been singing in small, social gatherings than be one of the nation’s prized singers had he not been given due recognition at the right time. Ireland are like SRK and Sonu in their struggling days. If they need to join the big league, the patronage of the ICC is vital.

(H Natarajan is the Executive Editor of cricketcountry.com)

Nobody killed Sourav Ganguly!

2011-02-12T18:47:00.003+05:30

By H Natarajan

Sourav Ganguly could be the first victim of the corporate culture that is invading Indian cricket through the Indian Premier League (IPL). When the cold and calculating czars of the corporate world are flexing their financial muscle, they don’t allow sentiments and emotions to come into the equation.

Wipro chairman Azim Premji gave the sack to two of his loyal and long-standing allies recently. They did not fit into scheme of his things and they had to go. It’s the same dispassionate corporate logic that one witnessed at the IPL4 auction where none of the ten teams made any attempt to buy Ganguly.

The reasons were clear in the minds of the brains trust of the teams, even as the world outside speculate the reasons till date. The numbers guru had crunched the figures, the itinerants had a microscopic look at the ICC cricket calendar, the legal team vetted the players’ contracts and the cricketing masters had their say on the players’ ability, form and fitness to last the next three years. Nothing was left to chance, no room for ambiguity.

Certainly there was no place for sentiments like son of the soil. Rahul Dravid, Bangaluru’s home-bred hero, was not wanted by Royal Challengers, whose Chief Mentor - sitting next to Vijay Mallya at the auction table - was Dravid’s stable mate Anil Kumble. VVS Laxman, Indian cricket’s crisis management expert and Hyderabad once iconic player, also did not fit into the scheme of Deccan Chargers and had to leave.

But what shook Indian cricket at its very roots was impassive and stony ignore of Ganguly. The media went into an overdrive, Ganguly fans went on the offensive to stage rallies, protests, burn effigies. Between the end of the auction and February 4, Indian cricket witnessed a “Hope opera” - hope that the Prince of Kolkata would make a royal back door entrance. But the “Hope Opera” ended in a “Reality show” on February 4, when the corporate czars sent Ganguly on the mat with a flurry of punches. From the Ambanis in the West, to Mallya in the South to Manoj Badale in the North, the poison arrows flew thick and fast at Ganguly.

The man - venerated as Bhismapitama by many of India current superstars for his care and mentoring during their infancy in international cricket - lay mortally wounded in a bed of arrows. It was sad to see the “God of the off-side” dumped by the wayside.

There is a school of thought that Australian cricket has adopted the same ruthless approach as the IPL team owners. Not quite, in my opinion. While it’s true that some of the biggest cricketing legends Down Under left international cricket because the decision was taken by the selectors, it’s also true that the players were told before hand and given the chance to make a dignified exit.

The legends retired amid much pomp, celebrated by the nation, chaired by the team mates, feted by the media and the fans. Those were befittingly a hero’s farewell. In sharp contrast, it was very sad to see Ganguly treated like a pariah – unwanted by all ten team in what seemed like a conspiracy of silence – and then blocked by three teams when one team had a rethink.

It was sad to see a great champion, a man who changed the face of Indian cricket with his spunk, a man who changed India’s cricket’s attitude of showing the other cheek… Gandhigiri to Dadagiri was a paradigm shift. To see such a hero pink-slipped in an ignominious manner is rather sad - denied the one last hurrah that he so badly wanted.

The team owners would say that Ganguly was fair game once he was in the auction ring. Even if one accepts that none of the team thought he was good enough to be among India’s top 70 players, what difference it made to them if another team was willing to accommodate him after a rethink? Some of the team owners became Pontiffs of morality to say that it’s not fair to twist the rule! I think THAT would have hurt Ganguly more than the initial ignore. This was rubbing salt in his wounds.“This is not cricket at all. I am surprised that things can go down to a level that a cricketer cannot play in his own country for no fault of his…I was very disappointed the franchises stalled the repurchase. The rules of the IPL have been changed in the past. Every rule in sport should give an opportunity to play, not keep them out - whether it's Sourav Ganguly today or some other player sometime," a hurt Ganguly reacted.

Ganguly is not the kind of man who will forgive or forget things easily. The subtle humiliation first and then the more brazen later will have its repercussion – eventually. I have no doubt in my mind that Ganguly will reincarnate as an influential cricket administrator, even as the President of the BCCI some day. That is when the some of the team owners will feel the heat.I’m certain many men who mattered from various teams would have walked up to Ganguly – or will do so in future – to tell him that they fought for his inclusion in their team and that the decision not to bid for him was taken by someone else. Yes, nobody killed Sourav Ganguly!

The Royal Bengal tiger has been killed and nobody wants to think he is a poacher. Well, saving the Tiger is nothing more than a slogan in our country!

(H Natarajan is the Executive Editor of www.CricketCountry.com)

If Test cricket dies, it will be murder and an inside job

2011-02-05T12:52:00.003+05:30

By H Natarajan

The advent of one-day cricket changed the face of cricket. The change, though, was evolutionary – be it the style of play, the strategy and approach of the captains or even the format itself. The abridged version has gone through further condensation to emerge as. This time around the resultant changes are more revolutionary, keeping with the frenetic pace of the modern world.

A generation bygone quit overs-limit game to prolong their Test career. The reason commonly heard then was that limited-over game is a young man’s game which places uncompromising demands on the body. In other words, when the wear and tear from the years of toil began to take its toll, they made a graceful exit from ODIs to concentrate in the relatively less-taxing conventional form of cricket.

Players often moaned that more than the actual playing it was the frequent travelling and flights at unearthly hours after a day-nighter which was killing. There was no time for rest and recuperation. In sharp contrast, a player can be assured of staying put at least for a week in one place while playing a Test match. And of the five days of a Test, often he can expect about two days relaxing in the pavilion.

But the birth of T20 and specifically the advent of the money-spinning Indian Premier League (IPL) have triggered a radical change in the thought process of the players. In what is clearly an emerging pattern, players today are willing to bid adieu to Test cricket to prolong their careers in the compact version of cricket.

Let’s see some of the recent examples. Sanath Jayasuriya last played a Test in December 2007, but he played ODIs for two more years and, in fact, was in the provisional Sri Lankan squad for the 2011 World Cup probables alongside another veteran in Chaminda Vaas. The left-arm medium-pacer’s final Test was in July 2007, but he went on to play ODI for over a year. The Sri Lankan provisional list also included a third veteran in Muttiah Muralitharan, now retired from Test cricket. But unlike Jayasuriya and Vaas, Murali has been given a chance for a final hurrah in the World Cup.

In all my years in cricket, I never came across a single player who valued overs-limit cricket more than Test cricket. That’s why I was appalled to hear Chris Gayle say in 2009 that he will “not be so sad” if Test cricket died! Sacrilegious!

Gayle’s shockingly audacious statement came after arriving in England just two days before a Test. He was the captain of the West Indies team, but he was busy playing the IPL!

Before 2009 ended, England’s Andrew Flintoff, New Zealand’s Jacob Oram and Shane Bond all cited injury reasons to quit Test cricket while making themselves available for the T20s and ODIs. The disturbing trend is having a domino effect. Last year, Brett Lee quit Test cricket to extend his overs-limit career. Then Shahid Afridi said he was not interested in playing Test cricket saying that “my temperament is not good enough for Test cricket” - enlightenment after 12 years in Test cricket! Before the recent Ashes series ended, Paul Collingwood joined those saying bye-bye to Tests and now comes the news that Lasith Malinga (pix above) is apparently contemplating to do the same. Malinga has been in international cricket for just over six years and is only 27 years old.

I would not be surprised if more professional cricketers make such decisions to keep themselves fit and fresh for the more lucrative IPL. That’s definitely not good news for Test cricket.

The last time Test cricket faced serious threat was when Kerry Packer flexed his financial muscle to lure the crème de la crème of international cricket. But the difference between then and now is that, the establishment then waged a fierce battle to protect the future of Test cricket. But what makes the present danger most worrisome is that the epicentre of the tremors is found inside the establishment. Unless some serious rethinking is done by the high priests of the game, the numbers forsaking Tests for the greener pastures of T20 could get alarmingly high. And if Test cricket eventually dies, it will be an inside job.

Once the ageing heroes like Sachin Tendulkar, Rahul Dravid, VVS Laxman, Ricky Ponting and Jacques Kallis, to name a few, mothball their cricketing whites, the romance of Test cricket could fade as a newer generation weaned on T20 razzmatazz hold sway.

Gayle, Kieron Pollard and Dwayne Bravo rejected contracts offered by the West Indies Cricket Board to be free to play domestic Twenty20 competitions all over, including the IPL.

As professionals, the players cannot be blamed for securing their future. But as the custodians of the game, I would like to see the administrators take steps to secure the real game of Test cricket. Skills cannot be honed in the corruption of T20 and one-day cricket; it has to in the longer version. If the basics are flawed, then it will have an adverse affect on the abridged version as well.

I would like to believe that if India wins the 2011 World Cup, Sachin Tendulkar would retire from ODIs to channelize his energies on Test cricket. That will send the right message to those who play overs-limit internationals over Test cricket.

(H Natarajan is the Executive Editor of http://www.cricketcountry.com/ where the above column appeared)

Sunil Gavaskar gave India a newfound respect in international cricket

2009-07-10T14:11:00.003+05:30

By H Natarajan

He was India's greatest batsman but Sunil Gavaskar's legacy to Indian cricket goes beyond batsmanship. He instilled in the Indian cricketer a pride, and ushered in an era of professionalism. His authoritative presence earned India a newfound respect in international cricket, and its cricketers the means to a good living.

When Gavaskar came into the Indian team in 1971 players got Rs 750 per Test; by the time Gavaskar moth-balled his kit, it had increased by at least ten times. Today's cricketers have Gavaskar to thank for their astronomical match-fees.

Gavaskar stood up for what he believed in and didn't have any qualms about taking on the establishment or the established: recall him calling the selectors court jesters, his firm stance against umpiring in Pakistan, and his face-off against Dennis Lillee in Australia.

More often, however, his bat did the talking. In 1971, Gavaskar was a 21-year old lad on his maiden Test tour. By the end of the Caribbean tour in 1971, the world saw evidence of a cricketing legend in the making: he made an astonishing 774 runs from four Tests. He was a key figure in some of the fourth innings epics in cricket history: 102 out of 406 for 4 in Port-of-Spain - the highest by a team to win a Test; 90 out of 347 against Australia at Madras in Tied Test II; and 221 out of 429 for 9 in a historic draw against England at the Oval in 1979.

Gavaskar was consistent against all opposition and in all conditions. He played in what could be called the Golden Era of fast bowling, when coming up against the likes of Dennis Lillee, Jeff Thomson, Andy Roberts, Michael Holding, Malcolm Marshall and Imran Khan was routine. The traditional struggle of India's flat-track bullies overseas even against average bowlers should put Gavaskar's worth in perspective. Significantly, he never wore a helmet in his career.

Gavaskar's overseas average is better than that at home, while 18 of his 34 hundreds have come abroad. He finished with 13 hundreds against West Indies a figure most batsmen would be happy with against all comers. The most memorable among those 13 must be the blistering 94-ball century at Delhi in 1983-84 that saw him catch up with Don Bradman's tally of 29th Test centuries.

Initially Gavaskar looked out of sort in one-day cricket but he eventually adapted. He led India to victory in the world Championship of Cricket in 1985 and over shadowed his partner Krishnamachari Srikkanth at Nagpur to score 85-ball hundred in the 1987 World Cup.

The maestro's sense of timing was immaculate. His last Test innings was also arguably his finest - 96 in the fourth innings on a beast of a wicket at Bangalore against Pakistan in 1986-87. In his penultimate one-day innings he struck a century. In his final first-class match he made 188 against a World Xl at Lord's on the occasion of the MCC Bicentenary. His exit was as delightfully scripted as his entry. It was a fitting goodbye from the Kohinoor among India's cricket jewels.

(The above article appeared in the Outlook magazine dated July 8, 2002 when Sunil Gavaskar was one of the nominees for the Electrolux Kelvinator Wisden Indian Cricketer of the Century Award. The article is reproduced in the author’s blog as a tribute to Gavaskar on his 60th birthday)

Grass greener on the other side of Wimbledon for Henin

2008-05-22T00:21:00.003+05:30

By H Natarajan

She did not possess the glam quotient of Maria Sharapova, the height advantage of Venus Williams or the muscular power of Serena Williams nor was there hype and hoopla around her. Physically, she was small in build and short in inches. But in a sport where it’s an accepted belief that size does matter, Justine Henin disproved that theory by showing that it’s not size but stature that matters. And in terms of stature, she was towering.

Justine Henin was the “best of her generation” as the legendary Billie-Jean King proclaimed. Henin was just 25, No 1 in the world and on the threshold of attempting a fourth straight title triumph on the red clay of Roland Garros. So why this shocking exit at this young age and when right on top?

Walking away from a life that has given it all – name, fame, mega wealth and all the other trappings that come with high-voltage success and celebrity lifestyle – is never easy. It’s not easy even one hears the disturbing creaks of a body showing the effects of wear and tear. Here, too, Henin underlined that she was in a league of her own with her stunning decision to give it up all at the prime of her career and when she had plenty left in the gas tank. Her decision was reminiscent of the great Bobby Jones who bid farewell 78 years ago after becoming the only golfer to win the Grand Slam or, as it is also known, the "The Impregnable Quadrilateral". Jones was just 28 years old.

The “Big W” was the only major missing from Henin’s seven Grand Slam and she could well have delayed her decision by a month to have a final crack at the premier grass court event in the world. The shocking and untimely finality of her decision was hard to accept.

It was about rediscovering lost joys and unfulfilled ambitions that she perceived as having more life than pure professional pursuits. As she explained: “I’m going to appreciate going for a run with nothing at stake, just doing it for pleasure. I’ve never put my feet in skis, and next year I think I’ll be doing it the whole winter. I want to rediscover the small pleasures, not look at my watch all the time because I have to get to training the next day.”

There are enormous personal sacrifices to make in the run-up to becoming a champion and the price to pay is very high at times. Champions usually start very young and have to lead life away from the emotional cocoon of their families. The coaches are the parents and the playing arena their homes. And these homes require young hopefuls to undergo killing schedule and unflinching discipline. Small pleasures and comforts that most children in the world outside take for granted have to be sacrificed in pursuit of their goals. This has its adverse effects.

In the case of Henin, the price, tragically, was a bit too high than most. She lost her mom to cancer at the young age of 12, got estranged with her dad for a while, had to live through the horrors of losing almost losing another family member when her brother met with a car accident and had to endure the pangs of a failed marriage. Her personal life was a mess. Retirement was probably her way of getting the balance right in her life, getting a life outside the five star hotel rooms and tennis courts around the world.

After finishing as the World No 1 for three years, after winning four French Open, two US Opens, one Australian open and finishing runner-up twice at Wimbledon, after clinching 41 titles on the WTA Tour and after pocketing the Olympic gold and after raking in nearly $20 million on the tour, Henin must have reached saturation point.

“Maybe people will think I'm still young, but in life there are no rules...There is a page that turns today and I feel no regrets. On the contrary, it's more like a release, more like a relief, more of a look toward the future." Indeed. Henin made her own rules: be it defying and triumphing against the odds as a five-feet, five-inch, 57-kg player pitted against six-foot-plus giants like Lindsay Davenport, Venus Williams and Maria Sharapova or keeping faith with one coach for 11 long years. And she is leaving on her own terms.

"This is the end of a child's dream," she said while announcing her retirement. And not winning Wimbledon is no big deal; the grass on the other side of Wimbledon is greener for Henin.

Fair play and justice take a ‘free hit’

2008-05-15T00:44:00.002+05:30

By H Natarajan

Those who believe that there is no sense of fairplay and justice in this world need not look beyond the happenings in the Indian Premier League (IPL).

First there was the furore created by the presence of cheerleaders. I have no issues with the cheerleaders; the IPL brand of T20 cricket has a carnival touch to it and the splash of glitz and glamour is not out of place and especially appeals for the younger generation. But what hurts is: How can the moral police justify the presence of the cheer girls in public when the bar girls have been stopped from earning their livelihood through dancing in private. The bar girls were fully clothed from top to bottom compared to the revealing outfits that we get to see in high-profile places, especially in the metros, and kept their distance from customers while dancing. Yet, the state government deemed, in their sense of judgment, that what was happening was vulgar and needed to be banned. It was an action that drove thousands of families, including young children and old parents depended on the salaries of the dancers, to great miseries. Many of the bar dancers ended up committing suicides.

The cheer girls, in comparison to the bar dancers, wear skimpy outfit and showing copious skin. Most importantly, it’s been done in a public place frequented by even young children. Now, if the alien culture of cheer girls is okay, why discriminate our desi bar girls? The question is relevant to cricket because RR Patil, the State Home Minister who is also the second in command to CM Vilasrao Deshmukh, is from the National Congress Party headed by Mr Sharad Pawar, who is also the chief of the Board of Control for Cricket in India.

Of course, Patil – he wears the tag of “Mr Clean” and is otherwise a refreshingly different from most politicians and is– would like to point out (and possibly rightly, too) that some of the bar dancers are also doubling up as call girls. But the point is: Were they guilty of that in the place they were dancing? If so, then they girls and the bar owner should have been arrested and the bar closed. To condemn the entire profession for the ‘sins’ of a few was a bit too much. The sad irony is that many of the girls who were making an honest living by merely dancing were forced to take up prostitution to feed their families.

Justice was not seen to be done again when Charu Sharma was sacked as the Chief Executive of Bangalore Royal Challengers – a convenient scapegoat – when the guys who were mainly responsible for the poor showing escaped the guillotine. The flamboyant Vijay Mallya, the owner of the Challengers, has gone on record to say that he regretted not being involved in the selection of the team at the auction and went by the judgment of Charu and captain Rahul Dravid.

Who can pull up Mallya for his own mistake which he has admitted himself? And does Mallya have the cricketing expertise to select international players? Most importantly, his statement unambiguously reveal that his team has been let down at the very selection stage itself which Dravid was principally responsible. Yet, Dravid escapes the axe while Charu cops it! Reportedly, coach Venkatesh Prasad, too, would have been shown the exit, but for Dravid’s intervention.

Clearly, there is a miscarriage of justice in both of the cases mentioned above.

And indications are that there are attempts to get Harbhajan Singh off the hook or, at worst, relatively lightly for an offence which has a maximum penalty of life ban. The BCCI has appointed an enquiry commissioner, Sudhir Nanavati, to probe the off-spinner’s slapping of a fellow-player on the field of play. And Nanavati had revealed that the footage of the incident was shocking while match referee Farokh Engineer went on record while telling journalists that "what actually happened is a lot more serious than you guys think." Yet, the probe may prove to be a waste of time and money with Harbhajan, at best, escaping with a slap on the wrists. Rashid Patel and the late Raman Lamba copped 13 and 10 months bans respectively after a disgraceful, on-field fight during a 1991 Duleep Trophy. Harbhajan actually slapped an India team-mate. If he is let-off with anything less than at least the tenure of ban slapped on either Patel or Lamba, the BCCI would not be seen in good light. Yes, there would be pressure on the BCCI to reprieve Harbhajan who is a key member of the Indian team, but it’s equally important to send a resounding message across – especially to players who may think that they can get away with anything because of their status.

The happening in recent weeks reminds me of what George Orwell, the great English novelist and essayist, had said: “Serious sport has nothing to do with fair play. It is bound up with hatred, jealousy, boastfulness, disregard of all rules and sadistic pleasure in witnessing violence. In other words, it is war minus the shooting.”

Cricketers who shed blood, sweat … and tears

2008-05-08T11:24:00.007+05:30

By H Natarajan

The sight of sporting heroes shedding tears often leaves an indelible mark in our minds because we assume these men to be granite strong - physically and mentally. Breaking down publicly is something we perceive as alien to their personality. We assume our heroes to be supermen, but behind the public veil they are almost as normal as anyone else. They may be super in their skills but they are as human as anyone else when it comes to emotions.

Sreesanth underlined the fact when he sobbed before live television cameras. It may well have been a scene from boys playing cricket in the neighborhood than the high-profile Indian Premier League – the playground of the most celebrated cricket talent in the world. The world has seen Sreesanth wearing the garb of a tough cookie, almost a bully - a David willing to take on towering Goliaths like Andrew Symonds and Andre Nel. Yet one tight slap across his face brought down the veil of Sreesanth’s tough image along with torrent of tears.

The young paceman is not the first cricketer to break down in public, though he may be the first to cry publicly for physical assault. There have been many, many instances in the past when cricketers have cracked under emotional stress.

One of the earliest known instances of a cricketer crying publicly was during the 1967 India-West Indies Test at Calcutta (as Kolkata was known then). The Eden Garden was bursting at the seams after local authorities sold more tickets than there were seats. Predictably, trouble erupted and the players had to run for their personal safety. As the mob let out its fury, speedster Charlie Griffith - a hulk of a man – ran for his life. He thought that the crowd was out to kill him in retaliation for ending Nari Contractor’s international career on India’s 1961-62 tour of the West Indies. The big-made Barbadian was reportedly crying as he ran, when in actual fact the spectators were trying to help him get to the safety of Grand Hotel after pockets of the stadium went up in flames on New Year’s Day.

Peter Lever, also a fast bowler, was another to experience distress after he had pole-axed Test debutant tail-ender Ewen Chatfield with a short ball. It hit Chatfield on the temple as he staggered and collapsed. He lost consciousness and was twitching and moaning. His heart had stopped. But for the timely intervention of England physio Bernard Thomas, Chatfield would have been dead. Lever, meanwhile, was on his knees crying bitterly. "I honestly thought I had killed him as I saw him lying there in convulsions. I felt sick and ashamed at what I had done and all I could think when I got back to the pavilion was that I wanted to retire." Mercifully, Chatfield survived and went on to enjoy a fairly long Test career.

A fast bowler broke down yet again in public – this time at Sydney in 1975. Michael Holding, playing just his third Test, saw the umpire Reg Ledwidge turned down a caught behind shout off his bowling against Ian Chappell. The young Jamaican could not contain his disappointment and burst into inconsolable tears and had to be comforted by Lance Gibbs who rushed in from gully.

International sports brings with it enormous stress and none feels it more than the captain as the buck finally stops with him. Australia had lost 0-3 against the West Indies in West Indies and followed that up by being 0-2 down at home. Kim Hughes, the Australian captain, was under pressure and he could take it no more. He walked into a press conference and announced his resignation as captain from a prepared statement, but could not finish reading it completely as he broke down in tears.

Indian men are generally known not to cry in public, but Dilip Vengsarkar proved to be among the exceptions after his valiant effort to give Mumbai victory in the 1990-91 Ranji Trophy final ended in the narrowest of failure – a two-run defeat – against Haryana. Vengsarkar was heart-broken at the other end on 139 after last man Abey Kuruvilla was run out. The sight of Vengsarkar sobbing and taking a long time to make his way into the gloom of the Mumbai dressing room is still fresh in my memory.

Vengsarkar’s Mumbai team-mate, the maverick Vinod Kambli, was another to break down publicly after match referee Clive Lloyd declared that India had defaulted its 1996 World Cup semi-final against Sri Lanka at Eden Garden after the hosts failed to quell the crowd trouble that had erupted following India’s capitulation during the run-chase.

Another of India’s legendary cricketer, the tough Kapil Dev Nikhanj, famously broke down inconsolably on the Karan Thapar TV show, `Hardtalk India,' after he was accused by a team-mate, Manoj Prabhakar, of having sold himself to bookies. It was one of the most unbelievable and sad sights to see the strong fast bowler crying bitterly – his words an incoherent mess in the emotional turmoil.

The betting and match-fixing saga saw another public outburst when Hansie Cronje cried during his confessions before the King Commission in Cape Town. Cronje was another physically huge man and a superstar, but when emotions reach a critical point, it can break down the strongest of men.

One of the saddest displays of emotional outburst was when Adam Gilchrist broke down during a Test match in South Africa. One of the most loved and respected players in the world, Gilchirst broke down under the onslaught of rumors alleging sexual liaison between his wife Mel and Australian team-mate Michael Slater. A website published that Slater had an affair with Gilly’s wife Mel and went on to question the paternity of the couple’s child, Harrison.

Gilchrist penned his thoughts in his book, Walking to Victory: "I felt sick in the stomach. It was the start of the toughest period in my life. Mel was at home with three-month-old Harry, so we couldn't even be there for each other. Whatever I suffered, it was many times worse for Mel -- having her integrity abused like that when she is not even a public figure. “

Gilchrist said his emotional churn peaked in the course of his double hundred in the first Test against South Africa. “On reaching my ton, I did not know whether to jump for joy or give a determined 'up yours' to the crowd and whomever it was who had started the rumour. In the end, I had no control over my reaction. I simply ran off the wicket, raised my bat to acknowledge the team and the support staff, felt the emotions bubble up and squatted with my head down. It was the first time I remember crying on the cricket field."

The Gilchrist couple went on to sue the website and the matter was subsequently settled out of court.

Retirement is another time when a player faces emotional upheaval of having to leave the turf that has given him so much for him and his family for many, many years. Leaving all that and going into a whole new world is a life death for many. Even a big man like Inzamam-ul-Haq could not bottle up his emotions till he reached the privacy of the dressing room when he cried publicly when given a guard of honor in his farewell ODI.

As the Jewish proverb goes, what soap is for the body, tears are for the soul.

Tears are perfectly natural and shows the human side of the mega stars.

Harbhajan & Sreesanth – Brothers in harm

2008-05-01T00:28:00.002+05:30

H Natarajan

If Harbhajan Singh’s audacious assault on Sreesanth in full public view and before TV cameras exposed him as a spoilt brat, then the Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI) also stands culpable as an erring parent failing to reform a wayward child. The Board has not only been tolerant but, worse, defended the off-spinner’s outrageous behavior in the past.

Bhajji’s slap was not merely on Sreesanth but on the BCCI as well. Harbhajan, in turn, was ‘slapped back’ with a 11-Indian Premier League (IPL) match ban worth Rs 2.7 crore, but the BCCI could add a further five-Test or 10 One-day International (ODI) ban as per the ICC sanction, but who will chastise the BCCI for its own failure as a parent?

The late Hanumant Singh was the first to point a finger at Harbhajan’s misdemeanor by throwing him out – along with two others – of the National Cricket Academy. If Hanumant, suave, cultured and fair, could be provoked to take a tough action against a youngster, then it was an indication of the players’ indiscipline. The then NCA director NCA reportedly told a friend: “I would like to be proved wrong on this, but my experience says he (Harbhajan) will be an embarrassment to the nation.” Prophetic words.

Sreesanth may have subsequently called Harbhajan his ‘older brother’ and the off-spinner may have hugged his ‘younger brother’ at the hearing before the match referee. These histrionics were purely for the camera men – just like the Greg Chappell-Sourav Ganguly posings at the pool table in Zimbabwe. Make no mistake, the episode involving the two loose cannons will have a huge impact on the Indian team when the two share the same dressing room the next time they turn out next for a Test or ODl.

Harbhajan has his strong supporters within the team and they will certainly not take it kindly to the fact that it was Sreesanth’s provocation which triggered the ugly turn of events. Sreesanth is a known baiter, a habitual offender and someone who has scant respect for anybody (seniors or juniors, opposition or team-mates) when he is in the mood to show his abominable aggro – which is just about every time. Harbhajan may have copped the punishment, but it’s Sreesanth who is likely to face the heat of the Indian dressing room. I for one will not be surprised if he is treated like a pariah by his Indian team-mates.

Bhajji’s slap tore apart the façade of toughness that Sreesanth’s portrays on the field when he sobbed liked a child on copping it on the face.

It seems increasingly evident that quite a few in the present Indian team are unable to handle their instant fame and money and are acting in a fashion that’s unquestionably detrimental to the health of millions of impressionable young minds watching them on TV and at the grounds. The escalating rise in aggression, now leading to physical violence, is clearly getting out of hand. While nobody advocates Munnabhai-style Gandhigiri, no right-minded person would also like to see boorish behavior, totally alien to Indian culture. Players like Sachin Tendulkar, Anil Kumble and Rahul Dravid are tough blokes without finding the need to indulge in disgraceful antics like his doing pelvic-jigs, making faces that suit Ramsay’s horror films than a cricket field, or indulging in ridiculous theatrics – all of which the exhibitionist Sreesanth has been guilty of.
Sreesanth’s needling cannot be condoned and needs to be penalized with exemplary punishment. But there is no excuse for anybody – least of all a player with ten years international experience – to lose control of himself the way Harbhajan did. Bhajji’s act has weakened an already depleted Mumbai Indians. Worse, it has brought the team loads of negative publicity. Harbhajan is seen a publicity nightmare with Mumbai Indian getting rid of hoardings in which the off-spinner’s face appears.

Bhajji has shamed Indian cricket, brought ill-fame to the IPL, let down his team and, more importantly, his sponsors Reliance who have paid huge money to buy him. The slap on Sressanth was also a slap on the Indian Cricket Board which had gone to extraordinary lengths in defending him a few months back in Australia. One can imagine the repercussions internationally had the same offence been committed against, say, Ricky Ponting or, to turn the argument around, had Andrew Symonds slapped Harbhajan.

