Kolkata Test Day 3 – "Battles" on and off the pitch

In my review of the first two days of the Kolkata Test, i speculated that Anil Kumble’s handling of Harbhajan Singh would be crucial, and that the Pakistan batsmen would take an aggressive approach against Harbhajan Singh especially. As it turned out, Kumble began with Harbhajan, who responded brilliantly with an exhibition of teasing flight and length. Bedi’s dictum about the perfect spinner’s length being the shortest possible length which would still have the batsman playing forward was on show. Both Salman Butt and Mohammad Yousuf were beaten by the flight and the trajectory. This was a Test Match bowler with 240+ Test wickets to his name giving us a demonstration of his skill.

That the Pakistan batting strategy dictated assertive batsmanship against Harbhajan Singh and Anil Kumble was immediatly evident. Harbhajan Singh landed one on middle stump, full enough for Younis Khan to whip away to the squarish mid-wicket fence. Kumble’s response was swift – the cover point moved over to mid-wicket. The game was now set. Harbhajan would attack the stumps with his stock delivery and occasional drag the batsman out to induce a cover drive. Or so Kumble thought. The next ball, Younis Khan aimed a reverse sweep to the vacant cover point region and missed. Before the over was done, Younis tried it again and got a boundary for his trouble. It seemed to put Harbhajan off. At the other end Misbah Ul-Haq brought out the sweep and the battle was well and truly joined.

Slowly but surely Pakistan’s batsmen repaired the early damage. Kumble was unable to build on the early advantage that Harbhajan’s first spell brought. Munaf Patel and Zaheer Khan got nothing out of the wicket or in the air. The ball stubbornly refused to deviate off the straight, and the forced change of ball didn’t help vis a vis reverse swing either. For their part, Akmal and Misbah were superb, reminscent of Akmal and Razzaq at Mohali in 2005. Whether their effort brings a similar result for Pakistan remains to be seen.

Meanwhile, off the pitch, there was much speculation. Dilip Vengsarkar left for Mumbai to attend to a bereavement in his family. This led to speculation that he had left the test match mid-way to protest the BCCI’s refusal to compensate him for lost income after they ordered him to stop writing his weekly newspaper column. Cricinfo clarified later that Vengsarkar had in fact threatened no such thing. The gist of that story is that there is a disagreement between the Chairman of the Selection Committee and his employers at BCCI about compensation. To this end, as the Cricinfo story reveals there is ongoing negotiation.

The press of course has its own dog in this fight. The BCCI diktat which has caused a spirited exchange of views anonymously in the press and behind closed doors between the selectors and BCCI, is also concerned with the selectors dealing with the press. The lack of a press conference is something that hurts the reportage. Hence, we get reports like the one on Express India, which stoops to the asinine depth of doubting a bereavement in the Chairman of selectors family (if this had to be brought up, it ought to have been easy enough to verify for any reporter worth his salt) and speculating about Vengsarkar threatening to resign. The press has been systematically constructing this “battle” off the pitch. In doing so they abuse their position of being above the fray. In this instance they are not in fact above the fray, as the outcome directly affects them. They would ideally like Vengsarkar to give press conferences again. But in their reportage of this story lies the the gist of the BCCI’s case against them, and the reason for its ban.

Sixty thousand or so have watched each day of the Kolkata Test at the Eden Gardens, many millions have watched it on TV, and possibly many more millions have followed the progress of the Test match on the news. As long as this interest persists, the nature of the coverage by the press will have limited importance. These skirmishes however will continue to reveal the standards which the press sets for itself.

The outcome of the Kolkata Test will be known by the end of play tomorrow, much like it was with the Delhi Test match. The Selector v BCCI (v Press) battle will be resolved soon as well. The team for the third test and the Australia series is to be announced before the end of the Kolkata Test match. This announcement will hopefully be accompanied with a clarification from BCCI and the selectors about the whole selectors v BCCI issue. Gary Kirsten’s appointment is also likely to be announced.

This press story linking a family bereavement to all alleged (by the press) threat by DBV to resign will be forgotten.

Dissecting an editorial comment…..

Cricinfo’s associate editor Anand Vasu has written a commentary on the selection of the Indian Cricket team for the upcoming tour of England (See Too Many holes). The article is worth a second look.