It would be safe to say that one has not heard the last on the fracas. The BCCI has appointed Sudhir Nanavati - a senior advocate of the Gujarat High Court and also the Chairman of the BCCI Finance Committee - to go into the matter. And if the commissioner does a good job, it would come as no surprise to see Sreesanth coming in for punishment as well to make an example out of him.

The BCCI, following the Harbhajan-Symonds flare-up, had advocated for a ban on sledging. Now that shit has hit the fan, the BCCI should take the kind of action that would deter potential from daring to cross the line that would bring the game into disrepute.

Sting operation vindicates “professional mourners”

2008-04-24T00:23:00.000+05:30

By H Natarajan

Marcus Tullius Cicero, the great Roman philosopher and orator had said: “A nation can survive its fools, and even the ambitious. But it cannot survive treason from within. An enemy at the gates is less formidable, for he is known and carries his banner openly. But the traitor moves amongst those within the gate freely, his sly whispers rustling through all the alleys, heard in the very halls of government itself. For the traitor appears not a traitor; he speaks in accents familiar to his victims, and he wears their face and their arguments, he appeals to the baseness that lies deep in the hearts of all men. He rots the soul of a nation, he works secretly and unknown in the night to undermine the pillars of the city, he infects the body politic so that it can no longer resist. A murder is less to fear.”

Substitute “nation” with “Indian hockey” and you will appreciate Cicero’s thoughts on corruption in the context of the rot that has set into the Indian Hockey Federation (IHF) and as a consequence into game in India.

The sting operation by a private TV channel that exposed IHF secretary-general, Kandaswamy Jothikumaran, accepting bribe to include a young player in the national team has not exactly come as a shock to insiders who were shouting hoarse thus far but without any proof. KPS Gill had dismissed players critical of the IHF as “professional mourners”, but with Jotikumaran getting caught in the act, the aggrieved players have been vindicated.

Jothikumaran has stepped down, although crying that he is innocent and that he was “framed” but KPS Gill, like after India failed to qualify for the first time in history for the Olympics, remains unaffected by calls to step down as the IHF chief which he has been running like his personal fiefdom. KPS has chosen to ignore the call of even the Sports Minister and namesake, MS Gill.

Jotikumaran does not have a squeaky-clean past. At the Olympic qualifier in Barcelona in 1996, he was suspected to be the mastermind in allegedly fixing a match between India and Malaysia – a goalless draw that kept out Canada. Anand Philar, a friend, former colleague and an insightful hockey writer who has traveled with the team worldwide, was an eye-witness. He says Jotikumaran merely laughed when he Anand pleaded with him to stop the farce. “Only a few Indian players were in the loop regarding the fixed match while coach Cedric D’Souza was kept in the dark. That night, Cedric wept like a child in my presence, heaping abuse on Jothikumaran while declaring that it was the “end of Indian hockey”, reveals Anand. “In the event, the team was split down the middle. I traveled with the team back to India and during the flight, I was a privy to some horror stories regarding the fixed match. The players directly involved in match-fixing, received lucrative invitations to play in the Malaysian league,” he adds.

If the Olympic sport of hockey in India is tainted by corruption then it must be said that the International Olympic Committee itself has had lived with a history of corruption charges some of which has been documented by Andrew Jennings in his book, the 'Lords of the Rings - Olympic Corruption'. Two years back Jennings also investigated several allegations of bribery within FIFA.

With crass commercialization making inroads into sports, administrators – as much as players – find themselves lured by baits of instant - although unfair - riches. That’s one of the major reasons why politicians hang on to plum positions in various sports bodies in India.

The KPS Gill-Jotikumaran rein of terror has been on for 14 years in which time Indian hockey has taken a precipitous fall. While Jotikumaran has been finally forced to quit, KPS continues to show complete disdain for accountability.

The IHF has angered the FIH, the apex body for the sport worldwide. It was unhappy with the way Ric Charlesworth was treated by the IHF. The FIH also warned that Indian coach Joaquim Carvalho and his support staff had violated the code of conduct by their unrestrained attack of umpiring at the Olympic qualifiers in Chile and left themselves open to sanctions. The FIH is also concerned with the functioning of the IHF and has warned that India could lose the right to hold 2010 World Cup.

KPS Gill has to go. That is the first step toward ushering in an era of change.

Kallis closing in on the all-rounders’ Mt Everest

2008-04-17T15:51:00.003+05:30

By H Natarajan

Jacques Kallis is inching closer towards immortality. He is a series or two away from a five-figure career run-aggregate in both Tests and One-Day Internationals to become the first man in the history of both forms of the game to log in 10,000 runs, 200 wickets and 100 catches – unquestionably brilliant by any stretch of imagination.

Kallis’s humungous performance is best appreciated by the fact that barring Sir Garfield Sobers, no bowler in the history of the game who has captured 200 wickets has scored over 7000 runs. To turn it the other way round, no batsman in the 7000-run club - apart from the great Sir Gary - has managed to get 200 wickets. In fact, not even 100 wickets. Being a frontline bowler and batsmen takes a huge toll and players often sacrifice one for the other – much like top players in tennis who give up doubles play to save their energies for singles.

Sir Gary is widely regarded as the “King” among all-rounders. So how does the South African compare with Sir Gary? Cricket pundits generally dislike the idea of comparing players from different generations – and with good reasons, too. Sir Gary played most of his cricket on uncovered wickets which tested batting skills to the optimum. The protective gear available in the West Indian’s time was apologetic compared to the present era. Modern players also have copious scientific data to identify and bring about swift correction in skills – thanks to the huge back-up support that is available to modern teams. One cannot also ignore the fact that modern bats and rules have also veered towards making the game increasingly batsman friendly.

One must hence keep in mind that any comparison of different generations may not entirely be fair to the players. But let’s get on with the exercise, nevertheless, to arrive at the comparative numbers.

Sobers’s multi-tasking also included his role as West Indies captain for 39 Tests. That he fared better in both batting and bowling – even if only marginally – showed that the cares of captaincy did not affect his performances as a player. Kallis has led South Africa just once without distinguishing in any noticeable manner. The captaincy factor cannot be ignored as it’s a huge responsibility which has taken a toll on the best of players - Sachin Tendulkar being a classic example.

The argument in favour of Kallis could be that cricket today is played almost round the year with ODIs adding to the burden of the players in terms of added work, travel and little time for rest and recuperation. Kallis has played 119 Tests in little over 12 years compared to Sobers’s 93 spread over twenty long years. Kallis has also played 274 ODIs. Sobers, who would have been a rare ornament for one-day cricket, was at the end of his fabulous career when the overs-limit game was in its infancy. It meant that the great man’s ODI career was just restricted to one game.

Kallis compares well with Sobers in the Test arena. Sixteen of Kallis’s 30 Test hundreds have come in South African victories while 12 of Sobers’s 26 centuries won the game for the West Indies. In terms of batting averages, little separates Kallis from Sobers. The West Indian legend averages 57.78 as against Kallis’s 57.14. Kallis has scored four hundreds more than Sobers, but he has also played 26 Tests and 42 more innings.

The one anomaly Kallis needs to address before he hangs up his cricketing boots is to get a double hundred against his name. Kallis is the only player among the top ten run getters in Test history without a double hundred. And that will also be a negative when he is compared to the very best batsmen in the history of the game.

If Kallis has not got the credit that some of the other great all-rounders in the game like Imran Khan, Sir Ian Botham, Kapil Dev, Sir Richard Hadlee and Sir Gary himself it’s because he lacks in flamboyance. He does not inject the kind of excitement that the above-mentioned greats have. His approach lacks aggression. Like Rahul Dravid for India, Kallis brings in huge security and value to South Africa, but he loses out on charisma and glam quotient to other players in the side. I guess it has everything to do with the mind. If Kallis and Dravid were to drive a Ferrari on a wide, traffic-free, inter-state highway, it’s quite possible that they will drive the powerful machine at 50 kmph. Kallis and Dravid are the kind of players who can charge VAT (Value Added Tax) but not Entertainment Tax! The latter is reserved for their more electrifying team-mates like Herschelle Gibbs, Mark Boucher, Virender Sehwag and Yuvraj Singh.

If Kallis minimized the risk factor in his game, Sobers thrived on risks – he was a gambler by nature, on and off the field. He once brought a swift end to a Test match at the Brabourne Stadium to be at the Mahalakshmi Race Course. But on another occasion, his risky declaration cost West Indies the series. Safety-first was never Sobers motto, unlike Kallis.

Kallis has been a late bloomer. After a pathetic start to his Test career, he just managed a modest average of 31.73 after 20 Tests. But his sheer consistency since then has today given him a Test average of 57.14, the sixth highest - after Sir Don Bradman, Herbert Sutcliffe, Ken Barrington, Ricky Ponting, Wally Hammond and Sir Gary - among those who have played at least 50 Test matches.

In summing up, it’s worth looking at Kallis’s mind-boggling numbers in Tests and ODIs combined: 19,198 runs, 46 hundreds, 112 fifties, 469 wickets and 226 catches. At age 32, Kallis still has a few good years of cricket left in him. And by the time he finally hangs up his cricketing boots, the above figures is likely to assume monumental proportions. Maybe, then, the cricketing world may well look at him differently.

Board, off control

2008-04-11T01:27:00.001+05:30

H Natarajan

It’s a pretty common occurrence parents asking their young children to ward off inconvenient telephone caller by telling that he or she is not there at home when very much being there and in a position to answer the call. It’s blatant lie, though the erring parent may justify it as white lie. But young and impressionable minds can’t distinguish the ‘color’ of the lie. These children get justifiably agitated when they are told not to lie by those very erring parents who had no qualms about lying telling themselves. Obviously they have lost the right to pontificate on the virtues of truth.

The above thoughts crossed my mind recollecting the checks the Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI) had put in place following the Indian team’s World Cup debacle last year. The thrust of the entire post-mortem was to get the team’s focus right. The popular perception was that sponsorship and endorsements obligations had upset the priorities of the players. Their primary duty was towards the team and the country but that had taken a huge hit because of players fanning out in different directions for non-cricketing tasks. As a result it had a direct and negative impact on their game and the team’s performance. It culminated in a national uproar and the BCCI was quick to quell the outrage with stringent clauses to rein in the players.

One of the clauses stipulated was that the players should not be involved in endorsement activities in the midst of a series or ten days prior to it.

The parent that wanted to discipline a child is now guilty of the same offence! Surf your TV channels or wade through any newspaper and you will find the players looking as busy if not busier with the Indian Premier League (IPL) than the more important task of representing the country in Tests.

With India losing a home Test in ignominious fashion after being shot out for 76 in 20 pre-lunch overs on the first day, the swords are predictably out. And leading the war cry are two India’s cricketing legends – Kapil Dev and Sunil Gavaskar.

Gavaskar rightly questioned the commitment of the players as some of them had no time for nets between the first and second Tests but all the time for IPL-related promos. It not only reflected the wrong priorities of the players but also the duplicity of the BCCI which had put checks in place to prevent such unwanted distractions. The BCCI was not only overlooking the distractions but was actually masterminding them! In total contrast to India, the South Africans in the IPL fray refused to be part of mid-series, promotional distractions. That’s focus, that’s getting priority right and that’s what separates the winners from losers.

Gary Kirsten, the new coach of the Indian team, got the job on Gavaskar’s recommendation. But it’s Gavaskar himself who feels that Kirsten needs to “crack the whip” if he has to ensure that some of the guys do not “ride rough shod” over him. But when the BCCI itself is guilty of asking the players to violate their own laws by appearing for promos in the tiny gap between two Tests, Kirsten can do precious little. There are, however, two options before him: Tell the BCCI that he cannot allow such distractions or, if the BCCI disagrees, to find another coach. If he does neither, he is equally culpable and very much a responsible party to India’s defeat.

Kirsten has to quickly prove his merits as he displaced a man – Lalchand Rajput - who had proved himself consistently over many series. The BCCI has not been fair in unseating the unassuming former India opener who was not only a successful coach but a popular one at that. But more on Rajput ouster for a later date.

The BCCI has not exactly covered itself with glory in recent times. The Board did not feel it necessary to invite Kapil Dev for a function it hosted to honour Anil Kumble for completing 600 wickets in Tests. It did not matter to the BCCI that Kapil was the highest wicket-taker for India before Kumble nor did it matter that he was the highest wicket-taker in the world. It was this very BCCI administration that had invited Jagmohan Dalmiya, a man who was at loggerheads with them and against whom criminal charges are been framed. It was this very BCCI administration that had invited Mohammad Azharuddin, man who was serving a life ban for his alleged involvement in match-fixing. Are we to believe that the BCCI considers Kapil involvement with the Indian Cricket League (ICL) a greater ‘crime’ to make him persona non grata?

The real test for the BCCI lies ahead – two months ahead, to be precise – when it’s time to celebrate the completion of 25 years of India’s 1983 World Cup triumph. That team led by Kapil Dev had in it the likes of Madan Lal, Balwinder Singh Sandhu and Sandeep Patil – all coaches of teams in the ICL. Surely one cannot think of the “83 celebrations without four of its key players, which includes the captain.

One of the BCCI’s key administrators also angered the powerful media by coming up with highly dictatorial clauses that went against the functioning and rights of the media. A potential nasty scenario was quelled by a quick volte-face by the IPL.

From Board of Control it has become Board off-control…Time for BCCI to get its act together.

Virender Sehwag - Licence To Kill

2008-04-03T00:52:00.002+05:30

By H Natarajan

During India’s tour of England, a journalist friend asked Virender Sehwag if he had a look at the pitch that the team was to play on the morrow.

Sehwag’s terse reply was “no”.

Asked why, Sehwag’s reply was nonchalant, “Kya faida?” (What’s the point?)

Now that’s Sehwag - earthy, honest and uncomplicated. For him a pitch is a pitch, green or brown, bouncy or flat, home or abroad. He does not like to get unduly perturbed. He will bat in the manner he knows best on any pitch and against any bowler. His philosophy is: Have bat, will bat. And in a manner that is outrageous, be it Shoaib Akhtar, Muttiah Muralitharan or any bowler down the lane in Najafgarh. He will shock the purists by saying footwork is not necessary for batting and will then shock everyone as well by doing exactly what he believes in – and with astounding success.

The Sehwag School of batsmanship is good for admiring but fraught with heightened risks when attempted by lesser mortals. Maybe they purists should demand for statutory warning at grounds when the Delhi dasher plays. It could read: “Pyrotechnics that you see (from Sehwag) require a high degree of skill and expertise. Please do not attempt it.”

Sehwag has not got his rightful due in a Indian batting line-up that has proven world class performers like Rahul Dravid, Sachin Tendulkar, Sourav Ganguly and VVS Laxman. As a Test match barman, Sehwag is not merely world class but has earned the right to rank among the best in the history of the game. Sweeping statement? Certainly not. Let’s see why.

There are only three batsmen in 131 years of Test cricket who have scored two triple centuries – Sir Don Bradman, Brian Lara and Sehwag. But the Indian is the only opener among the troika to achieve the feat and the only batsman to score against different oppositions. He is also the only player to achieve that feat at home and away.

But what speaks more eloquently about his stature as one of the most destructive batsmen of all-time is his ability to get huge hundreds and get them consistently at a blistering pace. He has shattered age-old beliefs of how batting in Test match is to be approached.

The last ten of Sehwag’s 14 Test hundreds have been 150-plus knocks, including two triple hundreds, two double and two-near double hundreds. The staggering sequence reads: 195, 309, 155, 164, 173, 201, 254, 180, 151 and 319. The triple century at Chennai under hot, humid and energy-sapping condition was the fastest-ever in Test cricket – off just 278 balls, 84 balls quicker than Matthew Hayden who held the earlier record. And it should not be forgotten that Sehwag’s knock came against quality bowlers of and a strong cricketing nation.

Sehwag has also to his credit the second fastest, third fastest and the seventh fastest double hundreds – compelling stats of sustained brilliance and belligerence. And in sharp contrast to most players, who eschew risks to get to hundreds and double hundreds, Sehwag’s warrior-like approach makes him go for shots that will fetch him the maximum. He has adopted those methods – and succeeded – even in going for his triple century.

Only Sir Don Bradman (twice), Wally Hammond and Denis Compton have scored more runs in a single day’s play. The list of top ten in this category finds Sir Don’s name thrice and Sehwag twice. The likes of Matthew Hayden, Sanath Jayasuriya, Herschelle Gibbs, to name a few, exemplify the breed of modern openers whose approach is vastly different from the conventional methods, yet none of these heavyweights have been able to sustain their fire to score even 200 in a day. Sehwag, on the other hand, scored 257 runs on Day Three at Chennai - the most runs scored in Tests played in the last 54 years.

Sehwag’s stroke production is of a very high order and his ability to find the boundary or go over it to even good deliveries have left bowlers all around the world quite exasperated. The propensity to hit fours and sixes with consummate ease has found his name thrice in the top eight Test knocks where most runs came from fours and sixes in an in a Test innings. And it’s this approach that has given him a strike-rate of 75-plus in Tests and 96-plus in ODIs – incredible figures for a top order batsman.

For a man who plays Test match cricket like a one-day match, his figures in ODIs are paradoxically more mortal in comparison, though there are innings which have been typically Sehwag-like. Like against New Zealand in 2001 when he hit completed his hundred off 69 balls—the second-fastest century by an Indian in history.

One of the signs of a champion player is his ability to score big against top class teams and/or against quality bowlers. Sehwag emerges a big winner on this parameter as well with an average of 91.14 against Pakistan, 63.00 against South Africa, 53.90 against Australia and 53.58 against the West Indies.

Sehwag has brought not only brought abundance at the top but also has provided solidity as well combining and inspiring a number of opening partners. He, in partnership with Dravid, came within a boundary hit short of erasing the then Test opening record of 413 between Pankaj Roy and Vinoo Mankad. That was in Pakistan two years back. He also has double century stands for the opening wicket with Sanjay Bangar, Gautam Gambhir and Wasim Jaffer. Even the great Sunil Gavaskar, who association with Chetan Chauhan was one of the most successful in Test history, has only figured in two double century stands for the first wicket.

Sehwag’s methodology and genius reminds me of what Miami centre Rony Seikaly said after Michael Jordan had once bulldozed his way scoring 56 points for the Bulls. Seikaly eulogized: “Michael’s like a grenade without the pin...he could score whatever number he wants. He could score 100 points if he wants to”. In many ways, the genius of Sehwag is exactly like that – a grenade without the pin capable of creating havoc.

Did I hear anybody saying Test cricket is boring?!

Fleming rides into sunset with a tinge of regret

2008-03-27T18:59:00.002+05:30

By H Natarajan

Uneasy lies the head that wears the crown - William Shakespeare in King Henry IV, part 1.

Be it at corporate CEO or a national cricket captain, the man heading the show wears a crown of thorns. Leadership comes with myriad pressures which is why it’s probably easier getting to the top than remaining there. Even an apolitical man with a squeaky-clean image and loads of international experience in crisis management like Rahul Dravid gave up the captaincy in a hurry. It also did not matter that Dravid, over a period of time, was widely acknowledged as one of the finest batsmen in world cricket.

What chance then does a cricketer with no great pretensions of being a world class batsman have staying as captain for a protracted length of time? Especially when leading a side that neither has much star value nor does it have the kind of record that would make rivals lose sleep? Not much, obviously. Yet Stephen Fleming confounded the world by staying as New Zealand captain for 11 long years.

Despite his phenomenal run as captain, Fleming has almost been in the background, rather quiet and almost unnoticed. Nobody spoke of him as having the cerebral thinking of Mike Brearley, the charismatic personality of Imran Khan, the statesman-like presence of Clive Lloyd, the mental toughness of Steve Waugh or the warrior-like approach of Ricky Ponting. But the fact is that Fleming had something of all that and more. If the world did not give him his due as a master leader and strategist it was because he was from the tiny nation of New Zealand than England, Australia or India where the omnipresent and omnipotent media would have made and marketed him as a giant among leaders.

Fleming was given the hot seat in 1997 after displacing the controversial Lee Germon. New Zealand cricket was in turmoil and the responsibility was humungous on the 23-year-old Fleming. But it was soon obvious that he was a good man manager and a wonderful strategist. His calm demeanor and innovative ideas on the field earned him the respect of his colleagues and brought sanity and stability to New Zealand cricket.

For the major part of his international career, Fleming was commander-in-chief of the New Zealand army. He led New Zealand in 80 Tests – including 65 in a row - which is second only to the record 93 Tests by Australian Allan Border. In his 11-year rein as captain he also led his country in 218 ODIs – the only international captain to lead in over 200 games of the abridged version.

There is no doubt that had Fleming been blessed with a stronger team he would have won greater acclaim as a captain. Outside of leading New Zealand, he showcased his leadership skills by leading Nottinghamshire to County Championship victory in 2005 - their first Championship title in 18 years.

He was unseated last year as New Zealand Test captain by Daniel Vettori – a decision that still upsets Fleming. It’s apparent from his veiled barbs in public against the decision of the selectors.
When asked recently how he adapted to the change of being a mere player after such a long tenure as captain, Fleming replied wistfully: “I guess the difference is not being involved in the decision-making. You are so used to it, and conditioned after ten years of watching the game and instinctively making moves, moving a field, trying to read the game and see the game through your own eyes. To some degree you lose that when you are not captain. Still, I watch and pass information to Daniel (Vettori), but he sees it differently at times. Therefore your impact on the game is a lot less. Stepping back is a difficult transition.”

Pressed on by the interviewer if that came as sense of “big relief”, considering the stress leading an international side, Fleming shot back: “Having done it for ten years, it was just the way I knew the game. The time of being tired of it was gone. I was so conditioned and so used to it. No, I wasn't relieved. I was disappointed to lose the Test captaincy, because I still loved it and still thought I had lot to offer. So I am disappointed that I am still not the Test captain.”

If he nurses a greater disappointment in his cricketing career than losing the Test captaincy it has to be his underachievement as a batsman. Fleming had the class and did promise much scoring 92 on his Test debut and 90 on his maiden ODI game. But the twin failures to get into three-figures was going to be the sad feature of his career which he ended his career with one of the worst 50 to 100 conversion ratios in international cricket. “As a batsman I'll always feel I underachieved because I couldn't convert my starts, and I'll never know why. Sometimes I was the master of my own failings, other times it just wasn't meant to be,” he said with understandable regret. His 111 Test yielded him just nine hundreds and as many as 46 half-centuries.

Fleming has been an enigma in many ways. Despite his low conversion rate, he ended his career with a respectable 40-plus batting average in Tests. His sequence of scores in the farewell series against England typically reading: 41, 66, 34, 31, 59, and 66. Yet he has five scores of 150-plus, including three double hundreds. He could well have go on to convert one of his double into a triple hundred had he not selflessly declared the innings when he was on 276. This was in 2003 in Sri Lanka. Fleming denied himself the opportunity to become the first New Zealander to score a triple hundred in Tests by declaring the innings so that his team could have a crack at the tired Lankan batsmen in the last 10 minutes of the day's play.

Another uncommon trait seen in Fleming's career is the fact that unlike most batsmen he has a better overseas record in comparison to that on his home soil. Fleming’s Test batting average at home reads 33.87 compared to his overseas average of 45.92.

All said and done when Fleming looks back at his career he would have the satisfaction of a tremendous run as captain, tally of Test and ODI runs that places him as the top run-getter from his country, and a safe pair of hands that pouched the second highest number of catches (171) in Test history and the fourth highest (133) in ODIs.

Unquestionably, his contribution to New Zealand cricket is up there with legends like Sir Richard Hadlee and Martin Crowe. Yet, Fleming left the international cricket arena for the final time on Wednesday without the hype and hoopla that was reserved for some of the Aussie greats who quit recently. And that is exactly how Fleming would have liked as well.

Carvalho’s Post-mortem: Raising questions than giving answers

2008-03-20T01:00:00.003+05:30

By H Natarajan

“The best job goes to the person who can get it done without passing the buck or coming back with excuses”, said the legendary Napoleon Hill, whose personal success mantras continues to inspire millions for several decades now.

Hill’s philosophy crossed my mind reading the litany of Joachim Carvalho’s excuses in the face of strong reactions in the country following India’s failed mission to qualify for the Beijing Olympics.

Let’s examine the Indian coach’s reactions:

In a bylined article appearing in a prominent Mumbai daily, Carvalho wrote that India would have qualified for the Olympics “if the umpiring was not biased against us.” He beefed up his claims with a sensational broadside against the FIH, the international governing body for hockey, by claiming that “there was a discreet conspiracy by the FIH and Great Britain.”

Conspiracy is very strong word to use, especially against the apex body. It unambiguously questions the credibility of the FIH and leaves his outburst open to censure.

It’s not that Carvalho will be without supporters. Over the years, the game has been systematically tweaked around to suit the robust play of the white nations which enjoy physical superiority against physically less-endowed nations like India and Pakistan that rely more on their skills. But there is a difference between the common man and a national team coach making caustic and indiscriminate comments.

Carvalho goes on to add that, after the league match against Great Britain, three Indian players were called from their rooms at 11.00 pm and given a letter saying which said, “This is not the way you all should be playing. You are all international players. How can you play like this and we are warning you. You all will be severely pulled up in the final match.”

If the coach felt so strongly about the FIH and the umpiring the protest should have been prompt than procrastinated.

Carvalho says that the IHF action “psyched our main players” and says that “our boys had mentally lost the game even before going onto the field. They were totally shattered.” Are our players mentally so fragile? And even if they are, should a coach be saying such a thing in public that leaves the team vulnerable against rivals who would exploit that fraility in future matches?

The coach then compares the predicament of his team to that of the Indian cricket team that toured Australia recently. “The umpires killed our Test team in Australia. The Indian Cricket Board and the media supported them fully. Then, the ICC crumbled down,” Carvalho wrote in his column.

The fact is in sharp contrast to the BCCI, the IHF has not been seen as a player-friendly body. Many a promising career ended long before it should have because of the tyrannical and insensitive ways of the IHF – which, strictly speaking, means KPS Gill. So why is Carvalho not pointing a finger at the man who, an overwhelming majority believe, has been primarily responsible for Indian’s hockey precipitous decline?

If BCCI has put itself in a position of command against powerful nations like Australia and England it’s because successive administrations have built the board into a financial powerhouse. That has ensured that India is today to world cricket what the US is to world politics and economy.

The BCCI transformation did not come about overnight. And it came despite the politicking, intrigues and vast cultural diversity. In the case of the IHF it has been an authoritarian one-man rule which has neither been accountable to anybody nor shown any sense of urgency to arrest the systematic collapse of a game that the nation ruled the world for long. It’s the failure to acknowledge and accept the shortcomings that have seen the IHF stuck in a rut and the game in India sinking into the quicksand of death.

The reaction of Randhir Singh, the Secretary-General, of the Indian Olympic Association was painfully political. “It is a wake-up call, but what is the point of asking somebody to resign? By doing that India is not going to qualify for the Olympics. It is over now," he said. “A Jyothikumaran or a Gill is not responsible for the loss. The team did not play well (against Great Britain). I am not blaming the players, but we have to see why the team did not play well,” he added.

Wake-up call! The wake-up call has been ringing for years, Mr Randhir Singh. Alas, the people who should have done something about it have been in deep slumber – almost in a state of coma. And Randhir’s failure to pin the blame on the IHF top brass is symptomatic of sports governance that believes in all power and no accountability.

Carvalho’s blaming of the umpiring has not found support from his own countrymen with Kukoo Walia, an umpires’ manager of the FIH, and FIH Grade One umpire Virendra Bahadur both giving clean chits to the umpiring in question.

In sharp contrast to the coach, at least three players - Rajpal, Prabhjot and Baldeep – have publicly and graciously said that the team played badly against Great Britain and nobody else is to be blamed.

Indian hockey is ailing and the best man for the job is Dr Ric Charlesworth. It’s Indian hockey’s good fortune that Charlesworth, a player and coach of the highest order, has still made his services available after what he had to undergo. India cannot think of anybody with more proven credentials at the international level than the cerebral Australian. If Gill wants to reconstruct Indian hockey he has to not only get Charlesworth to coach the team but give him a free hand to do his job in a professional manner.

One does not have to wait long for that answer.

KPS Nero still fiddling as Indian hockey is reduced to ashes

2008-03-13T23:23:00.002+05:30

By H Natarajan

If the Indian Hockey Federation (IHF) chief was a corporate CEO, his head would have long rolled. Yet, KPS Gill remains immune to any kind of accountability as Indian hockey hurtled from the vertiginous heights to state of rigor mortis in the South American soil of Chile. Gill remains impassive and remorseless as the grandeur of the once great hockey nation has been systematically reduced to ruins under his leadership.

For the first time in 80 years, the Indian men’s hockey will have no place at the Olympics; it’s like the FIFA World Cup without Brazil. The coup de grace came at Santiago on Sunday when Great Britain inflicted a 0-2 defeat on the eight-time Olympic champions.

India’s erstwhile hegemony, like the Brazilians in football, was crafted by mesmeric skills. And it’s this hypnotic play that saw India’s beaten just once in Olympics between 1928 and 1964 during which it won seven gold medals – including six in a row - and a silver medal.

Sadly, the disaster at Santiago was not unexpected. After bronze in the 1968 and 1972 Olympics, India finished seventh at the 1976 Montreal Games. Since then it has been a steady decline, barring the 1980 Olympics where boycotts by major sporting powers had reduced the hockey field to just six. India’s downhill roster since then reads: fifth in 1984, sixth in 1988, seventh in 1992, eighth in 1996, seventh in 2000 and 2004 and now failing to qualify for the Beijing Games later this year. The last major indication of the country waning powers in the game came last year when for the first time in Asian Games history it failed to win a medal, finishing a disappointing fifth.

Under the autocratic regime of the Gill, things have gone from bad to worse. The 14 long years that Gill has been at the helm of the IHF has been one of sustained pain for both administrators and players. That the Indian team had 15 coaches in the last 10 years is indicative of how unsettled the side has been for a long time. Players of the highest caliber have been victims of Gill’s authoritarian rule and its no surprise that many of the legendary names in Indian hockey like Dhanraj Pillai, Mohammad Shahid and Pargat Singh, to name just a few, have been vocal in calling for the sacking of the IHF supremo.

That the overwhelming majority of the countrymen are not critical of the players in what is clearly the darkest hour in Indian hockey is a pointer to the fact that Gill is seen as the biggest culprit for the mess.

How can the IHF function effectively when two of its key men - Gill and Jyothikumaran, the IHF Secretary General - are not on talking terms?

While the FIH, the governing body for hockey worldwide, has been swift to react to India’s loss and made public their moves to help regain India’s lost glory, Gill has been the archetypal Nero. His reaction following India’s inglorious exit was typical and expected: “We do not have an instant coffee machine that you can get results instantly. It takes time to regain your position. We have put the process in place and the results will take some time,” he said without any sense of regret.

And even as resignations lay in rubble – among which are that of team coach Joaquim Carvalho, assistant coaches Mohinder Pal Singh and Ramesh Parameswaran, IHF vice president Narendra Batra – Gill remained imperiously glued to his chair.

Ric Charlesworth, who was reduced to helplessly bide his time at home when he could have been of huge value to the team at Chile, is widely seen as the man who could take over as the chief coach. But the legendary Australian player and coach is himself in no hurry, clearly indicating that the administrators (read that as Gill, given the fact that IHF is a one-man rule) have to change before he agrees to take charge.

Hockey is still considered – rightly or wrongly – the national game. What happened at Chile was unprecedented in the nation’s hockey history. To many Indians, it’s a national shame. Yet, the Sports Minister says that he cannot interfere in the affairs of the IHF. When the team plays in a global arena, at stake is the country’s name and its glorious past. They are playing in India colors. Isn’t National interest good enough to for the Ministry’s intervention? Especially when the entire country, including the players and administrators, are crying hoarse that the disaster was largely the making of the authoritarian ways of the IHF chief?

Adam Gilchrist - Jewel in the Australian crown

2008-03-06T00:49:00.003+05:30

By H Natarajan

Adam Gilchrist rode into sunset on Tuesday leaving behind him a rich treasure-trove of memories that even amnesia-hit folks will find it hard to forget! His multi-skilled excellence was so uniquely brilliant that he would have been the overwhelming choice as batsman-keeper in any all-time best World XI – Test or ODIs.

Why did the great man leave when he still looked good to carry on? He was the highest scorer for Australia in the tri-series with 322 runs – including a fantastic 118 against Sri Lanka on his farewell appearance on his home turf at Perth. And his runs came at the same devastating pace he scored right through his career. But Gilchrist found that the emotional fuel tank was near-empty as the wear and tear of hectic traveling was affecting his mind and body. And that was symptomatic of the times, despite making his appearance late on the international stage.

Gilly has been pushing himself for a while now. He had, in fact, wanted to quite alongside Shane Warne and Glenn McGrath after the Ashes series last year, which would been akin to the blows Australia received when Dennis Lillee, Greg Chappell and Rod Marsh quit at one go.

John Buchanan reckons that Australia will be impacted more by the exit of Gilchrist than that of Warne and McGrath. While Warne and McGrath were bowlers, Gilchrist brought high value both behind and in front of the wickets. Confirmation of that high worth came in a poll conducted by Cricinfo last year that saw over 10,000 people vote Gilchrist as the ninth greatest all-rounder in the last hundred years.

At No 7 in the Test line-up, Gilchrist was to Australia what Fort Knox is to the United States of America. His reassuring presence low down in the order was a mental challenge for the opposition who could not breathe easy even after getting five top of the order batsmen cheaply. A case in point was the 1999 Hobart Test against Pakistan. Arriving at the wicket at 126 for five, Gilchrist, in tandem with Justin Langer, made the seemingly impossible possible by taking on the might of Wasim Akram, Waqar Younis, Shoaib Akhtar, Azhar Mahmood and Saqlain Mushtaq in a partnership that was worth 238 runs. Australia reached the target of 369 in imperious style with Gilchrist contributing an unbeaten 149 off 163 balls.

Gilchrist’s innovative brand of batting changed the face of modern cricket. He was, in particular, a huge inspiration for ‘keepers like Mahendra Singh Dhoni, Mark Boucher, Kumar Sangakkara who saw the willow as a lethal weapon of destruction. Today’s, it’s unthinkable of teams picking a keeper purely on his ability to keep wickets. If it’s almost a requisite of the contemporary game that the ‘keeper is an all-rounder, then much of the credit goes to Gilly for redefining the game.

He will also be remembered for playing the game in the true spirit, choosing to walk when he knew he was out than wait for the umpire’s decision. He approach seemed an anachronism in a modern game pock-marked with theatrics and hypocrisy and where players use every trick and tactics, both inside and outside the book, to mislead the umpire.

The Aussies, historically, are known for the rabid stance against walking. The great Barry Richards once said that the only time an Aussie will walk is when he runs out of gas! Gilchrist was one of a kind – a throwback to the pristine past. He chose to be a gentleman among hardened men who believed in winning at all costs and showed that one can be a tough pro without having to be a poor role model. The man, nicknamed “Church”, could well be anointed as “St. Adam”!

Gilly was a fantastic ambassador and I dare say that Australia would have projected a much positive image had he been leading the side. The leader sets the tone and there is no denying that the cricketing world views Gilchrist and Ricky Ponting as Polar opposites.

It really came as no surprise when he was voted as the "World's Scariest Batsman" in a poll of international bowlers. Nobody knows that better than bowlers around the world who have felt the remorseless and relentless savagery of this dexterous Western Australian destroyer. His strike-rate is amongst the highest in both forms of the game - 96.94 in ODI and 81.95 in Tests.

Gilchrist scored the second fastest Test hundred – in 57 balls, a ball slower than Viv Richards’s record – two years back at Perth against England. He also held the record for the fastest double hundred in Tests – off 212 balls, against SA at Jo’burg – for a month before Nathan Astle came up with an extraordinary fourth innings double hundred in the 2002 Christchurch Test. Its knocks like these that saw him emerge as the fastest Test run-scorer of all time in a scientific research conducted by Wisden.

As a ‘keeper, Gilchrist may not be in the same class of Ian Healy. But he was top class – no questions. And if there was one moment to highlight his class and confidence it was his stumping to dismiss Craig McMillan off paceman Glenn McGrath to a delivery bowled at 136 kmph in an ODI at Wellington in 2005.

The “c Gilchrist b McGrath” line in the scorecards was as monotonous as the “c Marsh b Lillee” line in the past. The Gilchrist-McGrath effected 90 dismissals, five behind the “Marsh-Lillee” combine.

Marsh himself is a huge admirer of Gilchrist which is best reflected in his lavish praise sometime back when he said: "I never saw Bradman bat, but it's hard to imagine he could have been any more destructive than Gilchrist. The thing about Gilchrist is he can change the course of a match in an hour. And he doesn't just do it once or twice, he does it regularly. Effectively he gives Australia an extra player - and what a player."

What a player, indeed! A total of 96 Tests without a break which saw a world record 414 dismissals, 17 centuries and 5,570 Test runs at an average of 47.60 - it hovered over 60-plus halfway through his career. His ability and frequency to strike the ball long earned him the distinction of the first man in Test history to hit 100 sixes. He also plundered 16 ODI hundreds from 287 ODIs. Gilchrist was a big stage player. He is the only player to chalk up 50-plus scores in three successive World Cup finals – all three being match-winning efforts. His 149 in the 2007 edition is the highest in any World Cup final. It was in that year that 39% of the 168 players who represented Australia in ODIs voted him as the greatest player to ever represent their country in the abridged version of the game.

Gilchrist was truly a jewel in the Australian crown.

IPL will be a huge and unexpected boon for emerging Indian talent

2008-02-28T00:38:00.003+05:30

By H Natarajan

The watershed auction of the who’s who of the game last week emphatically hammered the point that India is the El Dorado of international cricket. India’s commercial capital was the playground of the richest like Mukesh Ambani, Vijay Mallya, Shah Rukh Khan and Ness Wadia who were lassoing in marquee names by nonchalantly throwing money like grains at a kabutarkhana.

The forces of globalization are changing the face of the game – no mistaking that. India is the nuclear powerhouse of the game and while it may seem far-fetched to even suggest at this point of time, I for one would not be surprised if the ICC becomes irrelevant in times to come. ICC survival as cricket’s apex will depend heavily on the relationship it’s able to forge with the omnipotent Board of Control for Cricket in India. The ICC knows that the BCCI is quite capable of flexing its financial muscle in a manner that could jeopardize the very existence of the ICC as the game’s governing body.

The business and financial acumen of Jagmohan Dalmiya then and Lalit Modi now have put the BCCI in a position of command. In 1971 – a watershed year in Indian cricket - an Indian cricketer got Rs 750 for a Test. At the exchange rate today – that’s 37 years later - it still works to a mere US $18.75 (approx). Compare that with the Rs 6 crore that India’s ODI captain, Mahendra Singh Dhoni, got at the auction. Even a greenhorn like Rohit Sharma or a relatively unknown like Manoj Tiwari were lapped up for Rs 3 crore and Rs 2.7 crores respectively. It simply means that these boys would be earning several hundred times more in just over a month than an average Indian can hope to save after 35-40 years of blood, sweat, tears and toil in a job.

With so much money to be made in such a short time outside the international playing arena, the IPL has ensured that parents will look at the game as a serious viable career option for their children.

The Subhash Chandra-Kapil Dev-powered Indian Cricket League (ICL) had some big international names – largely, recently-retired players - like Brian Lara, Inzamam-ul-Haq, Chris Cairns, Lance Klusener, Craig McMillan, Abdul Razzaq, Nathan Astle and Marvan Atapattu. If the ICL did not make a big impact on the Indian followers in its inaugural year it’s because it had virtually no big name from India which is a factor in sharp contrast to the IPL. In fact, the IPL not only has all the big and emerging young names in Indian cricket but also several top class current players from all over the world.

Personally, what is most satisfying is the fact that many of India’s emerging young talent in the under-19 and under-22 age groups will get to rub shoulders with the biggest names the game has known like Shane Warne, Adam Gilchrist, Glenn McGrath, Muttiah Muralitharan, Ricky Ponting, Matthew Hayden, Shoaib Akhtar, Brett Lee, Kumar Sangakarra and Shaun Pollock. It’s a God-sent opportunity for the likes of Virat Kohli, Pradeep Sangwan and Tanmay Srinvastava. That’s like getting 100% scholarship out of the blue to a coveted university like Harvard or Yale.

If there is a tinge of regret it’s that someone like Ambati Rayudu, a player of whom much was expected, is lost to the ICL. And unless equations change dramatically for the ICL, the 22-year-old could be lost forever.

Indian cricket will also be enriched by new thought processes with the likes of John Buchanan and Tom Moody, coaches with huge reputations, aligning themselves with the IPL.

Of all the teams, Hyderabad seems strongest on paper. Imagine having four of the most devastating batmen: Adam Gilchrist, Herschelle Gibbs, Andrew Symonds and Shahid Afridi at the top of the order! Each of them can change the course of a match single-handedly and in a matter of few overs. Then there is the young pup Rohit Sharma and captain VVS Laxman, whose selfless act of sacrificing the icon status gave his team much buying power. If there is any lacuna or lopsidedness to their attack it’s their bowling resource which has three left-arm pacemen in Chaminda Vaas, RP Singh and Nuwan Zoysa.

The team that looks to have gained the least out of the auction – at least on paper – is Mumbai. They have quite a few players whose age and fitness may come in for severe examination in a game where there is very little margin for errors. Sanat Jayasuriya, Shaun Pollock, Sachin Tendulkar are no doubt class acts, but they do not have the legs that they had a few years back.

Mumbai, like some others team, has not used up its permitted quota of eight overseas players which means they could still correct the imbalances. Interest would now be on the English players – especially the likes of Dimitri Mascarenhas, Kevin Petersen and Paul Collingwood.

Hopefully, the IPL will force the BCCI to do a much, much-needed rethink on spending money on infrastructure to ensure that the millions of fans in cricket-crazy India will get to enjoy the game the way it should be and not be treated like cattle. The paying spectator has suffered the most and longest and its time they get their much-deserved due.

One thing is for sure: If the IPL succeeds then the game will not be the same again - just as the game underwent a dramatic transformation after Kerry Packer’s World Series Cricket.

BCCI move to ban sledging is most welcome

2008-02-21T09:08:00.001+05:30

By H Natarajan

The Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI) needs to be applauded for mooting a proposal to bring a ban on sledging. Cricket has long lost its tag of being a “gentlemen’s sport” after walking, accepting an erroneous decision with grace, conducting with dignity on the filed etc have all become endangered species of a pristine past.

Loutish behavior and foul language have imbued the fair name of the game and in recent time unrestrained exchange of words between oppositions has brought the game to a near split.

The loudest noise against the BCCI proposal has, not surprisingly, come from Australia, whose players have been the biggest perpetrators of some of the biggest on-field fracas in cricket history. Dennis Lillee’s kicking of Javed Miandad, Steve Waugh’s near-physical confrontation with Curtly Ambrose and Glenn McGrath’s verbal duel with Ramnaresh Sarwan being some of the prominent cases in point.

Mark Taylor, the former Australian captain, says the game would be boring without sledging. Rubbish. Is he saying that the game was a big yawn when the likes of Sir Don Bradman and Sir Garry Sobers were playing? Sir Gary, in fact, is still remembered for his sense of fair play in calling batsmen who were erroneously given out by umpire.

Players are paid for their playing skills and not their verbal skills. And the spectators are paying good money to see a fiery fast bowler, a spin wizard, a gifted batsman or a great contest between bat and ball. Nobody comes to see two players sparring in a language that they themselves would not utter before their children.

Soccer’s increasing influence on cricket is unmistakable - be it Andrew Flintoff’s bare-bodied, celebration or Sourav Ganguly’s retaliation likewise. And images of Harbhajan’s rolling on the ground after dismissing Ricky Ponting and Michael Slater’s eyeball-to-eyeball confrontation with Rahul Dravid in Mumbai a few years back are straight from the soccer field.

Cricket can take a leaf out of the soccer rule book to discipline erring players. Maybe the time has come for ICC to empower umpires with cards - yellow for warning and red for marching orders – to be used as a tool for slapping exemplary and instantaneous on-field punishment. I dare say that one would find a radical change in player behavior. The captain would ensure that a player like Glenn McGrath keeps his tongue and temper in check as red-carding a key player could cost the match for his team.

The players have a social responsibility as public figures with humungous powers to influence young minds. Any behavior that goes against acceptable norms of a civilized society is unacceptable. There should be no place for poor role models. It’s the duty of the ICC to ensure that players do not cross the line. Clearly, the line has been breached several times in the recent past and leading to heightened feeling of concern and unease.

Too often players have got away with obnoxious, personal remarks. McGrath is one of the infamous offenders in this regard. He got it back in full measure from Sarwan, which almost led to the two players getting physical. In another instance, McGrath asked the portly Eddo Brandes: "Why are you so fat?" The Zimbabwean shut McGrath up by saying: "Because every time I f... your wife she gives me a biscuit."

Mental toughness of the modern age does not have to be verbally foul, devoid of sporting spirit or reduced to a show of naked, ugly aggression. One of the finest examples of mental toughness is Anil Kumble. In a long and distinguished international career, never once has he behaved in a manner that has been questionable. Yet, few can match his mental toughness or even his physical courage – remember his heroics with a broken jaw in the West Indies? Kumble’s stature as a statesman par excellence was exemplified in the dignity and restraint he showed in circumstances that would have provoked even the mildest of men during the Sydney Test and in nailing of Harbhajan Singh. Kumble’s philosophy showed that toughness has to be in the mind and in deeds rather than words or offensive behaviour.

Another avoidable modern ‘arsenal’ is the ‘keeper doubling up as an ostensible instrument for encouraging the bowlers. The non-stop jabber fools nobody as it’s evident to all that the role and the aim of the ‘keeper is only to distract and/or upset the batsmen.

Some of the most dreaded of fast bowlers like Andy Roberts, Michael Holding and Joel Garner did not find the need to behave like delinquent brats as Andre Nel or Sreesanth have done.

The Augean Stables need to be cleaned and the BCCI has taken a step in the right direction.

Another wake-up call for ICC – this time from cricket’s top umpire

2008-02-14T23:28:00.001+05:30

By H Natarajan

The beleaguered International Cricket Council (ICC) received a stunning blow on Monday with Simon Taufel, 37, indicating that he could bid adieu to Tests. Taufel is to the ICC Elite Panel of umpires what Sachin Tendulkar is to the cricketers – class apart.

Taufel has been named the “ICC Umpire of the Year” for four successive years since the inception of the awards in 2004. Not many would disagree with that rating of a man who has won the respect and trust from players all over the world. I dare say that if the rules permitted, the Indians would have had no problems in the Aussie officiating in his country’s Test matches against Anil Kumble’s side.
Three things were clear from Taufel’s statement on Monday – firstly, he was unsure of renewing his contract with the ICC that expires on March 31; secondly, he did not wish his family life to suffer and, thirdly, he was “looking for new opportunities”.

There seems to be a common thread running between the three points. What he said could well have meant that he did not wish to subject himself to the international grind because he has a more meaningful option – possibly in the form of the lucrative Indian Premier League (IPL) which not only offers him fatter pay package but also more quality time with his family.

There could be bigger seismic shifts in the days to come with the epicenter of the tremors being the IPL. A player or an umpire looks for two things: One, professional satisfaction and, second, financial security. Both aspects will be addressed by the IPL. With more family time coming in as the icing on the cake, it’s a dream situation to make the switch for many – especially those who have been in the circuit for long and/or those who are in the twilight zone.

The ICC, as repeatedly mentioned by this writer, has neither been proactive or it has kept pace with time. The growing disenchantment among both players and umpires is the result of ICC not addressing their concerns. There is, to cite an example, severe resources crunch in the Elite Panel and the crowded international cricketing schedule has done nothing to ease the problems.

Taufel is not the first umpire to put family before professional interests. Peter Willey spurned the opportunity to be part of the Elite Panel of umpires because he did not want to spend too much time away from home. The likes of Willey are aware that too much time away from family has come at a huge cost for many on the international circuit. Graham Gooch, Darren Gough, Graham Thorpe, Mark Butcher, Dominic Cork, Sanath Jayasuriya, Michael Slater….and many, many more have seen their marriages collapsing. And when one is constantly touring, there is very little chance for the couple to sit together and rework their relationship. And when one is at the risk at losing the very family one is toiling for, it’s understandable to put family before profession. In their bid to generate revenue, the administration has not addressed to the growing concerns of the players and umpires who are subjected to punishing schedule.

There is also the stress factor that has caused grief to a few players like England’s Marcus Trescothick – who withdrew from three tours in as many years – and, more recently paceman Shaun Tait, who walked away from cricket indefinitely, citing physical and emotional exhaustion. Tait’s decision was most shocking considering that he was named ICC’s “Emerging Player of the Year” just last year. No wonder Australian captain Ricky Ponting said that the news hit him “like a ton of bricks”. Tait has needed surgery to his shoulder, elbow and has battled with lower back and hamstring injuries. That’s considerable physical and emotional stress for a 24 year old.

New Zealand’s Lou Vincent is another stressed out cricketer. The Kiwi, who is on anti-depressant, had told New Zealand's Sunday Star Times: "I remember so many days that should have been great days, when I've gone home, slumped over a chair and thought, 'I just hate this and I hate myself.' I was completely beaten by it, I let it get to me and it just took over. Until you have been through it, you can't imagine how bad it is." Vincent doubts if he will return back to international cricket.

The ICC has got another wake-up call – this time from an umpire which the apex body believes is the best for four years on a trot. Taufel said - something that this columnist wrote a few weeks ago – that umpires had to make split-second decisions without getting any assistance from technologies like the snickometer. It’s an unfair contest between human failings against the near-perfection of technology.

A progressive person, Taufel has been vocal in asking ICC to empower umpires with technological assistance to minimize errors. Just last year, he expressed his anguish after giving Sachin Tendulkar lbw at Trent Bridge. "I always look at the big screen after giving a decision. And the minute I saw the replay of Sachin's dismissal, I knew I got it wrong," he had said. The Australian was not only honest in admitting his error in judgment but also sympathetic towards the paying public who had paid good money to see a master batsman in action.

The joy from the game is ebbing away for many involved with it. The alarm bells are ringing louder with every passing day. Sadly, the people who matter most have not heard it – or chosen not to hear it.

Memories of a fateful day 50 years ago

2008-02-07T11:35:00.000+05:30

By H Natarajan

It was on February 6, 1958 the world grieved to one of the biggest disasters in sports history. It was on this fateful day, fifty years ago, that Manchester United lost eight of its players in an air crash on take-off in snowstorm at Munich. The plane, which was carrying the Man U team home from a European Cup game in Yugoslavia, had halted in Munich for re-fuelling. The team had drawn 3-3 with Red Star Belgrade and qualified for the European Cup semis in their last match before the crash.

During my visit to Manchester United, I saw the painful memories of that disastrous day displayed at the club’s museum. Just imagine losing a sizable number of your favourite team in such tragic circumstances and you can probably appreciate how colossal the loss was to the champion side. David Gill, the club’s chief executive, believes that what we see today of Manchester United has much to do with that tragedy.

I was given to believe that the tragic air crash, which decimated a generation of players with a rich future, triggered a new thinking as even those with not much interest in the game emotionally connected with Man U following the tragedy and offered their support in rebuilding their fortunes.

Champions are a breed apart and in that champion side was a man who risked his life to save the lives of many of his fellow-passengers. That man was the team’s goalkeeper, Harry Gregg, who went inside the wreckage ignoring the captain’s warning that the plane would explode anytime. Among the lives Gregg saved were that Yugoslav diplomat’s pregnant wife and her young daughter.

One of the survivors was the legendary Bobby Charlton, who played 106 caps for England and went on to be part of the England team that won the World Cup in 1966. He was named “European Footballer of the Year” the same year and two years later was part of the United team that won the European Cup. Though Bobby Charlton achieved much in his life, something in him died that tragic day with many of his loved team mates. As Bobby’s brother Jack – also a member of England's World Cup-winning team, says: “Robert was never the same again. I saw a big change from that day on. He stopped smiling, a trait that continues." It’s traumatic to come out of an airplane crashing at 150 mph and emerge from a wreckage where many of your near and dear ones, with whom you were laughing just moments ago, lying lifelessly in the most gruesome manner.

But one of the biggest losses in that air crash was the death of 21-year-old Duncan Edwards, who punctured a lung in the accident. Charlton summed up Edwards’s talent by saying: "He was the only player who made me feel inferior". The crash also saw the demise of Roger Byrne who was expected to lead England in the future. If Byrne had returned home alive, he would have delighted to know that he was going to be a father for the first time.

Sir Matthew Busby was another big name to survive the crash was. Busby managed Manchester United the longest - between 1945-1969 and again for the 1970-1971 season. In fact, the youthful Man U side of his time was fondly named as Busby Babes. Busby was found in the wreckage by Gregg with his foot pointing round the wrong way! He spent two months in a German hospital after the crash nursing a huge guilt as he felt he was responsible for the death of so many young lives.

What happened 50 years ago was a monumental tragedy. Many of the young heroes who died in the crash would have gone on to become great players had their lives not been cut in their primes. But even in their death they emerged as huge inspirations as the tragedy spurred on generation of players that followed them at Manchester United to great heights.

The name is Shaun – Shaun Pollock

2008-01-31T23:37:00.000+05:30

By H Natarajan

It’s a tough act to follow in the footsteps of a high-achiever father. The pressure of expectation is unreal and often unfair. Cricket history is replete with examples of sons paying the price of having a famous surname. There are few instances of sons - Sir Richard Hadlee, Mohinder Amarnath and Tiger Pataudi being cases in point - outshining their respective fathers, but then the accomplishments of the fathers at the international level were modest at best.

In my book, there is no comparison to Shaun Pollock who not only overcame the pressures of having a famous surname but established deeds that surpassed that of his illustrious father. Shaun not only had a father who will be remembered as one of the great fast bowlers of the game but also a paternal uncle who will rank among the all-time great batsmen. Indeed, the record books would have been littered with the dazzling feats of Peter and Graeme Pollock had the greater part of their careers not been lost because of the ban imposed on the then racial South Africa.

Shaun bids adieu to international cricket in a few days time with an enviable record. His tally of 421 wickets is the eighth highest in Tests and the most by a South African. And his 391 wickets in ODIs (he still has two more outings to boost the tally) is the fourth highest in the game, behind Wasim Akram, Waqar Younis and Muttiah Muralitharan. Pollock will be remembered as one of the genuine all-rounders of the game – a player of who can be expected to score a hundred and haul a fiver.

For a greater part of his career he has batted at No 8 but still ended his Test career with an average of 32 plus. In fact, he contributed hugely to the depth of the South African batting line-up, which is reflected in his average of over 41 from 20 outings at No 9. In fact, both his Test hundreds have come at No 9. As a batsman in ODIs, he has an average of 26 plus – again, pretty good considering that he most batted between numbers 7-9. And if you think that his average is nothing to shout about, just look at the career figures of more accomplished ODI players like Krishamachari Srikkanth, Virender Sehwag, Sanath Jayasuriya, Steve Waugh, Shahid Afridi, Allan Border, Mahela Jayawardene to name a few, all of whom had the luxury of batting higher up the order and pace their innings.

But it is as a bowler that Pollock will be most remembered. He was in the genre of the greats Sir Richard Hadlee and Glenn McGrath, running in close to the stumps and gnawing away around the off-stump. There was no respite for the batsmen and his robotic accuracy made him one of the most parsimonious bowlers in the history of the game. His economy rate of 3.67 is fractionally behind Curtly Ambrose (3.48) among bowlers who have taken 200 wickets or more in ODIs. He brought the same discipline in line and length in Tests as well to make scoring off him a difficult proposition.

Pollock’s all-round abilities brought huge value to South Africa. He won the Man of the Match award on his ODI debut and completed the double of 1000 runs and 100 wickets in the least number of matches.

He came under the early influence of Malcolm Marshall, who was an overseas professional with Natal. And Pollock has always been grateful to his late mentor who chiseled his bowling skills to lethal perfection.

Pollock has played a major part in South Africa’s Test victories. Bearing testimony to that is the fact that more than 223 of his 421 wickets have come in SA victories and that too at just over 18 apiece.

Till around four years back, his cost per wicket was the lowest by any bowler with 200 or more in Tests. By then, he had taken his tally past the 300 mark. It’s only in the last few years that his prowess has waned, but that is by his own high standards.

In fact, he was picked for only the final Test of the series against the West Indies where he emerged as the pick of the SA bowlers with a four-wicket haul to help his team win the Test by an innings and with it the series. He then helped SA clinch the Johannesburg Twenty-20 match against WI after his team was reeling at 77 for six, chasing 132 for victory. The victory helped SA draw the series. And in the ongoing ODI series, in which SA has taken an unassailable 3-0 lead, Pollock heads the bowling averages.

Obviously, not everything seems right about Pollock’s exit. Pat Symcox, an off-spinner who played alongside Pollock for a number of years, has blamed the selectors squarely for forcing the great all-rounder to take the decision.

"He was chosen in May last year as the South African player of the year, but in October his contract at Cricket South Africa was downgraded from A+ to A status," Symcox told a South African newspaper. "Add to that the fact that he wasn't chosen to play against New Zealand or Pakistan, nor in the first two Tests against the West Indies. Why? He had an [batting] average of more than 40 in the last 12 Tests and his bowling average was less than 18. In his three Tests in 2007, he took 13 wickets, while Andre Nel could only manage [16] in seven Tests. His omission doesn't make any sense…I don't understand why he was treated this way. Without Pollock, South Africa can go down to No. 6 after the Tests against India and Australia."

It’s always sad to see a great player go. And as he leaves, the thought that lingers in the mind is that when mention is made of the great all-rounders in the name, Pollock will be up there with the best.

Adieu, Polly.

Mega Wins: Perth is the latest but Kolkata was the greatest

2008-01-24T00:22:00.000+05:30

By H Natarajan

I was watching Sunil Gavaskar after India’s watershed victory over Australia in the Perth Test and I was quite surprised to hear the great man saying that India’s victory in the third Test was “the greatest win Indian cricket has had over the last 35-40 years."

Gavaskar’s intelligence, experience and expertise of the game by playing, managing and commenting about it over 37 years have few equals. But to qualify the Perth Test as “the greatest…” - even within the time span mentioned – was surprising. Gavaskar himself has figured in some of the greatest Tests and, importantly, played a meaningful part in those epics – the 400-plus fourth innings run-chase in 1976 at Port-of-Spain being one of them. A writer has the luxury of gathering his thoughts and making his point, something a TV or Radio commentator does not have while commenting live. And at times a commentator makes a point on the spur of the moment which may not exactly be what he may think while reflecting back at leisure. But he may accept the occupational hazards and choose to live with his statement than make amendments.