The article begins with the usual lament about the opening batting and fast bowling – “And so, India will set out to play three Tests against England with an opening combination untested in those conditions and a fast bowling attack desperately short on experience” – Lets consider the evidence on this one. Kapil apart, the 1990 touring squad had little fast bowling “experience” (the same can be said of the 1986 side, and that one beat England 2-0), the 1996 squad had Srinath and Prasad, both greenhorns at that point, the 2002 squad had Nehra and Zaheer – again, greenhorns with zero 5 wicket hauls to their name. The story in 2007 is actually much better – Sreesanth is the most promising fast bowler in living memory who bowled superbly in South Africa, including a match-winning haul, and Zaheer is returning to England after taking the highest number of wickets in the 2006 county season after the veteran Pakistan spinner Mushtaq Ahmed. Anil Kumble is on his 4th tour of England, and Ramesh Powar has played league cricket and so isn’t likely to wrap himself in a sweater and sulk about the cold. When have India gone to England with the 2 W’s leading their pace attack? And when have they ever had an opening combination “tested” in those conditions? Is he referring to Sehwag? Later in the article he offers Akash Chopra as an option, allegedly because Chopra is “reliable and technically tight, who has had a decent season in domestic cricket and is currently playing club cricket in England” – the same Akash Chopra who couldn’t get past 40 without getting a life and who averages 23 in Test cricket. Now, i have nothing against Chopra, but if a reliable technique brings those results, then i want to know how a reliable technique is defined.

It is difficult to fathom the point of that first salvo from Vasu – ordinarily you would think he was merely stating a well accepted fact – but he follows this up with “On top of that, there’s no place for either Virender Sehwag or Harbhajan Singh”. Vasu then goes on to whisper that “Inevitably, there will be whispers over how Rahul Dravid, who has openly backed the two in recent selections, has lost out to Dilip Vengsarkar, the chairman of selectors, who has been gunning for them”!! (This is a bit like the “We won’t cover Paris Hilton” stories in the American media). This is followed by some apologetic sanity – “They’ll now have to make it back to the team on performance in domestic cricket, not merely on reputation, or someone’s backing” – not the most straightforward line you will ever hear, but its a relief in this particular note.

This is followed by three paragraphs about Sehwag and Harbhajan Singh – which refer to ODI cricket oddly enough (even though the England squad is a Test squad). Vasu fails to mention Sehwag’s increasing troubles against the short ball, the manner of his dismissals in Test cricket, and his struggle especially against England in India last year. Vasu doesn’t mention Harbhajan’s dismal Test match form starting with the tour to Pakistan in 2006 – his last 7 Tests have fetched 19 wickets at 52.86 and 5 of those have been in the subcontinent and 2 others have been in the West Indies – at Basettere and Kingston. Those 19 wickets include a spell of 5/19 on a minefield at Kingston. May be this information contains a clue about Harbhajan’s omission from the Test team to England. But Vasu instead concentrates on ODI’s. The next paragraph is about Irfan Pathan and Munaf Patel – about their lack of form and fitness respectively.

Next, Vasu points his pen at the opening batsmen. On Wasim Jaffer, Vasu suggests – “Wasim Jaffer’s supporters will point to an average of 35.66, but his scoring pattern, since making a comeback to the team in 2005-06, reads 81, 100, 31, 17, 11, 10, 1, 212, 43, 60, 54, 1, 1, 9, 4, 26, 28, 116, 2, 0, 0, 138*.” This is convenient and also wrong, because the string of scores which Vasu provides, when calculated yields a batting average of 45 in 22 innings, with a 50+ score once every 3 innings (7 innings out of 22). The 35.56 is Jaffer’s overall batting average and also includes 13 Test innings played by him between 2000 and 2002. Compare this return with that of the great Sunil Gavaskar – he made 79 50+ scores in 214 innings. If Jaffer delivers with the same regularity over 220 innings (i doubt he’ll play that many) then he will have 70 50+ scores. Even if he has 55 – 60, he would still be a long way ahead of the next best Indian specialist opener after Gavaskar and Merchant (Navjot Sidhu has 24 50+ scores in his 78 Test innings, 14 of those came in 33 innings in India). What is Vasu going on about? Then comes his bizarre comment about Akash Chopra and Gautam Gambhir – there is no mention of Gambhir’s left handedness – such trivial details are of course of no use.

In discussing the opening situation, Vasu delivers his coup de grace (i hope i spelt that right) – “He might just have been a better bet, but then again Indian team selections have not always been made on pure cricketing logic.” Even by the hackneyed standards of the rest of Vasu’s commentary, this is a ridiculous comment – it suggests that anyone other than Akash Chopra being selected would not reflect sound cricketing logic!