I don’t know if Gavaskar has second thoughts about what he said, but I, and for that matter most Indians, would rate India’s victory over Australia in the 2nd Test at Kolkata in 2001 as “the greatest” ever. If Salim-Javed at their pomp had written the script of what was enacted over five unforgettable days at the Eden Gardens, it would have been rubbished for gross exaggeration – even by Bollywood standards! Only twice before in over 124 years a team won the Test after following-on – in 1894 and 1981, both times by England over Australia. The victory margin of 10 runs and 18 runs respectively suggest the closeness of those contests.

What happened in Kolkata was surreal. Australia had won the first Test and looked set to win the second Test as well - and with it the three-match series - at Kolkata. Batting first, they posted a total of 445 and then, powered by Glenn McGrath and Shane Warne, shot out India for 171. Following on a massive 274 runs behind, India were hurtling towards defeat, losing four wickets – including Sachin Tendulkar and captain Sourav Ganguly – with still 42 runs in arrears. What one then saw was excellence of a rare order by VVS Laxman and Rahul Dravid in one of the finest jugalbandis of all time. India just did not go on to win the match, but they won by a staggering 171 runs. India also went on to win the series and script a new rivalry in Test cricket, of which Perth was another great chapter. For me, Kolkata 2001 remains the greatest Test win ever in Indian history.

In the past, India have fought back from 0-2 down in the series to draw level – in 1974-75 against Clive Lloyd’s team at home and against Australia, severely depleted by the migration to Kerry Packer’s World Series Cricket, in 1978-79. In that sense, the Perth Test only enabled India to reduce the deficit. But the victory at WACA is special for a number of factors:

a. The Indians had lost a Test match at Sydney which they should have saved and were traumatized by the happenings on and off the field. The future of the series was in doubt as indeed the future cricketing ties between the two nations.

b. The Perth rectangle was the fastest in the world and a venue that was tailor-made for the Aussie quicks. India, on the other hand, had left home without some of their main fast bowlers and midway through the tour had lost their pace spearhead – Zaheer Khan.

c. The Australian juggernaut was on a world record-equaling run and if you had read any or seen anything in the media before the Test, it all pointed to an Indian annihilation led by Shaun Tait.

The Indians visualized the invisible and achieved the seemingly impossible. And much of the credit should go to Anil Kumble, who could well get an invitation to premier B Schools to lecture on crisis management and man management. The fury within – even at the height of being wronged at Sydney – never found expression in his words or outwards feelings. He weighed his words with care and caution. Because he remained an oasis of calm, the team was spared of undue pressure. Many of India’s wins have been fashioned by flexing their batting muscles. But this time around, it was team effort to near perfection. There were no centuries – in fact, none at all in the entire Test. Again, it was not a Kumble who led the bowling devastation. All the bowlers, barring none, chipped in beautifully. If you look closely at the scorecard, except Wasim Jaffer and Sourav Ganguly, every single player in the Indian team would have reasons to remember this Test for having made significant personal contribution.

There were some huge gains for India from the Test: the Man-of-the-Match winning return of Irfan Pathan and his confidence-regaining magic with the ball; Virender Sehwag’s ominous comeback; Ishant Sharma’s rising stature… The thought of a fit Zaheer Khan having fast-bowling support in the form of RP Singh, Pathan and Ishant Sharma is truly exciting. This should only make the likes of Sreesanth, Munaf Patel, VRV Singh etc to strive harder. All this can only augur well for the future.

Now let’s spare a thought for the umpires, too

2008-01-18T00:13:00.000+05:30

By H Natarajan

Technology has taken quantum leaps in cricket, but the mindset of the apex body for the game hasn’t kept progress. This disconnect has caused a fertile breeding ground for many of cricket’s increasing acrimony.

Without condoning inept umpiring, one must also be alive to the monumental odds stacked against modern umpires. If there was relatively less heartburn in the pre-television days and during the days when TV technology was still in its infancy, it was because it was just the umpire’s word against the players. The umpires did not come under the kind of scrutiny that they are subjected to now. Giant scoreboards around ground in the world precipitate matters for umpires. An umpire has to make micro-split decision with players tearing their lungs out in appeal. On the other hand pundits and public sit in the air-conditioned comfort of their respective abodes, viewing images beamed from multiple cameras, freeze shots, zoom shots, graphs of snick-o-meter etc etc etc and then pass judgment on the umpires. It’s clearly an unequal battle between man and technology.

One should also factor that besides vociferous appealing by the players, the umpires also have to deal with the high decibel levels of excited spectators – over a lakh in stadiums like the MCG and Eden Garden. If you think that’s easy, just recollect the times you asked a friend of family that you will call later because you cannot hear in the outdoor din of a public place. Where the ICC is guilty is in appointing umpires past their sell-by date because of weakening faculties. Nearing 62, Steve Bucknor is not what he was at, say, 55.

Let us not forget that at stake is the livelihood of the players. The passage to get to international level has come at price. They have given their blood, sweat and tears, sacrificing many things over the years to achieve their dream of playing for the country. It would be utterly cruel if this dream is crushed by momentary callousness or incompetence. Why can’t the rules be amended to suit the times? The need of the hour is to give a fixed quota per innings for teams to appeal against an umpiring decision. Because there is a known quota (say three per innings), players will be judicious in seeking the intervention of electronic aid. If the third umpire finds that the appeal is justified, the original decision should be overturned and the appeal should not be deducted from the designated number allotted to the team. If such a law was in place, much of the heat that was generated in the Sydney Test could well have been avoided.

Wasim Jaffer was dismissed in the Sydney Test off a Brett Lee no ball. Now imagine if the batsman was batting on 399 and he was declared out to a no ball! The batsman gets a fraction of a second when he faces bowlers like Shoaib Akhtar and Brett Lee at their quickest. Now if a batsman were to get microseconds to make his judgment, spare a thought for the poor umpire: he has to look down to adjudicate on where the bowler’s foot lands AND THEN look up and decided on decisions like lbw and faint snicks! Why cannot an umpire be appointed exclusively for judging no balls? Tennis has chair umpires close to the net, but still there is someone to guide him on net cord decisions. We need not cling to some established convention if there are alternatives to minimize the error factor.

I have another problem with the ICC – one that dates back to several decades. Is the ruling body treating the umpires the way they should? In a bygone era, a Test match had a rest day. This rest was for the players, who in any case get copious stretches of rest when their side is batting. Even while fielding, those stationed at third man do not require the same alertness that players in the slip cordon have to exhibit. In sharp contrast, the duty of the umpires start well before the day’s play commences and ends well past the end of the game. There is absolutely no respite whatsoever. They got to possess unwavering concentration and excellent fitness to last the rigors of five successive days of a Test match.

Long before the advent of the third umpires, I was of the view that we need to have a third umpire who can be used in rotation – one of the ground umpires goes to take the third umpire’s place and the third umpire, in turn, takes the place in the middle. The umpire who officiated for the pre-lunch and post-lunch sessions, will act as the third umpire in the final session and the third umpire for the middle session should take up ground duty. This way there is semblance of rest for the overworked umpires.

It’s incredible that there are only ten umpires in the ICC Elite Panel. In effect, it means, if Australia is playing the West Indies, the choice to pick is restricted to just five as Australia have three umpires and West Indies two in the Elite Panel. Considering that often three Test series are under way at the same time, the resources are extremely meager – to put things mildly.

The ICC must address the cause than merely treat the disease. Unless there is greater representation in the Elite Panel of umpires, and unless umpires get the freedom by the ICC to seek greater assistance of technology, incidents like that at Sydney will keep rearing its ugly head.

Sydney Test fallout: ICC Sitting On Top Of A Dormant Volcano

2008-01-10T22:43:00.000+05:30

By H Natarajan

Steve Bucknor may have been replaced and peace may have been bought, but to imagine that all’s well that end’s well would be naïve. The pusillanimity of the International Cricket Council’s (ICC) and its failure to progress with times has brought up a situation from where it had to take some terrible decisions that has fearful ramifications in the times ahead. The decision could be particular hurtful as other teams could cite the precedence to demand change of unacceptable umpires in the midst of a series.

This is not to condone Bucknor. His inglorious past while officiating in India’s matches is too well documented and the ICC should have kept him away from the high voltage series. In the days when Tests were officiated by home umpires, the element of bias was had reached epidemic proportions towards the end of that era. But since the dawn of neutral umpiring, no team has suffered as much and as regularly as India from Bucknor. The litany against him is comparable to some of the diabolical and dark days of matches umpired by home umpires.

The BCCI has also not crowned itself with glory. It may be relieved that it did not have to take the popular - but extreme - step of calling of the tour if the impasse persisted. Such a decision may have pleased the angry masses in India, but a pull-out would have turned world opinion against India. But what would be interesting to know is: Did the BCCI object to Bucknor’s appointment in the first place?

Bucknor may have paid the price for his collective ‘sins’, but it was Mark Benson who was in reality the bigger culprit of the two umpires in the Sydney Test. Benson, who played one Test against India Kapil Dev’s Indian touring Indians in 1986, messed up with even the basics while ruling Sourav Ganguly out. Instead of consulting his square-leg colleague and then the third umpire, Benson thought it fit to make Ponting the deciding authority and then relay the Australian captain’s verdict to Ganguly! It was a shocker. Yet, Benson has gone relatively unscathed.

While there may be an uneasy calm about the umpiring row, the Harbhajan Singh fracas is far from resolved. Clearly justice has not seen to be done. Match referee Mike Procter indicted Harbhajan of racial slur despite not getting conclusive evidence to nail the off-spinner. It was purely the words of the Australians against the Indians – obviously contradicting each other. Yet, Procter, in his wisdom, chose to take the words of Andrew Symonds and Michael Clarke – two men whose honesty lay open to question by their decisions to stay rooted after fully knowing they were out – over Sachin Tendulkar, someone whose conduct, honesty and stature has been exemplary right through his cricketing career. The implied message of the match referee was damning.

The fact that Ranjan Madugulle has been called in by the ICC to cool down tempers between the two teams underline Procter’s inability as a Match referee. Why should Procter continue if he is found wanting? Procter has now twice in recent times been at the centre of huge controversies – the Oval Test where Pakistan conceded the match being the other.

"The whole issue has gotten out of hand. It should have been dealt with then and there by the match referee," Malcolm Speed said after the unfortunate and unprecedented turn of events in the Oval Test. Procter has bungled again. The ICC may not want to vitiate the already messed up atmosphere and has quietly appointed a “Super Referee’ over the Match Referee. Third umpire to help on-field umpires and now a super referee to help the Match Referee! Ridiculous.

Procter’s sense of fairplay and justice is extremely questionable. He had once banned Rashid Latif and explained his decision by saying: “As captain, a lot of responsibility falls of Rashid Latif and he committed a serious offence by claiming that (unfair) catch which constitutes unfair play and a level-three offence of ICC code of conduct. Therefore, the Pakistani captain shall be banned for five One-Day Internationals." If Procter had applied the same logical thought process, the Australian captain should have copped it as well. Instead, it’s Harbhajan who was nailed without incontrovertible proof.

Coming back to the allegations against Harbhajan, even if he did call Symonds “monkey”, would that constitute racial abuse? Indians, in fact, consider Hanuman as their God. I guess school teachers around the world would hereafter be cautious in admonishing naughty children and not say, “Stop monkeying around,” for being of being hauled up for racial abuse!

It would be interesting to see what the verdict would be against Brad Hogg who, the Indians claimed, called Kumble a “b*****d”. To most right-minded people, questioning the legitimacy of someone’s parentage is far more offensive than calling somebody names like monkey or donkey. Will Hogg cop a suitable punishment or would he been seen as more equal than others as seems the case with the Australians as a team?

Peter Roebuck, the former Somerset captain and arguably the most cerebral and unbiased of modern cricket writers, wrote in his column in the Sydney Morning Herald: “Ricky Ponting must be sacked as captain of the Australian cricket team. If Cricket Australia cares a fig for the tattered reputation of our national team in our national sport, it will not for a moment longer tolerate the sort of arrogant and abrasive conduct seen from the captain and his senior players over the past few days. Beyond comparison it was the ugliest performance put up by an Australian side for 20 years…. Ponting has presided over a performance that dragged the game into the pits. He turned a group of professional cricketers into a pack of wild dogs. As much can be told from the conduct of his closest allies in the team.” Roebuck was the most scathing among many Australian writers who slammed their cricket team and captain. Polls conducted in Australia show that an overwhelming majority want Ponting sacked. But Cricket Australia has surprisingly defended Ponting and his men by calling the team “tough and uncompromising”. That CA is in minority can be gauged by the fact that even the normally slow to react ICC asked Cricket Australia to check Ponting and his men.

Ponting has long been captain and should have acquired the necessary maturity and diplomacy that is needed of a national captain. He could well learn a thing or two from Anil Kumble in decorum, public conduct and statesmanship. A captain is not merely leading a team; he has a responsibility towards his country as well. Kumble showed remarkable foresight and offered Ponting the chance not to allow matters to deteriorate by pursuing the Harbhajan controversy. Ponting refused and allowed matters to precipitate to an extend that it threatened the very cricketing future between the two nations.

A great Test match has been ruined by Oscar-winning theatrics of players whose desire to win at all costs has seen them come across as extremely poor role models. The ICC and the national cricket boards have a duty towards the masses. By allowing blatant acts of lies by players they are endorsing a despicable trait and allowing a generation of young minds to be corrupted by poor values that no parent would like to see in their children. The time to act is now.

Dravid and the opening conundrum

2008-01-03T10:42:00.000+05:30

H Natarajan

There is nothing wrong in experimenting. But if an experiment is found to be largely unsuccessful, it only makes sense to look out for alternatives than persisting with the same.

The decision of the team management to be limpet-like in their stance to go with Rahul Dravid as an opener is questionable if only for his poor track record in this position. The argument may be put forward – and not without merit – that Dravid has the temperament and patience of an opener, arguably, more than any other member in this Indian side. There is also no questioning his technical brilliance to tackle the new ball. The resultant question would then force people to ask: Why the hue and cry about asking at No 3 to open?

Walking out to open the innings is a feeling that is vastly different than batting at any other number in the order. And that is something any opener at even a club level would vouch for. It requires a shift in mindset for any batsman down the order to open the innings. Unlike the rest of the batting order, openers don’t know what kind of help bowlers would generate from the wicket or the atmosphere. And if the team is batting second, then there is little respite for the openers, who have to pad up in a hurry and get out in the middle. The difference between opening the innings and batting at No 2 may seem marginal, but in reality opening the innings is a big ask.

There won’t be too many volunteers among non-openers to do the job. Taking on fresh bowlers with a new ball is a different ball game. The pressure is on the openers to lay the foundation in the face of high risks and low margin for errors.

The experiment to open with Dravid in the past was right, but the tactics needed to be revised in the face of a series of failures. Dravid has opened in seven series, but has succeeded in just one - on the 2005-06 tour of Pakistan when he got two hundreds. These two centuries give his status as an opener a veneer of respectability – an average of 30.00. If one set aside the two big knocks, Dravid has an average of 13.25 from 12 innings. He averages 57.26 at from 146 innings at No 3, 60.07 from 17 innings at No 4, 39.57 from nine outings at No 5 and 69.75 from four innings at No 7. So why sacrifice a man who has been India’s most successful middle-order batsman in recent years?

After five successive years of phenomenal, Dravid finished the year 2007 with moderate success. He has scored just two fifties in his last seven Tests with a best of 55. He has looked a man under siege since relinquishing the captaincy and his torment within is reflected in his struggles at the MCG in the first Test – five runs off 66 balls followed by 16 off 114 deliveries. Modern cricket has undergone a quantum change in terms of aggression and opening batsmen of the times like Matthew Hayden, Virender Sehwag, Chris Gayle and Sanath Jayasuriya, to name a few, exemplify the free-scoring nature of the era. When one has a defensive batsmen like Dravid at the top of the order, and at a time when he is struggling to come to grips with his mind, it negatively dictates the tone of the batting to follow.

Sehwag was a surprise inclusion in the team after being omitted from the short list. The inference from the rethink was that, despite not being in the best of nick, the selectors were willing to gamble on his past success Down Under and his potential to tear apart any attack. It’s inexplicable then to reduce him to a mere spectator and ask a reluctant and struggling non-opener batsman to do a specialists’ job. One cannot but feel sorry for Dravid who is now fighting for his international survival and getting pretty little help.

If Dravid can be asked to open, why not Tendulkar? There are more compelling reasons asking Tendulkar to open than Dravid. For one, the Master batsman has is in great form. Secondly, he has always relished the Aussie attack and many of his epics have come against them. Thirdly, and most importantly, he is not unfamiliar to the opening position. Tendulkar has opened 285 times in 397 ODIs with 37 of his 41 hundreds in this format coming as an opener. Yet Tendulkar – and Sourav Ganguly, his ODI opening partner – have batted just once each as openers in Test match cricket. Somehow, it doesn’t add up.

Even as one writes this column it’s apparent that Dravid will open the innings in the second Test at Sydney. Let’s hope and pray that this wonderful team man comes out his personal crisis that will reveal his true character.

Good luck, Rahul.

Leafing through the pages of MCG’s sepia-tinted history

2007-12-27T10:19:00.000+05:30

By H Natarajan

The Melbourne Cricket Ground (MCG) is a hallowed piece real estate that is steeped in rich cricketing history. It’s a venue on which every cricketer wants to leave his mark. Like the Lord’s in England and Eden Garden in Kolkata, the MCG is Australia’s showpiece cricketing venue that now enjoys the exalted status of National Heritage.

The hoary MCG, which is the first choice when it comes to hosting cricket championship climaxes like the 1992 World Cup final, was also the main stadium during the 1956 summer Olympics and the Commonwealth Games last year. But it is a cricketing venue for the Boxing Day Test match that it is most known for, though in winter it becomes the home for Australian Rule Football.

The Aussies are passionate in their love for sports and it’s surreal to behold 100,000 fans egg their countrymen under the dazzling light that bathes the ground from the tallest towers in the world. In fact, before new safety measures reduced the capacity of the MCG, it had accommodated as much as 130,000 – that number for evangelist Billy Graham event in 1959. Yes, the MCG has also hosted non-sporting events, including concerts by David Bowie, Paul McCartney, Madonna, Rolling Stones, Michael Jackson, Elton John and Billy Joel among others.

MCG was the venue of the first-ever Test match – between Australia and England, 130 years back. Australian opener Charles Bannerman scored the first ever Test hundred – 165 in a total of 245 in which the second highest score was 18. Bannerman scored 69.6% of his side's runs from the bat - still a record in Test matches - before retiring hurt at 240 for seven. Though it was a timeless Test, the match ended in four days. Any guesses how many witnessed the historic game? A total of 20,500 for all four days combined!

Exactly hundred years later, the MCG hosted the Centenary Test between the same old rivals. Australia beat England, and in a remarkable coincidence, by the same margin as they did in the first-ever Test – 45 runs.

The Test will also be remembered for Rick McCosker to come in to bat with a bandage over his fractured jaw. It was McCosker’s heroics which helped Rodney Marsh become the first Australian wicket-keeper to get a Test match hundred. It was in this Australian innings that the late David Hookes hit five fours off England captain Tony Greig. England’s moment to cherish came from Derek Randall brilliant innings of 174 before Dennis Lillee left his imprint yet again with a haul of 11 wickets.

MCG also bagged the honour of hosting the first-ever One-Day International – again, between Australia and England – on January 5, 1971. As in the inaugural Test, Australia emerged victorious.

The Aussies are not in the same mould as the Englishmen when it comes to tradition, which is underlined by the fact that many of cricket’s revolutionary changes took place during Kerry Packer’s breakaway World Series Cricket. And it’s this flexibility in thinking that poses the biggest threat to MCG’s future as a tradition in hosting the Boxing Day Test.

Though the MCG came under redevelopment at a cost of A$434 million for the 2006 Commonwealth Games, it still faces stiff competition for future Boxing Day Tests from the Telstra Dome. This retractable roof of this modern venue at Melbourne’s Docklands offers a nice alternative and has hosted One-Day Internationals, but Telstra officialdom believe that their venue with drop-in pitches is worthy of hosting the year-end Test.

India have fond memories of the MCG. In 1977-78, Bhagwat Chandrasekar took 6 for 52 and 6 for 52 to help India record their first Test win in Australia. Then, in 1981, Kapil Dev bowled India to a sensational victory. After conceding a huge first innings lead of 182, India fought back brilliantly in the second innings, through Sunil Gavaskar and Chetan Chauhan - the manager of the present Indian side – who adding 165 runs for the opening wicket. It was in this innings that captain Gavaskar was so furious at not only given out wrongly but by the jibes directed at him by the Aussies as he was making his way back, that he threatened to concede the Test.

Gavaskar pushed his reluctant partner towards the pavilion and the Test would have been conceded had it not been for the calming presence of manager Shahid Durrani who came on to the ground and saved the situation from reaching an ugly end. Eventually, set a target of 143, Australia were skittled out for 83 runs, with Kapil Dev finishing with an unforgettable five for 28.

The MCG was also witness to two major cricketing controversies that threatened cricketing relations between Australia and the nations at the receiving ends. The first was the infamous incident when Greg Chappell ordered his brother Trevor to bowl underarm to prevent New Zealand from winning the third final of the 1980-81 Benson & Hedges World Series Cup. New Zealand Prime Minister Robert Muldoon called it, "the most disgusting incident I can recall in the history of cricket", and "an act of cowardice". And on Boxing Day in 1995, Muttiah Muralitharan was sensationally no-balled by umpire Darrell Hair for throwing. Sri Lankan captain Arjuna Ranatunga was enraged by the umpire’s decision. That incident at MCG soured Sri Lanka’s relationship and it has remained soured to this day.

Chappell and Hair have since taken severe blows to their cricketing fortunes. On the other hand, Murali has touched new peaks in Tests while Chappell’s target – Sourav Ganguly – is having the time of his eventful cricketing career.

Ganguly is playing his 100th Test that is now under way at the MCG. And, coincidentally, it’s also the 100th Test hosted at the MCG.

India should have found place for a specialist third spinner

2007-12-20T09:52:00.000+05:30

By H Natarajan

The Ashes as a contest has lost much relevance with passage of time. Today, it would not does not command the kind of interest that it did in the years bygone. If there is one cricketing nation that has done much damage, since the dawn of this century, to Australia’s reputation as the premier cricketing force in world cricket, it has to be India.

Steve Waugh dubbed Australia’s tour to India in 2001 as the “final frontier” and despite going one-up, lost the three-Test series. The Aussies were fortunate to escape, this time in their own backyard, in 2003-04. There is also an increasing needle between the two teams, the kind of which is usually seen in an Ashes contest. No wonder, Brett Lee likened India’s forthcoming tour to the thrills of an Ashes encounter.

The Indians are aware that they could face a backlash in Australia after their acrimonious series back home recently. They are also aware that the Aussies are notorious for mind games. But going by the public statements of some of the players like Mahendra Singh Dhoni and Harbhajan Singh, it’s apparent that the Indians are not only not perturbed but also willing to take on the Aussies in their own game.

Despite the brave noises made by India, one cannot escape the feeling that the selectors may have erred in laying emphasis on medium-pace than spin. If one looks back at history, it’s the spinners who have been a major force against Australia – at home or away. Be it Vinoo Mankad on the 1947-48 tour, EAS Prasanna on the 1967-68 tour, Bishan Singh Bedi and BS Chandrasekhar on the 1977-78 tour, Dilip Doshi and Shivlal Yadav in 1980-81, Yadav again and Ravi Shastri in 1985-86 tour.

Twice in the past India laid emphasis on the faster bowlers. In 1991-92 India’s attack was spearheaded by Kapil Dev and Javagal Srinath, and in 1999-2000 it became three-pronged with Srinath, Ajit Agarkar and Venkatesh Prasad. Both tours were huge disappointments for India. In 1991-92, India lost the five-Test series 0-4, three of them crushing defeats. The 1999-2000 series was worse; India lost the first Test by 285 runs, the second by 180 runs and the third by an innings and 141 runs. If India came extremely close to winning the series on their last tour in 2003-04, it was because of spin - Kumble 24-wicket haul from three Tests.

Kumble and Harbhajan have been Australia’s principal tormentors. Harbhajan’s off-spin has yielded him a bumper harvest of 56 wickets from just eight Tests at just 24 plus with seven 5-for and three 10-for speaking volumes for his prowess while Kumble has been equally deadly with 88 wickets from 14 Tests with nine 5-for and two 10-for. Between the two of India’s greatest match-winners in recent years, Harbhajan and Kumble have a combined haul of 144 wickets from a total of 22 Tests. Brilliant by any reckoning.

Those stats were sufficient to pick a third spinner, especially considering the fact that two of the four Tests in the tour ahead would be played on spin-friendly tracks. Murali Kartik who came in from nowhere to make life miserable for the Aussies in the ODI series couple months back should have made the team. His six for 27 at Mumbai that brought about a sensational Australian collapse, was sheer magic. Where is the quality spin back-up should Harbhajan and Kumble get injured at the eleventh hour? One can rush a replacement in quick time to Sri Lanka or Bangladesh in case of an emergency, but Australia is far too away.

Considering the Australians have been traditionally fallible against off break, India could also have looked at Ramesh Powar as the third choice in the spin department. Powar comes across as a players from the bygone years, be it physical or pure skills. Unlike modern slow bowlers, he gives copious air to the ball and is willing to buy his wicket with variations in the air than off the wicket. Like Prasanna and Venkat in the past, Powar and Harbhajan could have played in the same XI.

That India are weakened in the new ball department makes it all the more worrisome. Let’s look at the effectiveness of India’s main bowlers against Australia: Zaheer Khan, the spearhead of India’s new ball attack, averages 42.77 per wicket, for his 18 wickets from eight Tests; Irfan Pathan averages a lavish 72.33 per wicket for his meager returns of six wickets from four Tests. RP Singh is yet to play against Australia, Ishant Sharma’s experience is restricted to two Tests and Pankaj Singh is yet to play Tests. The pick of the contemporary Indian fast bowlers is Ajit Agarkar. The Mumbaikar who is not exactly known for cost-effectiveness emerges the best in terms of parsimony and productivity: 30 wickets from nine Tests at 39.06. But Agarkar does not figure in the composition and the selectors cannot be faulted for that considering his recent form. The pressure will be huge on Zaheer and RP Singh considering Irfan is struggling to regain his lost skills and confidence and Ishant and Pankaj are wet behind the ears. The absence of the combative Sreesanth and Munaf will be felt.

A team needs to have quality attack to take 20 wickets. Australia has not lost a home Test series since 1992-93 and their juggernaut has rolled to 14 successive Test match victories. If India has to put it across such a formidable force, their best chance would be in batting first and flexing their famed batting muscle and then pinning their hopes on spin twins Kumble and Harbhajan to work their magic yet again.

Tiger’s Tale: Magnificent Roar in the Twilight Zone

2007-12-12T17:49:00.000+05:30

By H Natarajan

There was a time, not long ago, when it looked as if it was all over for Sourav Ganguly as a cricketer at the international level. He game was in total shambles which was evident from consistent failures. Even on the rare occasion that he scored, the lack of conviction and the painful manner in which he got runs invited derision. He was then still leading the team. And when a captain is struggling the way Ganguly was, it was inevitable that he could not command respect.

The guillotine had to fall. And it did. Considering Ganguly’s lack of fitness, his advancing age and a dramatic decline in his cricketing skills, it did not seem he would get an international recall. The then chairman of the selection committee, Kiran More, was unambiguous about that. Considering all that, Ganguly’s spectacular comeback must be hailed as among the finest in international cricket history.

The determination to regain his Test place and establish himself again as a quality batsman in the Indian middle-order was fierce. He got out of his comfort zone to put himself through punishing fitness regimen, which is saying a lot for a man who was never too fond of exercises. He also made sacrifices in his eating. His efforts earned him a meritorious recall and since then he has ensured that his critics also change their diet by forcing them to eat their words!

On the comeback tour of South Africa last year, he emerged as the highest run-getter in the Test series and then on the tour of Bangladesh that followed, he feasted alongside the rest of the Indian batsmen by scoring a hundred in the opening Test. That was followed by the tour to England, where he emerged as the second highest scorer in the Test series. And in the series that just concluded against Pakistan, he was by far the highest scorer for India, plundering in excess of 500 runs. What a comeback!

In the final Test against Pakistan at Bangalore, he scored 239 in the first innings – his first-ever double hundred in Tests and the highest by an Indian left-hander – and then came within nine runs of becoming only the seventh player to score a double hundred and a hundred in the same Test. He has thus far scored 1023 Test runs in 2007, which is just two behind Jacques Kallis who is enjoying a phenomenal year. With one more Test to go before the year ends, Ganguly could end up as the highest run-getter in 2007. His new-found confidence is translated in the pace and fluency of his run-getting which compares favourably with the likes of dashers like Kumar Sangakkara, Mahendra Singh Dhoni and Chris Gayle.

Ganguly’s immense self-belief during the depths of despair is vindicated by what he has achieved in his rebirth as an international cricketer. While the vast majority of the world had given up on him, he kept telling to all who cared to hear that he was far from finished and thoughts of retirement never crosses his mind. The world was convinced that it was a case of a player unwilling to accept realities and that his glory as a batsman at the highest level was history. The author Normal Vincent Peale, who espoused the power of positive thinking, once said: “First thing every morning before you arise say out loud, I believe.” Ganguly epitomized those words.

It was Greg Chappell’s belief that Ganguly would be better off without the cares of captaincy on his shoulders. The feeling then was that Chappell was making those comments to get the abrasive Ganguly, who was never afraid to take on any authority, so that he could get the more amiable and malleable Rahul Dravid in the saddle. But that Chappell was right was conceded later by Ganguly himself, even if he did not admit in so many words, when he said in an interview: “I've got so much more free time. Captaincy is never easy but in India it is harder because the demands are more. Now that I'm away from the job, I've been able to concentrate on myself and my [own] game again. I've got a lot of time to relax."

In the flood of runs have also come other milestones – the honor of becoming only the third cricketer after Sanath Jayasuriya and Sachin Tendulkar to score 10,000 runs and capture 100 wickets in ODIs; a first-ever Test century in front his passionate fans in Kolkata; and by the time the year ends, the satisfaction of playing his 100th Test.

Ganguly goes to Australia on a fantastic high. He knows that he will be a marked man, because of his acrimonious past with them. The Aussies also know that despite all his achievement, he has remained vulnerable to the short, rising ball. But when it comes to taking up a challenge and emerging as a winner, there is none better than Ganguly. His hugely successful comeback as a Test cricketer has certainly surprised me. I may have been proved wrong in my thinking, but I am absolutely delighted to see the success of a man who took on the world on his aggressive terms like no other Indian.

Well done, Sourav.

“Smiling Assassin” puts an end to Test match carnage

2007-12-05T17:26:00.000+05:30

By H Natarajan

Letting go something that is so close to your heart is never easy – especially when it’s a livelihood that has brought name, fame and abundance of wealth.

Sanath Jayasuriya found himself in that state of mind earlier this week when he bid farewell to Test cricket – in the style and manner of a champion batsman – during the the first Test against England at Kandy. But one got the feeling that the retirement was probably forced upon him rather than one that he took on his own accord. Three things aroused the suspicion:

a. It’s strange to find a player retiring at the start of a series.
b. It’s stranger to find an aging player quitting Tests and making himself available to the more rigorous demands of overs-limit cricket.

If there was a polite hint from the selectors asking Jayasuriya to take the honorable way out, they cannot really be blamed. In the last 26 months, his Test cricket graph has come under a bear hug with the odd good score looking like dead cat bounces – to borrow words from the stock market lexicon. Though he signed off with a cracking 78, his previous 25 innings had just one half century amid debris of single digit scores. For a man who once averaged in the 50s, the last 26 innings of his Test career yielded an unflattering average of 20.46.

"This is the right time to retire. There are some young guys coming up, and I wanted to go while on top,” Jayasuriya said, mouthing words not much different from what most players say at a moment like this. But in the Lankan’s case the words seemed a bit out of place as he is still available for ODI selection - a format meant for the younger and fitter generation. And it’s not that he has done anything more encouraging in recent times in ODIs as compared to Test matches, with 15 of his last 17 innings failing to get even into the thirties. Jayasuriya announced his retirement in April last year, only to go back on his decision. But at age 38, his Test career is history and his ODI career also in imminent danger of coming to an end.

Jayasuriya can be a dexterous destroyer against any attack on his day as he proved even in his final Test innings when went ballistic to take six fours in an over from James Anderson. The English have suffered Jayasuriya carnages over the years and I was privileged to witness one such at Faisalabad in the 1996 World Cup quarter-finals when he plundered 88 off 44 balls.

He was the architect of the Sri Lankan team in its epoch-making triumph in that World Cup where he emerged as the “Most Valuable Player” of the championship. He and his opening partner, Romesh Kaluwitharana, were a nuclear force, giving a new dimension to overs-limit cricket. Their two-pronged attack gave the innings a slog phase at the start, which took attacks and captains by surprise. And they did it in a manner that was brutal and staggering.
Then, in the Singer Cup final at the Padang in Singapore the same year, Jayasuriya savaged a Waqar Younis-Aaquib Javed powered Pakistan attack to score the fastest fifty in ODIs - off 17 balls.

A year later he ensured that he will have a permanent place among the galaxy of Test match greats when he scored a triple hundred in Sri Lanka’s Test record 952 for six, against India as he added 576 runs for the second wicket with Roshan Mahanama. Jayasuriya was unbeaten on 326 at the end of the fourth day’s play and as I made my way from my hotel room at Taj Samudra to the Khettarama, it seemed to me that almost all of Colombo was heading to the venue to rejoice in anticipation of the biggest cricket party ever in Sri Lanka. The humble boy from a Buddhist family in the fishing village of Matara was now the toast of his entire nation as he set out in his quest to break Brian Lara’s then Test record score of 375. But Jayasuriya added just 14 more runs when Rajesh Chauhan had him caught by Ganguly for what was then the fourth highest score in Tests. The sadness that engulfed the ground was unbelievable and that included, I dare say, many of the Indian players. For all the ferocity of his batting, Jayasuriya is a soft spoken, smiling and humble person. And everybody in the ground, Lankan or otherwise, hoped that he would get the record. Three years later he raised visions of breaking Saeed Anwar’s ODI world record of 194 before enduring another disappointment – this time falling six runs short of surpassing the record.

The highest scores in Test matches, ODIs and Twenty20 all belong to Sri Lanka with Jayasuriya topping in every one of those matches for Sri Lanka. What a batsman!

Kirsten suspense after BCCI mystery

2007-11-29T15:53:00.000+05:30

By H Natarajan

The choice of Gary Kirsten as the coach of the Indian cricket team is a typical example of the Indian cricket board saying something and doing exactly the opposite. Niranjan Shah had said in unambiguous terms that the Board is not going to look beyond the list of those who had applied for the job because the Board did “not want to give undue importance to anyone”.

The BCCI secretary’s statement meant the eventual choice had to be between Martin Crowe, Kepler Wessels, both men with copious Test playing experience, Richard Done, (formerly of Queensland Academy of Excellence), Tim Boon (coach of Leicestershire), Terry Oliver (coach of Queensland) and Dave Nosworthy, (coach of Canterbury) and former New Zealand captain Martin Crowe. Curiously, the only Indian application for the job was Chandrakant Pandit, the former India and Mumbai wicketkeeper and now coach of Maharashtra.

But within hours of Shah’s official statement, Kirsten told the media, “The most important thing was they approached me, I didn't approach them.”

It’s open to speculation – as many matters are in Indian cricket – who is speaking the truth. But it does not require an Einstein to unravel that obviously one of the statement is untrue.
It’s quite possible that Shah deliberately chose to put the media off-course after the embarrassment it had to cop in June earlier this year when it announced Graham Ford as the new Indian coach only to find that the South African had a change of heart on going home, preferring to continue as Kent County Cricket Cub’s Director of Cricket. It was only natural that some believed that Ford had used the BCCI to gain bargaining strength with Kent.

Nobody can say for sure if the same will not happen again. But Kirsten’s statement to a national newspaper made interesting read. Before taking the plane back home, he told the paper: “One half of my mind immediately said ‘yes’ but I will have to go through the contract carefully, look at it from a family point of view, and get back within seven days.”

That means the chances of Kirsten becoming the next coach of India is 50%. Viewed negatively, there is a 50% chance that he may well refuse the offer which will then drag the BCCI back to square one. It would also mean that the process to find an alternative choice would take longer and, possibly, not for the forthcoming tour of Australia. That, of course, may actually be a blessing in disguise. But more on that later.

Kirsten has very little coaching experience and none with an international side. In that sense, his abilities as a coach at the highest level remains a matter of conjecture. Why the BCCI ignored the interested candidates - which included at least one world class player and others with proven coaching experience – in favor of Kirsten remains shrouded in mystery. Kirsten, however, runs a cricket academy called the Gary Kirsten Cricket Academy in South Africa.

The timing of the BCCI offer to Kirsten is unfair to Lalchand Rajput when he is in the midst of an important series – even considering the fact that it’s a stop-gap role and that his designated job is that of a “cricket manager”. I have known and interacted with Rajput quite closely for over 25 years and I have known him as a very serious student of the game who brings about the kind of commitment that is not often seen among Indians. Like Venkataraghavan, he has served Indian cricket in many capacities – as an India player, national umpire, National team manager, India under-19 coach, secretary of the Mumbai Cricket Association and as chief coach of the National Cricket Academy. He has been tremendously successful as an India under-19 coach and now as the manager of the national team that won the Twenty20 World Cup, the ODI series against Pakistan and the ongoing Test series where the side is one-up. The BCCI could have been a little more sensitive and gracious in thanking Rajput for his commendable showing.

A new coach takes time to settle down with the team as much as the team takes time to understand the thought process of a new coach. It’s not fair to the coach – or the team, for that matter - if he is asked to take over just days before what is arguably the most demanding of all cricket tours in modern cricket.

The Indian team has done pretty well under stop-gap men filling as “team managers” in the void created by Greg Chappell’s exit and it would have been in the larger interests of the team if the settled back-up support were to continue undisturbed till the conclusion of the Australian tour.

The 14,000 international runs that Kirsten scored over a decade and 286 matches will certainly command respect from the players, some of whom like Sachin Tendulkar, Anil Kumble, Rahul Dravid and Sourav Ganguly have even played against him. But being an opponent is one thing and being a coach is something else. The unceremonious exit of Greg Chappell, the reluctance of Graham Ford to take up the job, the resignation of Dravid as India captain and the refusal of Tendulkar to take over the leadership are all pointers that being an India coach or captain is not envious as it may seem.

Kirsten did not jump at the offer and took a long time mulling over it. Whether he eventually takes up the challenge or not will be known in a few days time. But if he does take it up, he will go in with the knowledge that it will be the biggest challenge of his cricketing career.

Kumar Sangakkara – on way to being the greatest ever

2007-11-22T22:12:00.000+05:30

By H Natarajan

Is Kumar Sangakkara the finest batsman among specialist wicketkeepers in the history of Test cricket? The replies may be guarded at this point of time, but if Sangakkara sustains his batting brilliance of a very high order, the day is not far off when the world would be spontaneous in anointing the classy Lankan with that accolade.

Sangakkara was keeping wickets till recently and has played the vast majority of his Tests - 48 out of 68 – as a keeper. In fact, he has scored eight of his hundreds as a keeper.

If one takes 30 innings as the minimum qualifying base, his average of 55.74 is staggeringly close to the highest - West Indies’ Clyde Walcott average of 56.69 from 74 innings - among all wicket keepers from any country in the history of Tests. Zimbabwean Andy Flower (51.55 from 112 innings) is some distance away in third spot while Adam Gilchrist has slipped considerably since his pomp and is outside the elite club with 50-plus average in Tests.

Sangakkara has six double hundreds to his credit in 68 Tests so far. Only Sir Don Bradman (12 double and two triple), Brian Lara (nine double and two triple), and Wally Hammond (seven double and one triple) have crossed the two hundred mark in a Test innings more than Sangakkara with only the incomparable playing fewer Tests than the Lankan.

Sangakkara has a penchant for monstrous scores. In the last three years, he has twice raised visions of scoring a triple with innings of 270 against Zimbabwe and 287 against South Africa. During the course of his 287 last year, he featured in a jugalbandi with Mahela Jayawardene that realized 624 runs –the first time a partnership reached the 600-mark in a first-class or Test match innings.

Sangakkara’s class and consistency in Test cricket is acquiring magical proportions. And his innings on Tuesday in the backyard of the most feared team in the world would go down as one of Test cricket’s unforgettable classics. It was a master class performance reminiscent of Sunil Gavaskar’s magnum opus 221 against England in 1979. He was within two blows of becoming only the sixth player in history to score a double hundred in the fourth innings of a Test - a feat last achieved 23 years back.

Not many would have the mind, will and stomach to chase a fourth innings target of 500 after five top order batsmen are sliced in quick time for as little as 25 runs. But Sangakkara is a player with a granite mind and divine skills. Like Abhimanyu in Mahabharata, he waged a battle against unbelievable odds before his heroics met with an unfortunate end – umpire Rudi Koertzen erring in declaring him caught at slip by Ricky Ponting. The Australian captain is no Gundappa Vishwanath when it comes to showing sporting compassion so there was no chance for Sangakkara and Lasit Malinga to string together a match-winning display like Ian Botham and Bob Taylor in the Golden Jubilee Test at Bombay in 1980. Australia won the match while the martyr won the hearts - and the Man of the Match award.

Sangakkara has now scores of 287, 100 not out, 156 not out, 200 not out, 222 not out and 192 in his last eight Tests. It’s the kind of sequence one would associate more with The Don than anyone else.

Sangakkara is accomplished behind the wickets, too, which is indicative of the fact that he has twice kept through a 500-plus innings without conceding a bye. And keeping to a magician like Muttiah Muralitharan requires tremendous concentration and skill.

But it is as a batsman that makes him such a compelling watch. The aggression that he packs in his approach is more in tune with the modern era in which Gilchrist set new standards. Sangakkara has already scored more runs than Gilchrist playing lot fewer innings and his tally of 5741 runs is second only to Alec Stewart, who played many Tests as a pure batsman. Stewart’s career is over with 133 Tests; Sangakkara’s is still blooming with 68. At 30, Sangakkara can hope to enjoy many more years of Test cricket and create a place for himself as the finest ever bat among those who have kept wickets – even if he does not keep wickets again.

Tragic Misses: So near yet so far….

2007-11-15T22:07:00.000+05:30

By H Natarajan

Sachin Tendulkar’s unfortunate tryst with the 90s will surely become part of cricket’s stunning tragedies. To perish as many as six times within a span of 143 days and 21 ODIs is truly heartbreaking. The man, famously nicknamed ‘Tondulkar’, has now perished 16 times in the 90s – seven times more than any other player in ODI history.

Tendulkar, who has scored far more ODI hundreds than any player, has now gone without an ODI hundred since January this year, a stretch which accounts for two of his three dismissals on 99 – also the most by a player.

This tragic sequence takes the mind in rewind mode to the 1902 Ashes series where Australian Clem Hill fell in the 90s in three successive Test innings - 99 in the second innings of the MCG Test and then 98 and 97 in the following Test at Adelaide. Incredibly, he came within three runs of scoring another ninety by the time the series ended!

The hundred-run mark is a coveted milestone and when a batsman perishes just one short of the mark, the miss is particularly painful. Mike Smith, John Wright, Geoff Boycott, Salim Malik, Richie Richardson, Michael Atherton, Sourav Ganguly and Greg Blewett all had to endure that pain twice in their Test careers with Blewett suffering the misfortune twice in a single year.

What was most agonizing for Boycott was on the second occasion he remained unbeaten on 99 after last man Bob Willis was bowled by Geoff Dymock. Boycott, who was out for a duck in the first innings, carried the bat in the second essay and remains the only player in Test history to do so with a score of 99. Boycott’s first innings of 99 also had an added tinge of personal regret as it was the only occasion in Test history when a player had scored a 99 and hundred in the same match. Incidentally, Boycott is also the first player to fall on 99 in ODIs.

For Norman Yardley, John Beck, Maqsood Ahmed, Rusi Surti, Martyn Moxon, Alex Tudor, Dipak Patel, Shane Warne and Asif Kamal, the dismissal on 99 is truly tragic as it remained the highest score of their Test careers. For Tudor, it was a bitter-sweet moment as he remained unbeaten on 99 because England had achieved their winning target. Tudor was declared Man of the match, but that one-run miss may still hurt him.

Australian Arthur Chipperfield’s 99 was also quite painful as it came on his Test debut in an Ashes series. West Indian Robert Christiani is the only other batsman to get out on 99 on Test debut.

The pain must be even more for a batsman when he loses the chance to score a double hundred by just a run. Seven players – Mudassar Nazar, Mohammad Azharuddin, Matthew Elliot, Sanat Jayasuriya, Steve Waugh, Andy Flower and Younis Khan – find themselves in this undesired club. That one run meant a lot for Azhar and Elliot who both ended their careers without ever getting a double century in Tests. Andy Flower is the only player to remain unbeaten on 199. It was a big miss as Flower had scored 142 in the first innings. That one run cost him an opportunity to join the exclusive list of six batsmen who scored a double hundred and a hundred in the same Test.

If that was a sad miss, how about remaining stranded on 299! Only two men had got to the 300-run mark in Test history Andy Sandham in April 1930 and Don Bradman in June that very year. Less than two years later Bradman raised visions of scoring another triple century in Tests. However, last man Hugh Thurlow – playing his first and last Test and innings - was run out for a duck, leaving Bradman stranded on 299.

Could there be anything worse for a batsman? Well, yes! Getting run out going for the 500th run! That misfortune was suffered by Hanif Mohammad…The 499 remained the highest in all first class cricket for 35 years before Brian Lara scored that monumental 501 not out in 1994.

In 1846 Tests since 1877, there has been just one instance of a player scoring a triple hundred and hundred in the same Test – Graham Gooch against India in 1990. Mark Taylor came pretty close to achieving that feat before faltering. Taylor was on 334 and level with Don Bradman as the highest-ever scorer for Australia in Tests. Incredibly, Taylor chose to declare the innings than overtake The Don. Taylor later had the opportunity of emulating Gooch’s effort but was bowled or 92 in the second innings.

Everton Weekes once scored five hundreds - 141, 128, 194, 162 and 101 - in successive Test innings. He was in sight of making it six in a row when he was run out for 90.

In the 1967 Madras Test, Farokh Engineer launched one of the most fearsome assaults ever seen against an attack as formidable as Wes Hall, Charlie Griffith, Gary Sobers and Lance Gibbs. Engineer raised hopes of becoming only the fourth player in the history of the game to score hundred before lunch on first day of a Test – a feat not seen since Bradman achieved it last in 1930. Engineer got a hundred, but after lunch; he was six short when the teams came back for the luncheon break.

Chandu Borde had scored 109 against the fiery Wes Hall and Roy Gilchrist at Kotla in the 1959 series. Borde was four short of getting his second hundred of the Test and emulating the feat of Vijay Hazare who had scored century in each innings against Australia in 1948. Borde hooked Gilchrist and saw the ball crossing the boundary, but tragically he had stepped on to his stumps and was out hit wicket for 96.

A hundred on Test debut remains a dream for most players. Gordon Greenidge was seven short of achieving that dream when he was run out at Bangalore in 1974. He scored 107 in the second innings of the Test, but then missed out on the rare feat of a century in each innings on Test debut.

And in 2004, Shivnaraine Chanderpaul missed out the honour of getting hundred in each innings in the Lord’s Test against England. Chanderpaul scored 128, remaining unbeaten when the innings ended. And in the second innings, he was unbeaten again when the innings ended – this time when he was three short of getting to another century.

Australia opener Michael Slater scored 14 hundreds but he also perished nine times in the nineties. If those nineties had been converted to centuries, Slater would have almost averaged a hundred every three Tests. The record for the most nineties in a Test career is ten by Steve Waugh, who played 94 more Tests than Slater, who ended his career with 74 appearances.

As the cliché goes, “That’s Cricket!”

Kumble best bet for the short term

2007-11-09T00:20:00.000+05:30

By H Natarajan

It’s a terrible indictment of the system that Rahul Dravid and Sachin Tendulkar, two of the most senior most players, do not want the Indian team captaincy. The power, pomp and privileges of being India’s cricket captain is humungous and often stated as the second most powerful job after the Prime Minister. But the refusal of what was once believed to be a coveted honour by two widely-respected men has set tongues wagging.

The quick and successive exits of Greg Chappell and Dravid as coach and captain respectively were pointers that not all’s well with Indian cricket – both inside and outside the team. From all indications, Tendulkar was ready to take over as the Test captain, but his sudden change of mind has thrown spanner in the selection committee’s works. Tendulkar is not a whimsical person. If all that remained was a formal announcement in naming him the captain, it’s obvious that he had given the matter lot of thought before giving his consent.

Tendulkar’s dramatic decision may have catapulted Mahendra Singh Dhoni as the front-runner to take over the reins relinquished by Dravid, but there are compelling reasons why the selectors should look elsewhere when they meet in a day from now to choose the new leader.

a. A tour of Australia is undoubtedly the biggest challenge in modern cricket. The Aussies are the best in the world and in their own backyard, they would be that much tougher.

b. The tour ahead is, in all likelihood, going to raise strong response from the players and the crowd after what the Aussie had to cop on their recent tour of India. A player with long experience may handle the situation than the relatively inexperienced Dhoni.

c. Test cricket is a completely different ball game compared to the abridged format. It will be too much too soon for a man who has no previous experience of playing Tests in Australia and who is also manning the extremely critical job of keeping wickets.

It’s a failure of the system in India that we did not groom a younger man for the vice captaincy. Somebody like Mohammad Kaif, who led India to victory at the Under-19 World Cup, had the attitude and ammunition to become India’s Test captain, but with the sword of Damocles hanging perennially over his head, he could not cement his place on the team.

Yuvraj Singh could have been the best bet of the younger lot. He has the necessary experience, but his attitude was always under question. Virender Sehwag too did his cause no good by his non-conformist ways and inability to hold on to his place in the side.

The best that the selectors could do under the circumstances would be to adopt stop-gap measures. That would mean looking at the candidature of Sourav Ganguly, VVS Laxman and Anil Kumble. Ganguly’s fielding is an increasing cause of concern and his place in the side is not 100% certain. Laxman, too, has not quite been a certainty in the side which leaves Kumble as the best-available option – and for a number of reasons:

a. He has loads of experience leading Karnataka.
b. He has served as India vice-captain for long.
c. He knows what to expect in Australia having toured Down Under twice.
d. He will embark on the tour with the confidence gained from brilliant performances on his previous visit.
e. His stature built over 17 long years gives him instant respect of the entire team.
f. His place in the side is unchallenged.
g. He is unflappable and cool in crisis.
h. He is a proven match-winner who will lead by personal example.

But most importantly, he has always come across a student of the game – a cerebral cricketer. His demeanor may be quiet, but his heart is made of steel. He is as tough as any in international cricket and his finest example of guts and grit is best known by his decision to bowl with a broken jaw against the West Indies. That moment also exemplified the fine team man that Kumble is.

Anybody who has anything uncomplimentary to say about Kumble’s age would do well to realize that he is a man who has consistently raised the bar in his quest of excellence. And it’s this admirable trait that has seen get a hundred at the fag end of his illustrious career. I wonder if anybody got his first-ever Test hundred at age, 36 or after 118 Tests and 17 years of international cricket.

The India captaincy is something Kumble deserved a long, long time ago. Indian cricket now gets a chance to make amends by giving him that honour before he bids adieu to a truly magnificent career.

Dravid’s exclusion – India’s mehman nawazi for Pakistan

2007-11-01T00:34:00.000+05:30

By H Natarajan

1946. Wally Hammond’s English side is gearing up to take on the Old Enemy in its own backyard Down Under. Then something inexplicable happens. The Australian selectors drop Don Bradman – the man the English fear the most. The Don is 38 and the selectors felt it was time to go.

Remember reading about it?

No?

Well, stop thinking! Nothing’s wrong with your history as no such thing ever happened! The Don not only played that series but went on to play a few more series before he retired just a few days before his 40th birthday.

If there is anything in cricket that exceeds the passion of The Ashes it’s unquestionably an Indo-Pak cricketing encounter. The violent history of the two nations has been kept fresh in memory by celluloid, jingoism and motivated politics on either side of the border, all of which ensures that cricket between the two nations is almost like war minus shooting.

Paradoxically, both nations have also gone on to show the kind of hospitality that they do not accord to people from any other country. Ask Indian who has visited Pakistan or any Pakistani who has visited India and they will have a great story or two to relate about the mehman nawazi. The Pakistanis would have expected the same off the field this time around, too. But the Pakistan team got an unexpected taste of the famous Indian hospitality even before they have landed on Indian soil with the selectors deciding to ‘rest’ 34-year-old Rahul Dravid – the equivalent of Australia keeping out Bradman against England! – for the first two ODIs.

The BCCI would do well to remove from their lexicon clichés like “the selection was unanimous” and so and so senior player is being “rested” because even somebody with a terribly low IQ does not believe such statements. If the selectors have taken a decision to drop a player then let them have the courage of their conviction to say so openly. “Rested” is nothing but euphemism to explain the dropping of a senior player and hiding behind seemingly clever play of words betrays lack of conviction in the decision taken.

What is particularly galling is that such decisions are taken by selectors – and one is not just talking of those in command now – who have themselves felt strongly when they had to themselves undergo such treatment in their playing careers. Their insensitivity and lack of empathy is, thus, difficult to understand.

One of the major newspapers carried a poll which said that 87% of the country was in disagreement with the axing of Dravid. And in the growing list of outraged voices are many former India players, among who are Sanjay Manjrekar and Sandeep Patil - two men whose cricketing acumen and sense of fairness in their thinking is widely respected. Even team manager Lalchand Rajput was blown away by the decision and spoke publicly against the exclusion.

If the selectors feel that senior pros of the calibre of Dravid, Sachin Tendulkar and Sourav Ganguly need to make way with an eye on the future, then they firstly need to take the players into confidence. The troika have served Indian cricket with rare distinction well over a decade and deserve that respect. They cannot be dealt like goats in an abattoir. Secondly, the nation also needs to know that the step has been taken in the context of national interest. But all one has heard from the selectors are confusing bytes – that Dravid is “rested” and that he could make a comeback. How? By proving his form in the conventional format to get into one-day team? And who have they brought back? Virender Sehwag, a player who was given one the longest ropes in Indian history but still kept failing. While I am admirer of Sehwag’s batting, I am not convinced that he deserves a place in the side ahead of Dravid.

In my book, Dravid is the most selfless of all Indian cricketers. He could well have exercised his right as a captain to bat at his customary No 3 slot and accumulated run, but he did not. Nobody puts the team as consistently ahead of personal interests as Dravid does.

If seniors had to go, then Dravid should not have been first in the queue. Indian cricket does not remotely have anything close to match his ability in building the innings and standing firm in crisis. If the selectors still went ahead and axed him it’s because it’s much easier dropping Dravid than Ganguly or Tendulkar. Dropping Ganguly would have whipped up extreme reactions from Bengal and omitting Tendulkar, despite the Master enduring more criticism in recent years than he has in his entire career, would have been equally difficult. Dravid was the soft target. Whether this prepares the ground for getting rid of Ganguly – older to Dravid by a year – and Tendulkar remains to be seen. While both Ganguly and Tendulkar would be understandably concerned about their respective future following the sudden axing of Dravid, it’s quite possible that the selectors may not bite that bullet following the tsunami of strong reactions.

Indian hockey needs the famed doctor, but…

2007-10-26T01:05:00.000+05:30

By H Natarajan

If Dennis Lillee can mastermind MRF’s effort to unearth pace bowlers and Greg Chappell could be handed over the reins of coaching the national cricket team, there should have been no problems in the appointment of Ric Charlesworth as Technical Advisor of Indian hockey – a sport in which the decline and fall has been an national embarrasment.

Dr. Charlesworth’s credentials are impeccable, but if his appointment has not been received with elation and optimism, it’s because the process of the appointment and the poor timing are questionable. I wonder how KPS Gill, the unquestioned, unshakable and (as many would like to believe) unanswerable supremo of the Indian Hockey Federation, would have reacted if, say, the government were to appoint another man as the CEO of the body he spearheads. What would such an appointment do to his morale and standing as IHF? Would he have taken it lying down? It’s this insensitiveness in the approach that has caused deep resentment among the team management – coach Joachim Carvalho in particular.

Charlesworth’s appointment is an initiative of the FIH – the international apex body for the sport – who want India recover its lost glory. The move would have got a meaningful and positive response from the Indian hockey community had it come at another point of time. With the Beijing Olympic qualifiers just months away and Carvalho justifying his role by coaching the team to victory at the Asia Cup, Charlesworth’s appointment is ill-timed and disconcerting for the incumbent coach. Even if the ambit of Charlesworth’s expertise goes beyond the Indian men’s team, to include the national women’s team, percolating down to the grass-roots.

While Carvalho has made his displeasure public, the IHF has done precious little to clear the air by not defining the roles of the existing coach and Charlesworth. If it has, it’s not in the public domain. A knee-jerk reaction by Carvalho at this point of time could severely hamper the Indian team preparation ahead of the Olympic qualifiers and worsen things for Charlesworth in discharging his duties in India. Indians are an emotional lot, given to extreme mood swings and Charlesworth must be aware of Greg Chappell’s eventful tenure as the Indian team coach.

Instead of waiting for the procrastinating IHF to step in quickly, Charlesworth took a proactive decision to speak directly to Carvalho and assuage his feelings. The performance of the national men’s team at major international meets like the Olympics and World Cup is what matters most to the nation and Charlesworth cannot hope to do much if Carvalho is hostile – quietly or otherwise - to his role as an advisor and if the Indian team stands firmly behind the present coach. The Aussie’s swift PR exercise is brilliant, even if unconventional.

Charlesworth’s track record as a player, captain, coach and administrator has very few equals. As hockey player, he represented Australia in 227 matches, including five Olympics (counting the boycotted Moscow Games) and as many World Cups. He was a gold medalist and Player of the World Cup in 1986 and silver medalist at the 1976 Olympics. After his playing days, he coached the Australian women's hockey team from April 1993 till the end of the 2000 Sydney Olympics during which time he helped the team win the Champion's Trophy four times, the World Cup and Olympics twice each and Commonwealth Games once.

A doctor of medicine by qualification, he was also an excellent cricketer who played for Western Australia for eight years and even led them one year. In fact, he narrowly missed playing cricket for Australia after scoring 95 and 67 against the 1977 touring Indian side that was powered by the spin trio of EAS Prasanna, BS Chandrasekhar and S Venkataraghavan.

Charlesworth takes up his new assignment in India after relinquishing his post as high-performance manager for the New Zealand cricket team. Another feather in the high-achiever’s crowded cap was his 10-year tenure as Member of Parliament, representing the Australian Labor Party.

The doctor has no doubts about the talent in Indian hockey. What he would like to ascertain first hand is to, in his own words, “know the functioning of Indian hockey.” I doubt if a man as cerebral as Charlesworth would not be aware of the IHF’s functioning – a body that has been pilloried extensively for its poor administration. It’s Charlesworth administrative wisdom that made him react with subtle circumspection: "Everyday will bring a new challenge...the immediate one will be to discover how hockey works in India...to watch, learn and listen and to construct with Indians a better way forward."

If Greg Chappell took over as Indian team coach with his “Commitment to Excellence,” Charlesworth comes to India with a dream of shaping the eight-time Olympic champion’s Renaissance in world hockey. How effective he will eventually be will not depend as much on his unquestioned merits as one of the foremost brains in hockey as his ability to stay clear of the political minefields that he will encounter at every step in the vast country.

Racism - a sociological problem

2007-10-18T02:41:00.000+05:30

By H Natarajan

It was at the instigation of a white man that Gandhiji was indiscriminately thrown out a first class compartment while traveling by train to Pretoria in South Africa. That incident triggered Gandhi’s determination to challenge the injustice and oppression of racial discrimination.

Indians, since, have always aligned themselves against the forces of racial discriminators. Even generations later, Indians strongly identify with the likes of Martin Luther King and Nelson Mandela who championed the cause of oppressed and discriminated Blacks.

But, paradoxically, there are segments in our own society that are racial in its own ways. We understand “racial discrimination” as unfair segregation by skin pigmentation. And as a predominantly nation of brown skinned, we identify with fellow-browns and dark colored people in fighting forces that believe in white supremacy.

The Oxford dictionary defines racial as “having to do with race”. A wider appreciation of racial discrimination would mean prejudice that goes beyond race to include caste hierarchy, social standing, financial status etc.

While there is a widespread uproar over the racial taunts inflicted on Andrew Symonds, it comes as no surprise to me that the Aussies had to undergo what he did in India. Indian crowds are notorious for deriving for cheap thrills by making personal remarks against players – especially those fielding in the proximity of the fence. Such remarks are essentially to raise laughter among like-minded folks around than for any feeling of superiority. I have seen Vinod Kambli – ebony-hued like Symonds – suffer in his own country in a manner similar to the Australian.

The subject if Indians are racial has been debated many times among friends and the more honest ones among them agree that we are racists in our own ways. In the day bygone, our forefathers did not allow people of lower caste to draw water from the same well that they used. Human Right activists believe that 60 years after Independence, India has still not shed such inhuman practices and that several million ‘Untouchables’ continue to suffer from barbaric discrimination and violence because they were ‘tainted by birth’ into a lower caste.

How many among us so-called educated, enlightened and right-minded people treat our domestic help with compassion and fairness? Do we give them their weekly and yearly leave willingly and without cutting their pay? Are we remunerating them in an equitable manner? Do we speak with them in a manner we expect our employer speak with us? If we have to get an honest answer, most of us would be guilty of being racism – many of us without even realizing. It’s a sociological problem.

I guess it has also to do with the kind of education that we have received. We have been taught that anything black has a negative connotation. So we have words like Black market, Black sheep, Black spot, Black list, Black magic…and many more. So what’s ingrained in the subconscious mind is that black is something evil.

If black supposedly represents evil then white is all about everything pure and virtuous. At least the society would like us to believe. So we have whitening cream to make the dark skinned lighter and more acceptable in front of the society. The matrimony pages are littered with ads that clamor for fair girls.

How many black models you get to see in any ramp walk? Take a look at the cosmetic section of any big shopping mall and find out how much – if any – they have to offer dark complexioned women. They may have much stuff to ‘enhance’ their colour with lighter tones but next to nothing by way of complementing their natural, dark skin. And we are a talking of a nation that is predominantly brown!

The “monkey” taunts against Symonds cannot be condoned, but the Aussies cannot behave like paragons of virtue. Roshan Mahanama wrote in his autobiography that Glenn McGrath called Sanath Jayasuriya a "black monkey” in 1996. Four years back, Australia batsman Darren Lehmann was banned for five ODIs following his racist outburst. In the 2005-06 international series Australian crowds targeted visiting teams with racist comments. During the Perth Test in December 2005, some South African players were referred to as ‘kaffirs’ while some Sri Lankan players were called ‘ black c**ts’ during the Adelaide ODI.

It’s important that players are seen a good role models. The Australians, in that respect, are masters in the art of sledging and even abusing fellow players. And with the media making a bigger impact than ever before, live pictures of deplorable acts and copious discussion in the print media of the incidents have left a lasting impact on impressionable minds.

Just a few days back, four expat fans of Pakistan origin were arrested at Gaddafi Stadium for making racial remarks against the South African players. The racial virus is bound to grow into epidemic proportions and a global scale unless clamped down by deterrent laws. It’s time to come down heavily on the offenders – be they on the field or in the stands.

Farewell, Inzi and thanks for the memories

2007-10-16T14:48:00.001+05:30

By H Natarajan

I have had the privilege of meeting Inzamam-ul-Haq a few times, away from the madding crowd, in the quiet ambience of his hotel room. And on every occasion I left the room with the feeling of having met a simple, soft-spoken and tranquil man with no apparent starry traits.

That was in the privacy of his temporary abode. Even in front of the all-pervasive television cameras, one cannot recall him growling like Andre Nel or Sreesanth or be irritatingly cheeky like Javed Miandad or Tony Greig. Yet, quite staggeringly, Inzi has been in the midst of some of the biggest controversies in the game.

The first big mess was in 1997 when he was so infuriated by a taunting spectator that he barged into the crowd with a bat in hand to teach his tormentor a lesson. That show of temper got him in trouble with the police.

More recently, he got into an even bigger mess when leading in a Test against England. He was accused of ball tampering – a charge that was subsequently cleared - by umpire Darrell Hair. That led to Pakistan infamously forfeiting the match in protest – an act unprecedented in Test history for which Inzi copped a four-ODI ban “for bringing the game into disrepute”.

Inzamam was still holding the reins when Pakistan made an ignominious first round exit from the World Cup, following which came the news of coach Bob Woolmer’s death in mysterious and suspicious circumstances. Inzamam’s cup of misery was overflowing. Given that Pakistanis – like Indians – are emotional in the extremes, it came as no surprise to find a three-man commission set up by the Pakistan Cricket Board blaming Inzamam for the team’s surprise first-round exit. After taking statements from players, former players and officials, the panel lampooned Inzi by dubbing him as a "dictator".

Whatever may be the findings of the panel and opinions of individuals, the fact remains that Inzamam remained in the hot seat the longest since Imran Khan – widely acknowledged as Pakistan’s best captain ever and one of the best in the game’s history. Pakistan cricket has a tainted history of getting embroiled by petty politics, parochialism and fierce infighting within the team. Captains have led their team out on the field knowing fully well that there are men following him with knives behind their backs, so to say. It’s a tribute to Inzamam that he survived that long as a leader.

Whatever carping critics may say, stats speak in his favour. Inzamam shaped the Pakistan side into a powerful unit and took it 2nd place in the ICC Test Rankings and 3rd place in the ICC ODI Rankings before he met his Waterloo in the World Cup.

But even the virulent of Inzamam’s detractors cannot ever deny that he has been one of the greatest batsmen in contemporary cricket. Imran Khan hailed him as the best batsmen in the world against pace while Sanjay Manjrekar rated him as the finest to combat pressure.

To the uninitiated, he may seem a misfit at the crease – like a sumo on salsa floor. But behind the seemingly indolent mass lies a brilliant athlete. Anybody who has seen him step out on light feet to hoist high and long for sixes will testify that the slouthful looks are misleading and deceptive. Like Arjuna Ranatunga, he may seem a minimalist in movement, but like the Sri Lankan Inzamam was not a misfit in a format otherwise restricted to the young and fit.

Inzamam served notice of his huge talent in the 1992 World Cup with a match-winning 60 from only 37 balls against New Zealand in the semis. It’s an innings that is still remembered by those who were privileged to see. But the greatest innings of his international career was his innings of 329 - the second-highest Test score by a Pakistani - against New Zealand in Lahore in 2001-02. It’s not easy to carry so much excess baggage and last long enough to score such a monumental knock. But Inzamam proved that he is equal to the most grueling physical demands with that one innings. If there is further confirmation needed one needs to look at his longevity – 498 appearances spanning 16 long years. And with a 50-plus average in Tests and almost 40 in ODIs, he has been a top performer. Most importantly, he has been a match-winner with 17 of his 25 Test hundreds powering Pakistan to victory.

If there is anything that he would regret about in his retirement, it could be that he could not recapture that early magic in World Cup matches and the fact that he did not do justice to his talent as an accomplished player of pace against teams with quality fast bowlers like Australia and South Africa. His averaged just 23 in World Cups and failed to score a single hundred. And in Tests, he managed a total of just one century when playing against Australia and South Africa at averages that were far from flattering. That will certainly take away some gloss when compared to contemporary batting greats like Sachin Tendulkar, Brian Lara, Rahul Dravid and Ricky Ponting.

For the cynics, Inzi may be “aloo”, but for me he is a “baloo” (bear) - a six feet, three-inch lovable teddy bear who brought so much joy with his brilliant batting.

Farewell, Inzi.

Wanted: Sense of fair play and justice

2007-10-04T14:45:00.000+05:30

By H Natarajan

Twenty six years back, a spirited man refused a coveted National honour. He was still in his 30s when he had won the World Amateur and World Open Billiards in 1977. Four years later, he won the World Amateur Billiards again.

Then he did the unthinkable. He spurned a coveted national honour that most of countryman would die for.

“I heard that my good friend Sunil Gavaskar was being offered the Padma Bhushan while I was asked to accept the Padma Shri. I have the highest respect for Sunny, but at that point of time I thought my achievement in winning three world titles were as big, if not bigger, than Sunny’s achievements and I thought I deserved the Padma Bhushan. Hence I refused the Padma Shri,” Michael Ferreira told in a tête-à-tête with me.

Ferreira went on to win a fourth world title in 1983. His name now was recommended for the Padma Bhushan. When Ferreira went to meet Mrs Indira Gandhi, the then Prime Minister, after winning his fourth world title, he was informed by the Sports Secretary that though his name has been put up for the Padma Bhushan Award there was a noting in the recommendation that he had refused the Padma Shri earlier. “That could go against you,” the babu noted. Mercifully, Ferreira got the Padma Bhushan.

More than decades two later, it’s obvious that the non-cricketing sportspersons are still an aggrieved lot. It’s now the turn of Pankaj Advani, the reigning world billiard champion, to decline the Karnataka State Government’s Ekalavya Award. "If I had received the award earlier, I'd have accepted. It's a little too late. The award has come after I received the Arjuna and the Khel Ratna Awards… I have won four World titles and there’s no word of appreciation or grants for my effort. They wasted no time in other sports such as cricket, where they announced awards of Rs. 5 lakh. Why this indifference"? Advani asked.

Advani’s public protest comes in the wake of Karnataka hockey players threatening to go on hunger strike to highlight their anger at not getting due recognition after they India beat South Korea in the Asia Cup. “Does a sportsperson need to go on hunger strike to get government recognition or do all of us need to play cricket", Advani asked sarcastically.

He cannot be blamed for expressing his feelings. Ajit Agarkar was a big flop in the T20 World Cup, but he raked in over a crore which included handsome purse by the state government. Naturally it will rankle when a player, winning an individual sport and a world title at that, finds his effort going unrecognized and unrewarded when failures in team sports are fawned and feted.

Juxtapose India’s triumph in the World T20 Championship with Vishwanathan Anand’s triumph at the World Chess Champion a few days later. Even Anand – without questions the biggest-ever achiever in Indian sports – who is known for his impeccable conduct and choice of words was forced to say: “It would be interesting to see the kind of reception on return home.”

He can hope to get a welcome worthy of his achievement only if the powers that be find that there is an opportunity for them to bask in reflected glory. We saw how the BCCI honchos, many with heavy political affiliations, hog centre stage while the real heroes were pushed into the background – literally and figuratively.

RK Khanna, who ruled AITA unquestioned and unrivalled, best exemplifies the quintessential head of an Indian sports federation. Vijay Amritraj provides proof of that in his autobiography: “ When (Ramanathan) Krishnan led India to the Challenge Round (title round) of the Davis Cup against Australia in 1966, Khanna was awarded the Padma Shri and Krishnan got a handshake. When Krish, Anand and I took India through to the final again in 1974, - unhappily against South Africa in a final that was never allowed to be played - Khanna received an even more prestigious honour, the Padma Bhushan.”

The story is the same in just about every sport in India. M Somaiya, the former India hockey captain, told me that when India won the hockey gold at the 1980 Moscow Olympics, all he got, apart from the Shiv Chattrapathi Award, was thousand rupees from the Maharashtra state government M Somaiya, the former India hockey captain, told me that when India won the hockey gold at the 1980 Moscow Olympics, “all I got was, apart from the Shiv Chattrapathi Award, Rs 1,000 from the state government.”

When Om Agrawal won the World Snooker title in 1984 Doordarshan did cover his triumphant return. Three years had passed by when Om told me that he had still not ever been interviewed by DD!

If the media can rightfully claim their role in popularizing cricket to be a money-spinner then they will also have to accept that they have not done full justice to other sports. No wonder Pullela Gopichand, the former All England champion, once said: "I am well known in Thailand, Malaysia and Indonesia, but not in my own country."

Spare a thought for the Anands, Advanis and other non-cricketing heroes. They too have made us puff our chest as proud Indians.

On Top Of The World!

2007-09-27T08:13:00.000+05:30

By H Natarajan

Such is the humungous reverence for Lord Ganesha - something that cuts across religions barriers – one would have expected the front pages of all Indian newspapers to splash giant photos of the visarjan (immersion) and stories relating to it. But the impact of the Twenty20 World Cup triumph and the homecoming of India’s cricketing heroes from South Africa overwhelmingly dominated Page 1 – and several pages inside on Wednesday. And even before the aircraft carrying the demi-Gods landed in Mumbai, every TV channel went live ahead of the extensive coverage of the open-top bus ride of the champion team. And what a sight it was! A sea of humanity thronged the entire route from the airport to Wankhede Stadium, in a manner that has not been seen in India in several decades, to see the heroes ride in a special, open-top BEST bus.

The gains from the Twenty20 triumph is much more than is apparent. The victory has been a team effort and it has been fashioned with a degree of conviction by beating England, South Africa, Australia and Pakistan in a row. It can’t get tougher.

The margin for error is very little in Twenty20 and the opportunity is far limited than in any other form of cricket to stage a comeback. Yet, to the eternal credit of India, India showed character in swinging the scales in several key matches.

The personality of an inspirational leader often rubs off on his team and that in the case of Mahendra Singh Dhoni that was quite evident. For a man whose middle name is aggression, Dhoni is remarkably cool – especially in pressure situations. This admirable trait has played a huge contributory role in India winning – especially the last two games. Not for a moment he gave the impression that he was leading the country for the first time and a team that had a handful of seniors. He commanded instant respect. There is also something humane about him – be it instantly apologizing to the batsmen stunned by an unintentional beamer or giving away his victorious short to a young boy soon after the final – that has endeared him to the masses. But it’s still early days for him as a captain. It was painful to watch him scamper from one end of the ground to another in those crucial, closing moments to advise his bowlers. Wicket-keeping is a very demanding job and sometime down the line he may well have to give up captaincy or keeping.

It was a triumph of youth in the inaugural Twenty20 World Cup. The one thing that was unmistakably evident in this Indian team was that its fearlessness – something that personifies the captain. Be it RP Singh, S Sreesanth, Robin Uthappa, Rohit Sharma or even a tyro like Joginder Singh, who emerged triumphant when bowling the nerve-wracking final overs in the semis and final with the expectations of millions Indians on his shoulders.

What is most commendable was that the team was shorn of three stalwarts in Sachin Tendulkar, Rahul Dravid and Sourav Ganguly besides Zaheer Khan. The fact that Harbhajan and Virender Sehwag had limited success and Ajit Agarkar was a disappointment, indicates the fact that this team, with a plethora of youngsters in their early 20s, radiates much promise for the future.

But one should not be carried away by the euphoria and clamor for sweeping induction of youngsters to replace the senior lot in Test cricket. Twenty20, ODIs and Tests are different ball games – especially Test cricket. The elongated version of the game requires a different mindset, different skill set and different temperament, something that is not evident in any of the younger, inexperienced batsmen in this team.

The Twenty20 triumph is another big blow for the breakaway Indian Cricket League (ICL). The first serious blow was struck by the BBCI with the announcement of a counter league (International Premier League) that offered bigger prize money and attracted bigger names like Shane Warne and Glenn McGrath. With India winning the Twenty20 World Cup, the delirious celebrations all over the country – not to ignore the financial windfall – may well have come as a carpet kiss for the ICL. Many of the young players it attracted, and were hopeful of attracting in future, would now realize that there is nothing like winning in national colors. The BCCI invited the 1983 World Cup heroes to join the official celebration in honor of the in South Africa winning team. But at the time of writing it’s not known how many of the 1983 World Cup winning team made it. It would not have been an easy decision for them after many of that team, led by Kapil Dev, pitched their support for the ICL.

As for now, it’s party time!

The Fall of 'The Wall'

2007-09-20T18:05:00.000+05:30

By H Natarajan

In 1971 when India beat England in England, captain Ajit Wadekar and his team were given a red carpet welcome back home. Cricket then did not have the maniacal following it now has, but Mumbai came to a standstill to honour the heroes. Lakhs along the route from Santa Cruz Airport to the Brabourne Stadium thronged the streets and showered the team with flowers as the players drove in a long cavalcade of swank, open cars.

2007. The Indian team under Rahul Dravid has beaten England in England in the Test series. Oh no, India has not exactly made it a habit of winning in England; the only other time an Indian side won a Test series in Ole Blighty was two decades back. But how things have changed! While captain Wadekar met the then Prime Minister, Mrs Indira Gandhi, and was lauded, Dravid met the BCCI president, Sharad Pawar, to tell him that he was quitting as captain!

Why did Dravid quit a job that cricket-crazy zillions in the country consider it as the second most important job after Prime Minister’s post? The truth may never be known, especially if it has the potential to stir a hornets’ nest as Dravid will be the last man to stir a controversy.

Dravid’s decision stunned the entire cricketing world. Nobody got a whiff of what was coming – not even the team management or his team mates. It raises suspicion that “something seems amiss", as Steve Waugh aptly put it, going on to explain, “It does not seem like something Dravid would do.”

Kiran More, the former selection committee chairman placed the blame squarely on his successor, Dilip Vengsarkar, for Dravid’s bombshell decision. Dravid is not immature to take a knee-jerk decision on what is basically an opinion of a selector. If he felt so strongly about the chairman’s comment, he could have escalated it by taking up the matter with the right persons. In my personal opinion, Dravid’s resignation may well have been brought about by the culmination of several things that were not palatable to his taste.

For more than a decade, Dravid has come remained squeaky clean, free of controversies and someone which every mother would like her son to be like. Yet, it was becoming increasingly evident that Dravid’s personality was undergoing a visible change in public, pummeled by circumstances that went, what he believed, against his grain.

Last year, he stormed out of a press conference following a chaos triggered by angry war of words between TV cameraperson and still photographers. Earlier this year, Dravid reacted uncharitably and uncharacteristically in public while questioning the credentials of the Indian team manager in South Africa. A Shane Warne, a Ricky Ponting or a Sourav Ganguly would not shock anybody if they had said the same things, but not Dravid. Then, on the tour of England, he lampooned a TV reporter for an unsubstantiated story and staged another walk-out from a press conference, upset by the lack of order in the media.

Even as these unlikely events unfolded, unsubstantiated rumours of dressing room conspiracies were floating thick and fast. And given the lack of transparency in Indian cricket, such masala only got spicier by the day.

Nobody has shouldered added burden for the team’s cause for as long as Dravid has done. His attitude in keeping wickets for 73 ODIs is exemplary. It’s painful thus to read words like “throwing in towel” while describing his decision to step down. Throwing in the towel is used for a quitter and Dravid is no quitter.

He was the vice-captain who gave his 100% to Ganguly. After being part of international cricket for a decade, he knew what he was getting into when captaincy came his way. In fact, he had gone on record to say: "I do enjoy the captaincy. I see it as a great honour and privilege and think I have enjoyed everything that comes with it. You got have to accept that there will be tough days as a captain…You turn from being a good boy to everyone's whipping boy. I don't take it personally though there will be a captain after me and he'll go through the same thing, the captain before me went through it as well. It's not about Rahul Dravid, but the position that one inherits."

If Dravid has relinquished the most coveted job despite his philosophical acceptance of the downsides to the job, if he does not want the job after winning a Test series overseas, there must be extremely compelling – and possibly very serious – reasons which needs to be probed.

Was it intrigues and camps within the team? Was it the politics and unprofessional functioning of the board? Was it the extreme reactions of the fans which go to the extent of targeting innocent family members of the players? Or was it something else?

Whatever be the reasons, with the unceremonious exit of coach Greg Chappell first and now Dravid’s unexpected and intriguing decision to step down from the captaincy, the message out that has gone out to the world is that there is no place in Indian cricket for straight forward, hardcore professionals.

There is personal dignity in Dravid’s exit, but I am not sure if Indian cricket can say the same.

Raising the bat…for the wrong reasons

2007-09-13T09:59:00.000+05:30

By H Natarajan

The cricket bat is meant to strike. To be unambiguous, the purpose of a bat is to strike the cricket ball. The use of bat as a legalized weapon is restricted to just hitting the ball. The game, however, have had its share of enfant terribles who have used, or attempted to use, the bat as an instrument to cause physical harm.

The latest to join the Hall of Infame is Shoaib Akhtar who clubbed Mohammad Asif, his fellow new-ball partner, with the bat. It left Asif with a bruised thigh, the Pakistan Cricket Board with sense of outrage and the accused a quick ticket back home to regret in isolation. The shocking incident has seen right-minded people around the world unite in seeking exemplary punishment for the rebellious fast bowler whose career has a litany of run-ins with authorities.

In many ways, Shoaib Akhtar is the Mike Tyson of cricket – a flawed sporting genius. Both men have repeatedly fell foul of the law and have simply refused to reform their wayward – and that’s a mild word, really – ways. Tyson, of course, is in a different league when it comes to illegal violence – be it biting the ear of his opponent in the ring or showing his muscular wrath on his wife. His deranged behavior has left him with correctional terms in jail and rehab centers. Shoaib is not in the Tyson category in that sense, but at least one former Pakistani believes he is not far behind.

Asif Iqbal, former Pakistan captain, was emphatic in his opinion when he said: “The line has to be drawn somewhere and if it is not drawn here, the question has to be asked: Are we waiting till he commits mass murder?”

What Asif Iqbal and many more around the world are clamoring for is a permanent cricketing ostracization – an end to the maverick’s career. And they are not wrong. Shoaib’s acts have not only hurt – in more ways than one – the cricketing world but also sent out wrong messages to the society. As one of the premier fast bowlers in the world, he draws great attention, but acts like the one he committed against a team member sends out powerful and destructive social messages to young and impressionable minds.

Shoaib is not the first Pakistani to find himself in such disgrace - though he is the first to target a team mate! In the 1981-82 Test series against Australia, Javed Miandad menacingly lifted his bat to strike bowler Dennis Lillee. From all accounts, it was “Dennis the Menace” who had provoked Miandad by coming in his way – literally and figuratively. If not for umpire Tony Crafer’s timely and brave interception, Lillee and Miandad - two of the biggest Bad Boys of the Game – could shamed cricket in a manner that would have been far more disastrous than it eventually was. Lillee escaped with a fine and two-match ban.

Then it was the turn of Inzamam-ul-Haq. Fair to say, it was most surprising to find one of the quietest of men getting embroiled in a controversy of such nature. The incident happened in an ODI match against India at Toronto in 1997-98. Inzi’s enormous girth, which has always invited much ridicule, was taken to a different level by a megaphone-wielding Canadian-Indian on the ground. Inzy waded into the direction of the offending spectator with a bat handed over to him by a team mate. But for the intervention of the ground security, the situation would have been much nastier than it was. Canadian police arrested Inzamam and charged him with two counts of assault and one of assault with a deadly weapon. Inzi was later released on bail of $3,000. Match referee Jackie Hendriks banned Inzamam for two ODIs.

There was yet another instance of a player using the bat to smack the human anatomy – this incident remembered more for the laughs it generated than the anger. The aggressor in this case was Greg Chappell and the person attacked was a spectator – not the normal spectator, but a streaker! The incident happened in the Australia-New Zealand Test at Auckland in 1976-77 when Chappell smacked the bare butt of the “Intrusive Adam’ to teach him a lesson.

The Pakistan Cricket Board has shown a very high and unwarranted tolerance level towards Shoaib in the past. But this time Shoaib has crossed unprecedented limits, something the board would find it difficult to pardon if it has to be seen as a body that works within the framework of what society considers acceptable.

Shoaib may well have pressed the self-destruct button.

Failure to pull in his weight as a batsman could cost Agarkar dear

2007-09-07T12:54:00.000+05:30

H Natarajan

There is mounting criticism that Ajit Agarkar is playing past the ‘Expiry Date’. Nasser Hussain, the former England captain, opined in his syndicated column: “The team management would probably love to play all their bowlers and all their batsmen, and because the team has no all-rounder, it turns to a bowler long past his sell-by-date like Ajit Agarkar. I saw clear signs on Friday that he no longer likes being out there, and that is always a time to go.” Very strong words.

Hussain was not the only Englishman who questioned the Indian’s selection. Geoff Boycott wrote in his column that Agarkar looked “painfully ordinary” and that “his selection remains a mystery”.

Agarkar’s performance, in the two One-Day Internationals he played against England in the tour that just ended, were unquestionably horrendous. He went for 65 runs without taking a wicket in the first ODI at Southampton. Worse was to follow when he conceded 67 runs in nine overs in the second ODI at Bristol - yet again going without a wicket.

But does that mean it’s the end of the road for Agarkar? The numbers in the immediate past also do not support his case. In 24 ODIs in 2006, he could not get even a single three-wicket haul and his strike-for the calendar year was 36.55. His strike rate in the 14 ODIs that he has played 2007 is even worse - 43.00, which is considerably higher than his career strike rate of 33.22.

It’s not going to be easy for Agarkar. Zaheer Khan is going places with Michael Vaughan sticking his neck out to rate his ability to swing the ball more than even the great Wasim Akram and Chaminda Vaas. RP Singh has made rapid advances while a fit Munaf would be a certainty in the side. Then there is the combative Sreesanth. And waiting in the sidelines are several youngsters for their breaks, Agarkar – never a certainty – may well have put the noose around his neck. Whether the selectors tighten that noose to signal his end as an international cricketer or give him clemency to redeem himself remains to be seen.

Agarkar could have made things difficult for the selectors by showing a better attitude towards his batting ability. But he has floundered big time in that aspect, too. In 2005, his batting average was a dismal 7.63 from eight ODI innings; in 2006, 6.50 from 12 outings and in 2007, 10.67 from six innings. It’s not the kind of figures one expects from a player who has scored a hundred in Tests and 95 in an ODI.

"I bat at No. 9. My primary job at the moment is to bowl. If I can contribute with the bat, it's always good… I don't think I am classified as an all-rounder," he said sometime back.

When he reflects back on his career long after he has given up playing, he may well realize that it’s his failure to accept the onus as a productive lower-order batsman that could have led to an early end to his international career. This kind of flawed thinking seems to run in the Indian team with Irfan Pathan also consistently mouthing similar views about his batting. In sharp contrast, men like Shane Warne and Jason Gillespie, players with arguably lesser batting potential than Pathan and Agarkar, showed marked improvement in their approach and attitude towards batting in the fag end of their international careers and reaped handsome dividends – Gillespie, in fact, going on to score a Test double hundred.

Therein lie the sharp attitudinal divide between the Indian mindset and the Australian mindset. The likes of Pathan and Agarkar would do well to spend time with someone like Ravi Shastri - an Indian by birth and an Aussie in his thinking. He was tough and bloody-minded. And that is what catapulted him from a No 10 batsman in Tests to, arguably, the finest opener against quality pace on overseas track India since SMG. He believed in his batting potential to climb the ladder unlike Agarkar who adjusts his mindset to the number he is slotted in the batting order.

Getting a double hundred at any level is an achievement. And Agarkar once scored a triple hundred – and a very big one at that when he scored 345 in an Inter-school quarter-final. In fact, he was a pure batsman till as late as 1994 when he went for the BCCI under-16 camp under Frank Tyson. I dare say it’s his thinking that caused the mental disintegration and belief that he could bat.

There is no doubting Agarkar’s talents. He is the fastest to bag 50 wickets in ODIs – record that was held by Dennis Lillee; he has been one of the best strike bowlers in India’s ODI history; he has to his credit a 21-ball ODI half-century; he has a Test hundred at Lord’s and a match-winning 6 for 41 in Australia. But he may well go down as an under-achiever whose career is under serious threat well before he celebrates his 30th birthday.

Multi-skilled Players A Necessity In Modern Cricket

2007-08-30T10:34:00.000+05:30

By H Natarajan

It was with the concept of Total Football that the genius Johan Cruyff made Holland a dangerous team. The concept involved all players – barring the goalkeeper – switching with ease into any position. So, if a defender spotted an opportunity to launch and sustain an attack, the hole that he has created in the defense would be filled in swiftly by a midfielder.

What it also meant was that the game had evolved and players were asked to move out of their comfort zones to play an all-encompassing role. The concept made them to shed their territorial tags and show greater skills and commitment to the team cause.

The concept of totality has not come into cricket – not as yet at least. But who knows what the demands could be in future? Think of the many innovations, technological and technical, of today and you would get picture that is almost unrecognizable than what it was in the 1970s.

It would be safe to say that in the years to come the player with a solitary skill, unless exceptionally talented, would not find a place in the side. As teams bat deep down the order, oppositions would not like to risk going in with just six or seven batsmen.

The same goes for fielding, too. The game today expects far greater commitment levels from fielders, who slide and dive even on rough terrain and bloody their hands and bodies to restrict the run flow. Consequently, physical fitness levels have gone up, too.

One wonders if today’s cricket could afford to play those three magnificent spinners - EAS Prasanna, Bishan Bedi and BS Chandrasekhar – together. Neither of the three had fielding abilities to boast of and when Prasanna went in to bat at No 9, ahead of Bedi and Chandra, the India team got ready to take the field – so much for their batting ability.

If Dinesh Kartik gets into the Indian team, it’s because of his adaptability to field minus his gloves. If he was a misfit as a fielder, his ability as a batsman would not have been any good and he would not have found a place on the team.

With the game evolving, the changes have left its impact on the mindsets of bowlers with little or no batting pretensions. The Australians, not surprisingly, were prime examples of the evolution. Steve Waugh took it upon himself to improve the batting of a proclaimed No 11 batsman Glenn McGrath, which saw the paceman score a personal Test best of 61.

Shane Warne, who batted for the most part of his career at No 8, 9 or 10, was a vastly improved batsman in the latter part of his career. He had scores of 90 and 99 in this phase and he ended his Test career with successive scores of 43, 25, 40 not out and 71 – scores that a frontline batsman would not be too unhappy when quitting the game.

Jason’s Gillespie, another Aussie tailender who put a value on his wicket, has an unbeaten double hundred to his credit in his last Test innings 17 months back. Like Warne, Gillespie batted at No 9 or 10 for the most part of his career.

Brett Lee has a Test career average of 21-plus. The fact that Warne, Lee, Gillespie and McGrath made up the Australian tail shows why Australia managed some fantastic recoveries.

Englishman Ashley Giles never batted higher than No 8 in the order, yet his overall Test average is over 20 and in excess of 25 in the last three years of his career.

If there is one Indian lower order batsman who has shown thought and application toward his batting, it has to be Anil Kumble. For a long, long time Kumble did not do justice to his batting. For somebody who has seven first-class hundreds to his credit, he played 117 Tests without getting to the century mark. Kumble finally achieved that milestone when he scored an unbeaten 110 in the final Test at The Oval – a series in which no other Indian batsman got to three figures. It was a fitting reward for the sustained effort he has put in his batting which is evident from the fact that in the last three years he has averaged over 24.51, which is significantly higher than his Test career average of around over 16 till the year 2003.

Kumble’s batting is not exactly for sore eyes, but his attitude in showing greater commitment to batting at the fag end of his career is commendable. It’s something that others like Ajit Agarkar, S Sreesanth and Zaheer Khan would do well to emulate. It’s not that they don’t have the potential; Agarkar has a Test hundred against his name while Zaheer scored 75 at No 11 – the highest score by any batsman in Tests. It’s simply mind over matter. The days of the single skill cricketer is fast disappearing. Players with multi skills will be increasingly seen as a necessity than a luxury.

BCCI v ICL: Flexing the Financial Muscle

2007-08-23T13:05:00.000+05:30

By H Natarajan

Party pooper or savior in disguise? Which of the two best describes media moghul Subhash Chandra depends on which side of the cricketing divide you find yourself in. The Board of Control for Cricket in India would view Chandra as a ruthless businessman who is flexing his financial muscle to not only spoil the BCCI 75th anniversary celebrations but, more importantly, play havoc with Indian cricket and cricketers. The cricketers who have benefited from his windfall may seem as Good Samaritan who has given them and their families a new lease of life.

The truth lies somewhere in between: The BCCI had been smug in the belief that its enormous riches would make it omnipotent and immune to any attacks. It did not heed the warning signals of the widespread discontent. An upheaval was on the cards and it has come about to shake the very foundation of the empire. Subhash Chandra may be a cricket aficionado, but he is first, second…ninth and tenth a businessman. Everything and everybody comes later. Nothing wrong with that. In fact, in times to come he may well be seen as an agent of much-needed change that helped Indian cricket manifold.

But, for the present, the atmosphere is vitiated and war-like. And if Kerry Packer roped in Tony Greig as his general, Chandra has Kapil Dev as his Field Marshall – a cricketer and a businessman with command and contacts.

Things are more difficult for the BCCI than it was the Australian Cricket Board when Packer lassoed in top cricketers. Greig was an outsider – a South African by birth and an English cricketer by choice. In the case of the BCCI, it’s an insider – a player of the stature of Kapil and a man holding responsible positions in the Board – who is leading the breakaway league. And when somebody of Kapil’s standing is at the forefront of an opposing force, the movement gets greater credibility in an instant.

It would not exactly have been music to BCCI chief Sharad Pawar’s ears to find Laloo Prasad Yadav, his colleague in the Union cabinet and President of the Bihar Cricket Board, giving the Indian Cricket League the use of railway stadium.

The quantum monetary jumps announced by the BCCI have come a bit late in the day. Thee cash-rich BCCI’s decision is, in fact, a quiet admittance that the rethink should have come much earlier. It’s a decision that is so common in the corporate world where employees are given carrots in various forms to prevent shifting of loyalties. Reactive measures are never seen in good light; it’s in sharp contrast to proactive decisions, which reflects a sense of urgency and understanding of the situation.

What will Chandra’s counter be to the BCCI move? Almost predictably, he will up the ante by increasing the moolah for those who have sided with him. He would need to do that to not only protect those who have already joined him but also the many whom he is still hoping to rope in. Then what? Would, the BCCI up the figures again? That would send all the wrong signals – a loss of posture, a clear indication that it has been rattled. That is why proactive and progressive moves were so badly needed and which was not forthcoming in the expected pace and quantity.

For me, the single biggest blow to Indian cricket is that so many young cricketers with so much promise chose to safeguard their financial future by aligning themselves with the ICL than wallow in the uncertain domestic circuit. The huge disparity between what international and non-international cricketers in India has led to this unfortunate situation.

In the not too distant past, high-jumper Sergei Bubka kept raising the bar by wafer-thin margins to get the pot of gold that was up for grabs for creating new world record. The ICL could do a Bubka by keep realizing at regular intervals list of new names joining its fold. And every list will come as a fresh blow to the BCCI.

I would like to believe that there would be many who would be watching from the sidelines before mustering the courage to go with the ICL. And as more marquee names from overseas and big names from India as well join the ranks, the flood-gates would open.

The days ahead promise much action-packed drama.

History & Odds Against a ’Keeper as Captain

2007-08-09T23:07:00.000+05:30

By H Natarajan

A school of thought in cricket believes that bowlers do not make good captains. And one of the reasons for advancing that theory is that a bowler leading the side either tends to over-bowl or under-bowl himself.

That’s one reason why very few bowlers have been given charge of leading their respective countries - the likes of Bishan Bedi, Courtney Walsh and Waqar Younis being exceptions to the unwritten rule. Of course, we are discounting players like Richie Benaud, Garry Sobers, Imran Khan, Ian Botham, Kapil Dev, Wasim Akram, Shaun Pollock and Sanath Jayasuriya from this equation because they come under the all-rounders’ category. And if one goes through the list of all-time great captains in Test history, barring Benaud and Imran, I doubt if any of the above mentioned would find their names.

It’s that much harder for a fast bowler to be a captain because they are expending greater energy than the others on the field. And physical exhaustion is bound to affect the mental faculties. A fresh mind is critical to the plotting and execution of on-field strategies.

I would like to believe that elevating a wicket-keeper as captain also has its share of disadvantages. The thought crosses the mind with the appointment of Mahendra Singh Dhoni as captain of the Indian team for the Twenty20 World Championship in South Africa.

The job of a ‘keeper requires a very high degree of unwavering focus and quick shift in adjustments – standing back to fast bowler to standing up to spinners of varying skills. He knows that the chances of the ball coming to him are more than anyone else in the field. And that means, the concentration levels have to be at its optimum at all times. Mind you, the ‘keeper is in the best position on the field to advice a captain, but not-so-good a position to take the mantle of the captaincy.

The reason is simple: Because of the high demands of the job, he is best not thrust with another crucial responsibility that could affect his primary and crucial role as a ‘keeper. Most captains prefer to closer to the bowling end to make communication with the bowlers much easier. As opposed to that, a wicketkeeper who also dons the captaincy hat has to run to the other end of the ground to offer a quick word of advice. Of course, he could delegate that job to somebody in the slips, but it’s different from having a direct dialogue.

The percentage of ‘keeper doubling up as captain as well is very low. In fact, Gerry Alexander’s 18 Tests is the record for the most Tests captained by a player who also kept wickets. Alexander is followed by Andy Flower (16 Tests), Moin Khan and PW Sherwell (13 each), Alec Stewart, Lee Germon, Khaled Mashud, (12 each), and Tatenda Taibu. That’s just eight keepers who have captained over 10 Tests. The fact that Allan Border captained Australia in 93 Tests, Stephen Fleming led New Zealand in 80 Tests and Clive Lloyd skippered the West Indies in 74 Tests indicate that not only captains have enjoyed very long runs but also that they are more likely to be pure batsmen rather than pure bowlers or all-rounders.

The appointment of Dhoni is not exactly expected. His choice over that of the more experienced Yuvraj Singh could only mean that the Punjab all-rounder’s temperament as a leader is under question, even if the selectors may not openly like to admit it. Sehwag’s poor form, his inability to hold his place in the side and his run-ins with authorities, virtually ruled out his chances of leading the side. And with a plethora of young and inexperienced players, Dhoni’s elevation is more due to lack of options than proven conviction about his captaincy.

Also, the Twenty20 is an abridged version of the abridged version and thus relatively much, much shorter compared to a five-day Test. Having said that, Twenty20 is a very dynamic and fast-paced game where thinking will have to be that much sharper and quicker. Whether Dhoni’s captaincy is a case of a hidden talent or a case of hidden talent best remained hidden needs to be seen. But what can be said with a degree of certainty is that he will be under greater pressure than he has ever been in his career so far which, more so considering his struggle behind the wickets.

Dhoni will have to defy cricketing thought and history to beat the odds of a wicket-keeper turning out to be a long-term captain of substance. And that looks a tough ask.

Time for India to guard against ‘down syndrome’

2007-08-03T00:28:00.000+05:30

By H Natarajan

India’s win in the second Test at Trent Bridge was well deserved and decisive. Most importantly, it was a team effort. There is enough reason to be proud of an away win acquired in such an emphatic manner. But there are also enough reasons to suggest that India need to be on guard when they are winning.

It’s said that winning is a habit, but India’s cricketing history has re-written that truism in an unambiguous way. If one reflects back on India’s Test history spanning 75 years, it’s a tale of missed chances.

Indian teams have not had a good record as good travelers. India registered her first away Test win in 1967-68 – 36 years after her Test debut - and till date has a mere 29 overseas wins. And a handsome percentage of that has come in this very decade against teams like Zimbabwe and Bangladesh.

Historically, India have not been good at holding on to their lead on overseas soil, allowing the opposition come back to either draw or win the series. Since there is a disappointing pattern to it, there has to be some logical explanation to this trend. I guess it has largely to do with our typical psyche to get overly excited. International sporting successes does not come India’s way like, say, it does for superpowers like the United States and China. So when it does, the nation goes into as unreasonable extreme as it by going to the other extreme when it loses. The tendency of the media and the masses to go into unreasonable exuberance takes away the focus of the players.

And this pattern of losing the grip after winning a Test runs right through India’s odyssey in Tests. In 1967-68, India won the first against New Zealand but immediately frittered away the advantage by losing the second Test. But Tiger Pataudi’s men won the third and fourth Tests to register India’s first-ever overseas series victory.

India’s next series victories came in that watershed year of 1971 when Ajit Wadekar’s men registered back-to-back 1-0 rubber wins in the West Indies and England. But if one were to honestly reflect back, it has to be said that India could well have lost that series in West Indies. Even in that series against England, India was fortunate to draw the earlier Tests.

But coming back to India’s tendency of losing its grip: In 1976, India won the first Test against New Zealand and then lost the third to end the series on level terms. The team then flew into the Caribbean, where India won the third Test to draw level but then lost the fourth to concede the series.

In 1977-78, Kerry Packer flexed his financial muscle to lasso in the best players for his breakaway World Series Cricket. Australia was the hardest hit; it did not just lose the team but along with them went many talented players waiting in the wings.

The Australian selectors exhumed Bobby Simpson from his cricketing grave. Simpson had retired from international cricket nine years ago and was 41 when he got what must be the most bizarre SOS in cricketing history. Simmo’s task was tough – both, as a captain and a batsman. He was up against a formidable Indian team that had the famous spin trio of EAS Prasanna, BS Bedi and BS Chandrasekhar and a batting line-up that included the likes of Sunil Gavaskar, Dilip Vengsarkar, Gundappa Viswanath and Mohinder Amarnath among others. Pitted against such a force for the opening Test was an Australian team led by an ageing Simpson and six debutants! Yet, quite incredibly, India were down 0-2 after the first two Tests. Though the Indians fought back to level the series at 2-2, they could not sustain the winning momentum and lost the final Test and series.

It took almost another decade, before India registered a convincing overseas series win – against England, taking the rubber 2-0. It remains, since then, India’s best showing on overseas soil.

In the two decades that have gone by, the tale of missed chances overseas has seen India fritter away a 1-0 lead against West Indies in 2001-02 to lose the series 1-2, concede a 1-0 lead against Australia in 2003-04 to end the four-match series 1-1. Later that season in Pakistan, India was at it again when it lost the second Test after winning the first. Only this time they bucked the trend to win the third Test and series. But they were in the all too familiar situation when they won the first Test of the 2006-07 series in South Africa only to lose the series 1-2.

True there have been convincing wins over Lanka in 1993 and, later, against Bangladesh and Zimbabwe, but it’s apparent India has struggled for consistency against the big teams.

It’s time for India to guard against ‘down syndrome’

The Acid Test of Batting Greatness

2007-07-26T22:17:00.000+05:30

By H Natarajan

The greatness of a batsman cannot be quantified by one quality. While the entire exercise is subjective, it’s fair to say that some of the things most pundits would consider in while labeling someone great would be factors like high levels of consistency over long periods, success on overseas tours, high degree of excellence against all types of bowling, ability to carry the team along in crisis situations, etc. The list will be long. But if there is one must-have factor that every connoisseur would be in near agreement about, it’s the ability of a batsman to perform at sustained levels of brilliance in the fourth innings of a Test match.

That’s the acid test for any player. It’s in the fourth innings of a Test match that a batsman is faced with the task of winning the match or saving it. And more often than not, it’s a challenging ask because the pressure is enormous. The mental test apart, batting on a fifth day wicket that has been subjected to wear and tear calls for heightened technical skills. The examination is more grueling and the margin for errors is very minimal.

This is where Ricky Ponting stands tall. His average of 59.58 is fractionally higher than his overall Test average – even if marginally at 59.29. That ranks him second, next only to Sir Don Bradman. The averages of even the finest batsmen are much lower than their first innings averages. At the pomp of his career, Sachin Tendulkar was hailed as the finest batsman after Sir Don, but the Indian has a dismal fourth innings average of 33.66 as opposed to his first innings average of 72.49. Even Sir Don himself averages 73.40 from 15 outings in the fourth innings. That’s a 26-point difference from his overall Test average. Brian Lara, who has an overall average of nearly 53, averages 35.12 in the fourth innings. The examples of three batsmen who will go down in the history as among the greatest highlights the lower rate of success in the final innings of a Test.

There are just nine players who boast of a 50-plus fourth innings average in their Test careers: Sir Don, Ponting, Geoff Boycott (58.76), Sunil Gavaskar (58.25), Jack Hobbs (57.59), Javed Miandad (54.40), Keith Stackpole (53.50), Gordon Greenidge (53.19) and Mahela Jayawardene (52.13). Just two of the players are among the current bunch, though Matthew Hayden (48.54) and Rahul Dravid (47.76) are eminently capable of breaking into the elite list.

The fact that there are only six batsmen – Sir Don, Ponting, Boycott, Gavaskar, Greenidge and Graham Gooch - in Test history who have scored three or more hundreds in the fourth innings is indicative of how difficult scoring is in the fourth innings. Only two (Gavaskar and Ponting) of the above have got four hundreds each in the fourth innings.

Gavaskar has a plethora of heavy-duty records to his credit, but it’s his consistency and brilliance in the fourth innings that will earn him the highest marks from every quarter. His figures are so awesome that he is by far the best among all Indian batsmen in Test history. Those figures can also, arguably, rate him the second best after Sir Don, when one considers his many fourth innings classics: the 220 he scored in just fourth Test - following a knock of 124 in the first innings - while battling a toothache. He helped save the Test to help win 1-0 a historic first-ever rubber in the West Indies. In the same series, a Test earlier, he had scored a Test-saving 117 not out in the fourth outing – an innings where no other Indian batsmen got even a quarter century. Gavaskar’s career was noted for marking the Windies attack for special treatment. His third hundred in the last innings of a Test also came against the West Indies in West Indies; his 102 paved the way for India to successfully chase the 400-plus total that Clive Lloyd has set. Then came his innings of 221 against England at the Oval in 1979 that all but helped India get nine short of the target of 438. That knock is still the third highest score on the fourth innings, after George Headley’s 223 in 1930 and Nathan Astle’s 222 in 2002 – both efforts coming in their respective home countries making Gavaskar’s score the highest fourth innings Test score on overseas soil. He is till today the only batsman in Test history with two double hundreds in the fourth innings.

It’s a measure of Gavaskar’s batting genius that his fourth innings average of 58.25 is way above his overall Test average. His cricketing career is still remembered with awe and reverence as he bowed out in style – 96 on a vicious turner against two quality spinners – when he still commanded a place in the team. Had he not got a poor decision not stymied his innings, he would have added a collected a fourth innings hundred and raised India’s hope of a dream victory.

Gavaskar’s tally of 1398 runs in the fourth innings is the second highest in all Test history - just 42 behind Lara. But the West Indian took 13 more innings for that 42 runs.

And even as I am writing this piece, I read in the newspapers Kapil Dev’s criticism of Tendulkar’s failure to deliver in crunch situations. “Every time people hope big things from Sachin Tendulkar, but often it is only disappointment that we are left with. He has thought to be the backbone of the Indian team, but he has not stood up to the occasion. Figures say that Sachin has not been able to perform under pressure. That will remain a blot in his career,” Kapil said.

Strong words, indeed. But this is not the first time one has heard such criticism, but this is probably the first time when an Indian cricketer of the stature of Kapil and a former team-mate of Tendulkar has openly voiced such a strong opinion.

Let us examine if there is truth in Kapil’s criticism. In 40 innings, in a Test career spanning 17 years, Tendulkar has scored two memorable hundreds – one that helped India draw a match and the other that ended in a lost cause. His innings of 1990, when still in his teens, thwarted England’s bid to win the Manchester Test. And in 1988-89, he scored that brilliant 136 against Pakistan at Chennai to all but win the Test off his own bat.

But the one thing that will hurt Tendulkar most is that he, quite incredibly, does not even a single half century to his credit in Tests won by India. Besides the two hundreds mentioned above, he has scored two fifties - both in lost causes. And it’s big innings of substance – like the ones Gavaskar scored, like Lara’s unbeaten 153 at Kensington Oval in 1999 that gave his team a one-wicket victory against Australia and Michael Atherton’s 185 not out at Wanderers in 1995, to name a few – that are remembered long after many others scored around the same time are forgotten. It’s the triumph over intense pressure and grueling examinations of the wicket and the bowling that make such knocks go down as classics.

Sadly, Tendulkar has failed in manner that is quite inexplicable for a batsman of his class. The record book shows that he has failed to get into the thirties 22 times of the 29 times he has been dismissed in the fourth innings of a Test match - a very sad commentary.

In sharp contrast, Dravid earns a very high rating. His batting in all innings have been pretty consistent: he averages 63.45 in the first innings, 60.18 in the second, 49.49 in the third and 47.76 in the fourth for an overall average of 56.83. Though Dravid has scored just one hundred in the fourth innings, he has as many as nine half centuries in the most trying stages of a Test. Three of those nine half-centuries are Test-winning efforts - 70 not out vs Zimbabwe in the 2000 Delhi Test after 200 not out in the first innings; 75 vs Sri Lanka at Kandy in 2001 that helped India draw level in the series, and 72 not out vs Australia at Adelaide after scoring 233 in the first essay. Those two knocks Down Under helped India take an unexpected 1-0 lead in that 2003 series against the world champions. Its efforts like these that have given Dravid a career average of 91.00 in the fourth innings in Tests won by India. Tendulkar, in comparison, averages 54.40 on the fourth innings in matches won by India, with a highest score of 44 not out.

Unless there is a Riplesque turnaround that will help him extend the evening of his career and set right to some extent the glaring imbalances, Tendulkar may have to live with that “blot”, as Kapil termed it.

Memories of Ole Blighty

2007-07-20T17:23:00.000+05:30

By H Natarajan

A cricket tour of England was regarded as something very special in the days bygone. And playing and succeeding at Lord’s was the dream of every international cricketer. That was as far as the romance and history of the game is concerned.

For a student of the game, England was the ultimate test. Cricket is widely accepted as a game that is biased towards the batsmen, but the heavy atmosphere and green wickets titled the scales heavily in favour of the bowlers – seamers, in particular - England. That is why batting feats in England remain etched in memory.

In the days when wickets were left uncovered and exposed to rains, batting became a nightmare. The ball moved a mile in the air and off the wicket and some of the best batsmen the world over have been made to look ordinary. And batting on a wicket that was in the process of drying, a bowler of the caliber of Derek Underwood was more dangerous than the seamers. The batsman had as much chances of surviving as someone inside a small pit with a venomous cobra! No wonder that Underwood’s nickname was “Deadly”.

It was in era of uncovered wickets that Vijay Merchant carved out one of the biggest batting success stories by a non-Englishman. On the tour of 1936, he scored 1746 runs (average 51.32). It was on this tour that he and Mushtaq Ali put up a stand of 203 for the first wicket in the Test at Manchester. One of his great batting exploits on this tour was his carrying his bat in both innings while scoring 135 and 77 against Lancashire. When he toured England again, ten years later, for what was one of the wettest summers, Merchant amassed 2385 runs at an average of 74 with five centuries and two double hundreds.

Merchant had won the hearts of the Englishmen. The legendary Charles Fry said during the tour of 1936: “Let us paint him (Merchant) white and take him with us to Australia as an opener.”

Then came the tour of 1952 tour. This visit is remembered for some of the worst moments in Indian cricket. In the first Test at Leeds, India were zero for four in an innings that finally saw five Indian batsmen dismissed for ducks. Then, in the third Test at Old Trafford, India were then shot out twice in a day for scores under 100 and for 98.

But one performance that shone brightly in the Indian ruins was that of Vinoo Mankad. He was playing in the Lancashire League when India sent him a SOS. Why he was playing in the Lancashire League when India were touring England is another story, best left for another day. Mankad joined the team for the second Test at Lord’s. By the time he left the hallowed venue, he had ensured that the Test would go down in history as Mankad’s Test. The great all rounder top scored in the first innings with 72, then bowled 73 overs to take five for 196 in the England first innings. He came in as opener for the second time in the Test to score 184 – no other Indian batsman even getting to a half century. It was a fantastic performance considering that the English bowling was powered by Trueman, Alec Bedser and Jim Laker. After just one over each from the new ball bowlers, Mankad then bowled unchanged for a spell of 24-12-35-0. It was an astonishing performance as much for the achievement as for the physical endurance for five days.

India, too, had it moments of glory with the ball. In fact, India made a big impact in her very first Test way back in 1932 at Lord’s in 1932. Percy Holmes and Herbert Sutcliffe, the English openers, came into the test with a halo around them - just ten days earlier they had strung together a first wicket partnership of 555 for Yorkshire. But the man of the moment was Mohammad Nissar, arguably the fastest bowler ever produced by India. He bowled both the openers and then Frank Wooley was run out as England collapsed to 19 for three against the rookies. Nissar finished the innings with a five wicket haul.

The most memorable performances among all Indian bowlers came in 1971 when BS Chandrasekhar, in an inspired spell, ripped through the English second innings at Oval to finish with six for 38. Chandra’s efforts helped India win the Test and the series. One of the unforgettable headlines the following days I still vividly recall: “India End England’s Home Rule.”

Three years later, India again toured England – again under Ajit Wadekar. But it was a tour that evokes painful memories from happenings on and off the field. There was bitterness within the team among the seniors and it came as no surprise when India were shot out for 42 in the second innings of the Lord’s Test – almost half of which came from Eknath Solkar defiant 18 not out. The next highest was five. India lost the three-Test series 0-3. Captain Wadekar faced the wrath of the nation and he saw it fit to end his international career on that unhappy note.

It was on the 1979 tour Sunil Gavaskar scored what has to be one of the finest fourth innings efforts in Test history. His 221 is the highest fourth innings by a visiting batsman and the third highest home or away, after George Headley’s 223 against England in 1930 and Nathan Astle’s 222 against England in 2002. Gavaskar’s effort would have and should have helped India attain the tough ask of 438 runs for victory, but some dubious umpiring denied India a thoroughly deserving win. India fell short by nine runs.

No talk of India’s tours to England can be complete without mention of the heroic acts of Dilip Vengsarkar who scored three successive hundreds at Lord’s. In 1979, batting at No 3, he scored 103. India were battling to save the Test after conceding a first innings lead of 323. In 1982, Vengsarkar scored another second innings hundred, and yet again in a crisis situation. Following on 305 behind, he waged a near solo battle against the English attack to score 157. Kapil Dev (89 off 77 balls) was the only other Indian batsman to score an innings of substance. Vengsarkar scored his third hundred in successive Test appearance at Lord’s on the tour of 1986. His 126 – by far the highest score of the innings – helped India win the Test.

Sachin Tendulkar, another member of the current Indian team, showed his first glimpse of his genius on the tour of 1990. Just 17 and at an age when many of his friends were getting their highs from schools cricket, Tendulkar was rescuing his nation in a Test match. India, set to score 408 for victory, were 127 with Navjot Sidhu, Ravi Shastri, Sanjay Manjrekar, Dilip Vengsarkar and Mohammad Azharuddin all gone. Batting at No 6, Tendulkar scored an unbeaten 119 – the first of his many Test hundreds - to deny England victory.

It was on this tour that Azhar scored back to back Test hundreds – among the finest of his international career. And it was also on this tour, in the first Test at Lord’s, that Kapil Dev hoisted Eddie Hemmings for four successive sixes. India needed 16 to avoid the follow-on with last man Narendra Hirwani at the crease. Kapil played out the first two deliveries of Hemmings’ over. Not wanting to expose the unpretentious batting of Hirwani, Kapil decided to settle matters in his inimitable style. He hoisted the next four balls for four sixes to get the 24 runs that were needed to avoiding the follow-on. Kapil’s heroics came in for swift endorsement when Hirwani was trapped lbw by Angus Fraser with the first ball of the next over.

Another cameo one cannot easily forget is Sandeep Patil’s six fours in an over off Bob Willis in the 1982 at Manchester – a feat hitherto seen only twice before in Test history.

If there is one player from the Indian team in England who has a plethora of pleasant memories about England , it has to be Sourav Ganguly. He got into the Indian team after a long exile and in the face of fierce criticisms about his selection. But with scores of 131 on his debut in the second Test at Lord’s and 136 in the third Test at Nottingham, he shut all his critics up. This was the tour that saw the launch of another batting hero: Rahul Dravid, who made his debut alongside Ganguly. Dravid, however, had to cop disappointments in both the tests, falling when well in sight of his hundreds. He scored 95 at Lord’s and 84 at Nottingham.

England, of course, also brings memories of some of the greatest moments in ODI history – Kapil’s sensational 175 not out, an innings that fuelled India unexpected progress and victory in the 1983 World Cup. And, more recently, the fairy-tale in the NatWest final when India rallied from 146 for five to surmount England 325 through the heroics of Yuvraj Singh and Mohammad Kaif. The captain of that Indian side? Sourav Ganguly.

The present Indian team has four seasoned campaigners in Tendulkar, Dravid, Ganguly and Kumble. Let us hope that these men leave their marks on what possibly could be their final tour of Ole Blighty and help India to add another glorious chapter in its history. And there is no better time than now when Indian cricket is celebrating its 75th anniversary.

Borg’s five-in-a-row at Wimbledon lot tougher than Federer’s

2007-07-12T22:56:00.000+05:30

By H Natarajan

“We play tennis, he plays something else. They should send him to another planet.”

That was Ilie Nastase, one of the most gifted players tennis has seen, talking about Bjorn Borg at the pomp of the latter’s playing career.

Nastase and Borg belonged to the 70s, an era that also boasted players like Arthur Ashe, Jimmy Connors, John McEnroe, Vitas Gerualitis and Guillermo Vilas to name just a few. Equally importantly, the era had a bumper harvest of top quality players on the ATP Tennis circuit.

Comparing two players of different eras is avoidable. But if one were forced into a debate comparing Roger Federer’s record-equalling five in a row triumph at Wimbledon with Borg, one would have to place the former’s record on a higher scale for the sheer quality of the tennis prevalent in the 70s. The degree of difficult in winning each match was consistently far more demanding than it is today for a top player like Federer because of the quality factor.

Let us examine that point at length by putting under the scanner Borg’s domination at the Big W between 1976 and 1980.

In 1976, seeded No 4, Borg ploughed through the field. Though he had tough draw from Round One and all the way through, he beat them all in straight sets, including Brian Gottfried in the last 16, Guillermo Vilas in the quarters, Roscoe Tanner in the semis and Ilie Nastase in the final – the last four rivals being players who had figured in the top 10 of their ATP careers.

In 1977, Borg encountered three fierce five-set battles. In Round Two, he was down two sets to love against Australian Mark Edmonson – a player who went on to be ranked in the world’s top 15. Borg then had to overcome three more quality rivals in Nikki Pillic, Wojtek Fibak and Nastase who gave him anxious times before he made into the semis. The Swede then had to wage a five-set battle against Gerulaitis and another fiver against Jimmy Connors before he could retain his hold on the famed cup.

It’s a reflection of the depth in quality of the tennis in those years that a high majority of the players Borg met in 1976 and 1977 were in the top 10 or 20 or soon were to figure in that elite list. Even a player ranked way below in the ATP rankings could be a huge threat for top gun like Borg. Proof of that came in Borg’s opening round itself of the 1978 Wimbledon. At the other end of the net was a man who was more like a NBA player than an ATP Tour player. At 6’, 7” tall, Vic Amaya was intimidating. The American southpaw sent shockwaves around the stadium when he led two sets to one after taking the second set at 6-1. But Borg, as he had done so many times in his career, came back strongly to win in five. Though he had names like Peter McNamara, Jaime Fillol, Geoff Masters, Sandy Mayer, Tom Okker and Connors to contend with ahead, Borg had little difficult, except against for a dropped set against Fillol in the round of 32.

Then came 1979, a year Indian tennis fans will not forget in a hurry. Borg had beaten Tom Gorman, not too long ago a top tenner in the world, in four sets to set up a clash with Vijay Amritraj – one of the top players in the world with a reputation for defeating the best on his day. The Indian was up two sets to one and 4-1 in the 4th set before Borg came up with the Houdini act yet again. Borg then beat Hank Pfister, Brian Teacher in four sets, Tom Okker, Connors and then had to overcome two sets to one deficit to beat the big-serving Tanner in five set.

It could be argued that Borg had a relatively easy time in 1980 as compared to the earlier years, though he had to overcome the might of John McEnroe in five sets in the final – a match that is still hailed as one of the unforgettable classics of the game.

Borg raised visions of extending his unbeaten run in 1981 by rallying from a two-set loss to beat Connors in the semis, but tripped in the final against the genius of McEnroe. Only the fourth loss he had suffered at this hallowed venue from 51 matches. It was the end of the Borg era.

Federer did not take Wimbledon by storm after entering the ATP Tour. In 1999, he lost in the first round to Jiri Novak and a year later he lost yet again in the opening round to Yeygeny Kafelnikov. In 2001, he was beaten in the last eight by Britisher Tim Henman after packing off four-time champion Pete Sampras in the first round. In 2002, ranked No 9, he suffered yet another first round loss – this time to 154-ranked Croatian Mario Ancic. Then came the unbeaten run that Federer is eminently capable of extending it. Yet, when one looks at the names he has beaten enroute to the record-equalling feat, names like Hyung-Taik Lee, Stefan Koubek, Alex Bogdanovic, Alejandro Falla and Teimuraz Gabashvili, it does not excite the tennis fan of the Borg Era.

But what will rank Borg’s five in a row ahead of Federer is his winning the French and Wimbledon in the same year. It’s one of the most difficult doubles to achieve because they are played on vastly contrasting surfaces that demand different skills. And adjusting quickly from clay to grass is something that even the best of players through different eras have found it highly challenging and frustrating. For all his near invincibility in the game, Federer has failed in that pursuit. It’s a tribute to the genius of Borg that he achieved it thrice, in 1978, 1979, 1980, and could have made it four in a row had he not lost the 1981 Wimbledon final. Borg’s six successive Wimbledon singles finals – a record since the scrapping of the challenge round in 1922 – alongside his six French Open titles between 1974 and 1981 is something that truly boggles the mind.

If Federer has not been able to match Borg’s feat on clay at Roland Garros it’s because of one man – Rafael Nadal, who has beaten him in two successive finals at Paris. The Spaniard has often been his nemesis and Federer’s clashes with Nadal have seen some of the best tennis in the modern era. Borg did not have one single rival who was as intimidating on clay as Nadal. The Spaniard has now won three successive titles at the French Open without losing a single match since his debut there. Borg, in contrast, had faced five different rivals in six of the finals at the French Open.

If Borg had notched up the double of winning at Paris and Wimbledon three years in a row and missing a fourth by losing in the final, Federer has won the Wimbledon and US Open singles titles for three consecutive years (2004-2006) and has now put himself in line for a four in a row by winning this year at Wimbledon. But winning the Wimbledon and US Open is not regarded as difficult as the French and Wimbledon because of the proximity of the two majors and also the fact that they are vastly different surfaces. In fact, many clay court specialists give Wimbledon the miss and many grass court players give Paris a miss. And this includes champion players like Andre Agassi. Ivan Lendl, for example, hated Wimbledon and said that “grass is for cows”.

One has to make a difference between a good and a great player, and a great player in one era will always be great in any era. Federer is already assured of a place among the pantheons of the greats and looks almost certain to end up his career as been widely hailed as the greatest ever. He has been ranked No 1 since February 2, 2004 – a record for most successive week at the top by a male player. His domination on the sport is reminiscent of Jahangir Khan in squash, Ed Moses in hurdles and Rocky Marciano in boxing. The stats are devastating. He is the first man to win three separate Grand Slam champions three times. He has won seven of the previous nine Grand Slam tournaments, and 11 of the last 17.

While Federer is likely to surpass all to be hailed as the greatest ever, Borg’s five in a row at Wimbledon would get a higher billing for the class of the field in the 70s as well as his achievements at the French Open coming into the premier grass court tournament.

As for us mortals, it’s a pleasure and privilege to have lived through two eras that saw the two take the sport of tennis to new heights of excellence.

Sardesai – One of the Architects Who Reshaped Indian Cricket History

2007-07-05T18:39:00.000+05:30

By H Natarajan

P Krishnamurthy, ML Jaisimha, Eknath Solkar and now Dilip Sardesai. Four members of the Indian team that changed the course of the nation’s cricket on that watershed 1971 tour of the Caribbean are now just memories. The death of Sardesai, earlier this week, was particularly poignant. In contrast to the media blitz – the visual media in particular – that is devoted to trivial pursuits of modern cricketers, Sardesai’s death went relatively unsung. It does not reflect well about our appreciation of cricket history.

On that tour of 1971, Sunil Gavaskar came like a whiff of fresh air, but neither his record-breaking debut nor India’s history-making series win would have been possible without the sustained excellence of Sardesai and Solkar.

Gavaskar scored 774 runs from four Tests, but Sardesai was not far behind, amassing 642 runs. But more than the quantum of runs, it’s the timing at which he scored those runs and the difference it made to the innings, Tests, series and Indian cricketing history itself that needs to be appreciated and applauded.

It was a do-or-die tour for Sardesai. If he made it into the team, it was solely due to the bargaining and convincing power of Ajit Wadekar, who himself got the captaincy in a manner that took the cricketing world by surprise. Wadekar unseated Tiger Pataudi as India captain after Vijay Merchant, selection committee chairman, gave his casting vote in favour of Wadekar.

Sardesai’s selection was greeted with widespread disproval and it was clear that he would not be in contention for a place in the eleven for the first Test. It’s said that Lady Luck was Wadekar’s favoured child. And Wadekar did not have to wait long to see Sardesai proving his judgment right. Gundappa Viswanath got injured and Sardesai got in and scored 97 in the tour opener against Jamaica. He then got 92 in the game against Trinidad & Tobago. The two near hundreds ensured Sardesai a place in the first Test at Kingston.

It was not too unfamiliar a tale on the opening day of the first Test when India were reeling at 75 for five. But Sardesai dropped anchor and, in the company of Eknath Solkar and EAS Prasanna, took India to a total of 387. Sardesai went on to score 212 – the first India to hit a double hundred on overseas soil. Thanks to Sardesai’s innings that turned around India’s fortunes, West Indies suffered the ignominy of following-on. The hosts, however, hung on to save the Test.

India created history in the second Test at Port-of-Spain, beating Garry Sobers’s West Indies by seven wickets – Sardesai being the only centurion (112) from either side. The third Test ended in a draw, but India took the first innings lead for the third successive time in the series – Sardesai scoring 45. If India managed to save the fourth Test after being 70 for six replying to West Indies’ first innings score of 501 for five declared, it was thanks largely to Sardesai’s 50 – Solkar was yet again Sardesai’s partner-in-crisis, chipping in with the second highest score (65). The third highest was Mr Extras with 30. Sardee maan – as Caribbean Islanders called him - scored 75 in the final Test to ensure with Gavaskar (124 & 220) that India hung on to their lead and won the series.

A technically correct player, the wristy Sardesai was known for his proficiency against spin, but in West Indies he emphatically showed his mettle against pace. Wadekar judgment in picking Sardesai against popular pre-tour opinion was proved right and Merchant hailed Sardesai as the Renaissance Man of Indian cricket.

But there was lot more glory ahead in 1971 for India and Sardesai. India toured Ole Blighty later that year and victory at Oval saw India beat England and win the series 1-0. It was Sardesai's pivotal innings of 54 and 40 that allowed Bhagwat Chandrasekhar to work his magic.

Sardesai has been in the thick of some of the most unforgettable moments in Indian cricket history. Apart from playing major contributory roles in India’s epic series wins against the West Indies and England in 1971, he was at the non-striking end when Nari Contractor suffered that career-ending blow to his head in 1962 and when Farokh Engineer came six short of scoring a hundred before lunch on the opening day of the 1966-67 Madras Test.

Sardesai was limpet-like and usually defensive, but he had the ability to attack when needed. It was his contention that he was defensive on the orders of his captains. He scored what was one of the fastest hundreds by an Indian batsman for a long time - against New Zealand at Delhi in 1964-65. In the previous Test, his 200 not out at Bombay salvaged a draw after India had been shot out for 88 in the innings. Sardesai enjoyed playing against England: he made his Test debut against them in 1961-62, even before he'd played for Bombay, and it was against England, at Kanpur two years later, that he scored 79 and, after India followed on, 87 to help save the game.

Sardesai left his roots in Goa to grew in cricketing stature in Mumbai and became an integral part of his adopted city’s stranglehold on the National Championship. He played for Mumbai for 13 seasons – between 1960-61 and 1972-72 – and never once saw his team lose a match outright. And that’s one record he was immensely proud of. He was from the old school of Mumbai cricket and never lost interest in grass-root level cricket. For a man with that kind of passion, Indian cricket did not make judicious use of his experience and expertise.

I knew Sardesai as a man who believed in speaking his heart out. He told me when I was interviewing him for Cricinfo: “Vijay Merchant didn't want me on the 1971 tour to the West Indies. I told him in front of everyone in the dressing room not to offer useless explanations if he didn't want to select me. I am extremely forthright.”

But Sardesai spoke without malice. He was journalists’ delight; he was not only candid but he also never acted pricey during the many, many times I sought his time – sometime late at night.

Sardesai also had a good sense of humour. Wadekar once related to me an incident on the 1971 tour of West Indies. “During the tour he (Sardesai) suffered a tummy upset and was asked to stay away from solid food for three days, and restrict himself to chicken soup. But that same evening we found him hogging a chicken away to glory. When questioned, Sardesai replied: "What's the difference? After all chicken soup comes from chicken!"

Fielding was not Sardesai’s forte. On the tour of Australia, he was chasing the ball in the longish part of the field and found that by the time he could reach the ball, the batsmen were on way to completing their fifth run. Sardesai dived and pushed the ball to the boundary before the batsmen could complete their fifth run! The Indian dressing room was in splits.

Indian cricket celebrates its 75th year in International cricket. Let’s hope that Sardesai’s contribution in masterminding the turnaround of India’s fortunes will get its posthumous due from the Board of Control for Cricket in India.

RIP, Dilip.

It’s Like Leading A Middle Class Life With A Million Dollars In The Bank!

2007-06-21T23:08:00.000+05:30

By H Natarajan

Sunil Gavaskar finds himself in the midst of yet another blazing controversy. In what is one of the most scathing attack ever on the maestro, Outlook magazine has questioned many of his actions and alleged inactions. The litany runs long in the article titled, Too Many Dot Balls, in the latest issue of the magazine.

I have had nothing but the highest admiration for Gavaskar as a batsman. He gave Indian cricket a new identity, a new respect. It was his batting genius that saw India emerge from a Third World cricketing nation to a force to reckon with. But there’s no doubt in my mind that he could have offered much, much more to Indian cricket than he has since his playing days. It’s like having a million dollars in the bank but having to remain content leading a middle class life because of inaccessibility to the funds.

When one goes down the history of cricket, one can find a long list of illustrious names who served the country as selectors after hanging up their cricketing boots – Sir Len Hutton, Sir Viv Richards, Allan Border… Even the legendary Sir Don Bradman, who was to become increasingly reclusive in the later part of his life, served his country and South Australia as an administrator for more than 35 years. He was also chairman of the national selection committee.

Why has Gavaskar stayed away from being a selector when just about every great contemporary of his playing days like Ajit Wadekar, Bishan Bedi, Venkatraghavan, Gundappa Viswanath, Syed Kirmani, Dilip Vengsarkar, among others, have all taken their turns to be selectors? It’s a question that has haunted Indian cricket for long.

I once saw Gavaskar and Geoff Boycott in a highly cerebral discussion on batting technique. That one Master Class would have been enough for anybody to realize the high level of excellence Gavaskar can offer. He has seen international cricket for 38 long years from very close quarters – on and off the field. Very few in world cricket – barring a handful like Richie Benaud – have that length of first-hand experience and expertise to give intellectual sermons on the game. In fact, I have always believed that if somebody was to write The Modern Art of Cricket - a sequel was to be Sir Don’s classic, The Art of Cricket – then Gavaskar would have been an ideal choice. It would be the Bhagwad Gita of modern cricket. It’s sad when India has to look for a coach within the country, Gavaskar is not in the frame.

Nearly two decades ago, Gavaskar did show interest in grass-root development of talent with plans to start his own indoor cricket school in Mumbai. The Maharashtra state government gave him 2,000-square-metre of prime plot at Bandra Reclamation for the purpose. A school by the Master himself would have been a boon for Indian cricket, but, sadly, that was not to be.

I read the Outlook article just yesterday and it’s not a Gavaskar v Bedi spat as media coverage indicates. There is no denying that Bedi was once an unabashed admirer of Gavaskar and, in fact, named his son – from an earlier marriage to an Australian – as Gavas Inder Singh. But there is also no denying the fact that relationship between the two stormy personalities of Indian cricket has soured in the years that followed. Bedi’s broadside that Gavaskar is “destructive” and that is “nothing positive” is indicative taking personal differences to a public forum and overstretching a point.

Bedi accuses SMG of liking “power without accountability”. There was at least one earlier occasion when another powerful person said something similar.

At a public function, Gavaskar, once said in his inimitable style that politicians in Indian sports had done precious little for the sport they headed. Manohar Joshi, a Shiv Sena heavyweight and then Maharashtra Chief Minister, who had used his political muscle to topple Madhav Mantri as the Mumbai Cricket Association (MCA) president, was present at the function. Mantri’s defeat hurt Gavaskar the cricketer and Gavaskar the nephew. Even before the gathering could recover from shock, Joshi did not let lose an opportunity to fire his riposte. He asked Gavaskar to come forward and occupy the seat of power, implying that the maestro should contribute to Mumbai and Indian cricket as an administrator and not merely take pot-shots at administrators as a mediaperson.

Of course, to the delight of the Mumbai cricketing fraternity, SMG took over as the MCA vice-president in 1998 when Ramakant Desai died in office. However, that stint was fleeting.

The vast majority of the Indian cricketers – past or present - would remain non-committal or diplomatic for fear of antagonizing a powerful figure like Gavaskar. There may be attempts to dismiss the Outlook piece as another example of the Mumbai-Delhi divide – a rivalry that runs long and deep. The writer of the piece is from Delhi as are the rest of the people interviewed – except one. But it would be insulting the integrity and intelligence of people like Rajdeep Sardesai and Mukul Kesavan if one were to dismiss their opinion as pro-Delhi or anti-Mumbai. As for Rajaraman, the writer of the piece, I have known him over two decades as an erudite, no-nonsense and balanced journalist.

If there was anything avoidable in that article, in my humble opinion, it was the allegation that Gavaskar reportedly took a nap in the dressing room when he was batting consultant to the Indian team. While it’s easy to lampoon him for seemingly dereliction of duty, one has to be fair to Gavaskar. After all he was not doing something that is unheard and unseen in dressing rooms all over the world. It’s quite possible the nap may have been brief or it may have been at an unimportant stage of the game. In fact, Gavaskar himself will bear testimony to the fact that captain Wadekar was sleeping in the dressing room when India were on threshold of a historic series win at the Oval in 1971. Victory always has a nice flavour and Alex Bannister, the respected journalist from The Daily Mail, wrote in praise of Wadekar’s slumber: "Like Montgomery before Alamein, he had laid his plans in advance and retired to confident sleep".

If the likes of Gavaskar and Kapil Dev have not come forward more often to play a more dominant role by holding key positions in Indian cricket, then the BCCI is also to be blamed. Why can’t a cash-rich body make it financially worthwhile for the likes of Gavaskar and Kapil? These men command high price for their time and it’s only fair that they do not suffer serious losses as a result of giving their cricketing expertise. If the BCCI does not find value in them, some other enterprising businessmen like will. And Subhash Chandra had done exactly that by roping in Kapil for his forays. Instead of having a re-look at their own follies, the BCCI reacted to Kapil’s involvement with the Zee’s Indian Cricket League (ICL) by saying that he would be sacked as National Cricket Academy chairman. There is no denying that there is a clear conflict of interest, but why did Kapil feel the need to offer his services – even if it’s not the done thing while still holding charge as NCA chairman? As Kiran More, another member of the ICL Board, opined: “I am not even compensated for the cost of petrol that I use while driving to my BCA (Baroda Cricket Association) office.”

Unless the BCCI sheds its archaic garb, adopts a professional outlook to be in tune with its multi-million dollar, money-spinner status and treats professionals like professionals, the very best may find greener pastures elsewhere. The lessons Kerry Packer taught with his breakaway World Series Cricket should not be forgotten.

Indian cricket takes one more step back

2007-06-14T00:50:00.000+05:30

H Natarajan

There is one prominent figure in the BCCI who is speaking the truth – truth that is unpalatable but brutally honest. That man is none other than Raj Singh Dungarpur, the former chief of the Board. Dungarpur, who is close to the higher echelons of the board, voiced the feeling of the masses by calling the Graham Ford fiasco as the most embarrassing episode in Indian cricket history. But Dungarpur has always stood out for speaking his mind and heart. That has not always endeared him to the vast majority who believe it’s a virtue in speaking half-truths and plain lies when confronted by the media.

The present dispensation of the Board began their tenure in office on a progressive note, raising hopes of heralding Indian cricket into a new era of professionalism. The early promise, however, was short lived as Indian cricket now finds itself in a tailspin.

The impression that the progressive world is getting is that Indian cricket is not for die-hard professionals. The sensational flip-flop of Ford has, as usual, left people guessing why in the absence of official explanations. Speculations for Ford’s unexpected pull-out range from his unhappiness over the tenure of the contract, dissatisfaction over emoluments offered for the job, priorities for family, using the contract offered by the Indian board to strike a better deal as director of coaching of for the Kent Cricket Club, etc. But it’s quite possible that Ford was unhappy with what he saw for himself on arrival in India. Maybe, he did not want to risk his professional reputation in such a climate.

John Emburey, the other contender who came to India, has also expressed his disinterest in the job. Emburey said: "I have just got my teeth into a big new challenge at Middlesex and want to stay to complete the job and extend my 36-year association with the club." If that was the case, why did he travel all the way to India to be interviewed by the BCCI?

India has made itself the laughing stock of the world ever since it exited from the first round of the 2007 World Cup. Early indications suggested that Greg Chappell’s hands would be strengthened, especially after he was devastatingly forthright about the senior players, the attitude of some he likened to a “mafia”. But slowly the table turned and Chappell was made the fall guy.

Even while Chappell was in the saddle, the name of Dav Whatmore kept coming up as the likely successor, once the former’s contract tenure ran out after the World Cup. And once Chappell was out of the reckoning, it seemed almost a formality that Whatmore would fill in the vacancy after India’s away against Bangladesh. But again, for reasons typically mysterious, Whatmore was no longer in the frame. The possible speculation is that he would have been a tough pro, even if less aggressive than Chappell, which was not exactly to the players’ liking.

The players wanted somebody who was not a disciplinarian like Chappell. Ford fitted the bill. And in trying to keep the players happy, the board has found itself in another imbroglio after the Whatmore botch up. The inordinate and unprofessional delay means that the Indian team will embark on its second successive tour with a stop-gap coach in the garb of “manager”.

Chandu Borde is the man. The former Indian captain appointment as the Indian cricket team manager has come as a surprise choice for the team’s tour to Ireland and England starting in a week's time. Not for a moment I doubt Borde’s unquestionable credentials. Having known and interacted with him, I respect his cricketing intelligence and his likeable nature. While he has been a cerebral cricketer and respected figure in Indian cricket, it’s a highly debatable if he is the right person for such a demanding and high-pressure job at the age of 72. Surely there are equally intelligent and respected men in Indian cricket who are much younger than Borde. And by virtue of being comparatively younger, they are likely to be fitter and in touch with today’s brand of cricket than Borde who made his international debut 48 years ago.

While modern coaching has gone from art form to science, with specialists in all forms offering highly-technical inputs, Borde came on one of the news channels on Tuesday to say that players do not require coaching and saw himself more as a motivator. Clearly, that’s a jarring note in today’s world.

In my opinion, Indian cricket has slipped considerably on many counts – and the fall has been swift and steep. Till not long, men like Virender Sehwag, Harbhajan Singh and Irfan Pathan were match winners. Today, all three are gone, despite getting extended favours from the team management and selectors. Ashish Nehra and Laxmipathi Balaji were two more who offered much hope for the future, but they disappeared into the oblivion. Munaf Patel is more out than in. Mohammad Kaif was seen as a potential captain, but he too has fallen by the wayside. The once famed batting line-up is ageing and far from convincing.

If Sachin Tendulkar has been named vice-captain, it’s a very sad commentary of the team’s next generation. The master batsman is on the threshold of retirement, his unhappy tryst with captaincy becoming history years ago, yet he has been given the job that logically should have gone to a younger person with the idea of grooming him for the future.

The Sehwags and Kaifs should have been the candidates for taking over the reins, but their exit has created a scary vacuum. If there is one act that speaks volumes of what the selectors think about the younger crop of Indian cricket, it’s Tendulkar appointment as vice-captain.

Style Icons And Their Hair-raising Ways

2007-06-07T18:09:00.001+05:30

By H Natarajan

Modern sport is more than sports; among other things, it’s also about glitz, glamour and grooming. Millions of dollars ride on megastars who cash in more from the off-field persona than on it by virtue of the huge public and media interest they generate.

Fashion and lifestyle glossies pay copious attention to these international style czars. Much as they wow the masses with their sporting talents, these stars also gain global attention for their flashy cars, their swank villas, their designer wear, their opulent lifestyle and the glamorous arm-candies they strut around with. Even the hairstyles of some of these stars evoke much interest - even maniacal fan following. And this column will focus on those glam stars that have become fashion icons for the statements they make with their flashy hairstyles.

For sheer kaleidoscopic variety, few can match the great David Beckham’s cornucopia of hair styles. The styles have ranged from ironed-out straight, to shaven-clean, to spiked, to high pony-tail, to flowing long mane, to a care-free look. He even sported a bleached Mohican hairstyle at the 2002 World Cup in Japan. In fact, the Japanese media subsequently carried reports of a trend among Japanese women in styling the hair of a very personal part of their anatomy like Beckham’s Mohican hairstyle!!! Beckham’s varying hairstyles have also come in different hues for added affect.

Not surprisingly, the interest in his hairstyles is not far behind his football, his posh life and his Posh wife, the equally glamorous Victoria “Posh Spice”.

Beckham, of course, is a colossal personality in world sports. Last year, 2,000 bottles of the “David Beckham Instinct” Cologne he endorses disappeared off the shelf on Day One of the launch.

The sport of football has seen many players with eye-catching hairstyles, but notable among them are: Nigerian Taribo West, Frenchman Djibril Cissé, Brazilian Ronaldo, Italian Roberto Baggio and Dutchman Edgar Davids. Taribo West sported three green braids on a partly-shaven head – two braids looking like sprouting horns and the third in the form of a pony tail. Ronaldo once shaved his head bald, except for a ridiculous-looking semi-circular bush of hair in the front of his head! Cissé is another player who is known for frequent hairstyle that defies description. But two men who are loved for their ponytails are Roberto Baggio, who was nicknamed “Divine Ponytail” and Edgar Davids.

When it comes to being a total maverick, NBA star Dennis Rodman takes the cake, the bakery and the baker! He brings in huge shock value, but he flaunts his outlandish non-conformism like no one else – be it his cross-dressing, his piercings, his tattoos, and last, but not the least, his psychedelic-colored hair. If you thought such a weirdo could only hope to score on the court, think again. Rodman was married to Baywatch girl and singer-actress Carmen Electra and dated Madonna.

There are some sportsmen whom you cannot relate to except in their unique avatar. There is Valderemma, the Colombian midfield football star, for example with his voluminous, curly, bush of orange hair. Then there is Monty Panesar. The English left-arm spinner’s hairdo has everything to do with his Sikh religion, but such is his popularity that one can find a long row of fans at matches sporting a beard and patka similar to the Sardar.

Of the current lot of cricketers, the two who attract most attention for their hairstyles are Kevin Pietersen and Mahendra Singh Dhoni.

Pietersen not only keeps changing the pattern of his hairstyle but also the colors – blue, white…

Dhoni’s hair is less colorful and less shocking, but few cricketers can match the attention his hairstyle generates. Dhoni’s long and rather unkempt hair of the early days even caught the attention of Pervez Musharaf. The Pakistan President advised Dhoni at a post-match ceremony: "A lot of placards in the crowd have suggested that you should get a haircut. But take my advice; you look good in this hairstyle!"

Dhoni influenced youngsters across the length and breadth of India to sport hairstyle similar to his. But the unruly look of old has come in for grooming from famed stylists. The length of the hair has come in for a trim and the mane has brownish streaks that are in keeping with the modern trend. And, no, the Samson has not lost any of his awesome powers since the hair cut!

But the cricketer who, arguably, made himself more famous for his colorful hairstyles than his cricket is Colin Miller. The Aussie’s dyed head ranged from shocking blue to bright-red orange, to grass-green. And, no, he did not limit himself to these colors. Even Shane Warne, who himself was no mug when it came to frequent changing the style of his hair, was no match for "Funky" Miller’s fluorescent colors.

Then there was Zimbabwe’s Andy Blignaut who once sported a rainbow of colors which reflected the colors in his country’s national flag.

Of the present Australians, it’s Andrew Symonds who stands out with his dread-lock hairstyle – much like Yannick Noah did in his playing days on the ATP Tour.

If there is one Indian cricketer who not only sported unconventional hairstyle but carried it off in style, it is Vinod Kambli. There was always the Caribbean flair in Kambli, whose nickname is “Dessy” – after Desmond Haynes. Not only did the flamboyant Kambli sport gold chains like the West Indians, but he looked a part of their culture. His ebony-hued complexion came in handy when he sported the corn-rows hairstyle like no other celebrated Indian.

One cricketer whose unruly mops of copious curls added to his magnetism as a cracking all-rounder was the tall and well-built Kiwi, Chris Carins. I remember a girl telling me once: “I found myself in the elevator with this hunk and, boy, I went weak in my knees.”

An equally good-looking guy whose curly mop that appealed to scores of young females was the shy and boyish-looking Irfan Pathan. But sadly, the mops have gone to a bald pate. And, yes, this Samson has lost his powers of old when he had those generous curls that made girls swoon.

It’s these colorful characters who make sports colorful in more ways than one.