On the selection of Ranadeb Bose, “It’s no secret that Bose has been rewarded for taking 57 wickets in the last Ranji season, but what is less well known is that this reward should have come long ago. When the selectors met to pick the 36 probables for the World Cup, in Rajkot, Bose’s name was in the list, before last-minute intervention from a senior official, and the choice of venue for the selection meeting, got Cheteshwara Pujara, who too had a good domestic season, a back-door entry as Bose’s name was struck off.” – Now, please consider the following facts:

Cheteshwar Pujara made 595 runs at 59.5 in the same season in which Ranadeb Bose’s performance has allegedly been “rewarded”. In addition, Pujara was the top run getter in the Under 19 world cup, and is a fine 19 year old talent. Secondly, there were 30 probables picked and not 36. And thirdly, as Vasu points out elsewhere in this same article – “Bose’s selection appears to be one of horses for courses – if he succeeds anywhere he’s likely to succeed in England – his style of bowling, steady and straight, a bit of movement but not much pace, might just prove to be cannon fodder for English batsmen brought up on a diet of just this, leave alone the likes of Kevin Pietersen” – Now – think for a moment – Vasu suggests, and reasonably at that that Bose’s style of bowling is suitable for England, but is likely to be unexceptional from the point of view of the English batsmen. Lets extend that – wouldn’t Bose be pure canon fodder on the flat, hard West Indies wickets, where the bowl wasn’t expected to seam and swing ? Yet, a young batsman who has performed well in the Ranji Trophy is condemned by the associate editor of Cricinfo to have been provided with a “back door entry” to the World Cup Probables list, because Vasu chooses to ignore a perfectly reasonable cricket based argument, which he himself makes elsewhere! Im sure with good reason….. If Vasu does have firm information that the “high official” (not hard to guess who) did in fact intervene then i don’t see why he can’t say so straight. Indeed, it is quite likely that the high official did not “intervene”, but his actions were reported to the gullible Vasu as “intervention” (If speculation is what we are indulging in here, then the more the merrier!)

Bear with me for a little bit more, we’re coming to the end. Vasu contends that it is hard to see India playing a Test match without a third seamer, and that Ajit Agarkar might have been considered. He ignores RP Singh’s selection (RP v Agarkar, relatively untested young bowler vs proven failure in Test cricket – make your choice – keep in mind the impressive pace Singh worked up in the ridiculously oppressive conditions in Bangladesh recently).

Vasu ends his article with a typical canard – “but this is due as much to the fact that the cupboard in domestic cricket is a bit bare at the moment, as to the fact that captain and selector aren’t always seeing things eye to eye.” – He is talking about two individuals with over 100 Tests experience each. Im almost certain that there has never been a captain who didn’t disagree with a selector ever in the history of the game. Consider his final comment about the possibility of India having “carried a couple of passengers” at the end of the tour – this is quite unexceptional, indeed India went through the 2003 World Cup with 12 players and 2 passengers in the end.

If you really think about it, India begin a period of 10-12 months where many players will have the best opportunities of their life to cement their reputations – Jaffer, Sreesanth, Karthik, RP, Dhoni and even Zaheer have the opportunity to make their name with consecutive Test series against England, Pakistan and finally Australia. Some firm messages have been sent by the selectors and a good team has been selected under the circumstances. The decision to retain Robin Singh and Venkatesh Prasad is a sound one, and points to a desire to not disrupt the team management too much in the absence of a full time coach. Chandu Borde has been asked to do the same job that Ravi Shastri did, and there are several good things that can come out of this whole thing.

With commentaries like Vasu’s, who needs critics though….

PS: I don’t expect Mr. Vasu to ever read this, but if he does – my apologies to him. It is his writing that i have found it necessary to comment on.I have not referred to him getting back door entries anywhere, neither have i offered any opinions about him being “rewarded” for anything. I just wonder – when he has a disagreement with a colleague, and finds that the other colleague’s opinion prevails, does he “lose out” or does he ever concede the point? He seems to find it impossible that the Indian captain might have in good faith changed his mind about Sehwag and Harbhajan Singh – and conceded the point to the selectors that they did not merit a place in the Test squad to England. In Vasu’s book, the captain has to “lose out”.

He’s not the only one losing out here….

Chappell Quits…. the "revolution" has begun…

Greg Chappell declared his intention to not seek a new contract as the coach of the Indian Cricket team. This might immediately be read as a direct result of Tendulkar’s exasperating statement yesterday pleading that his attitude not be questioned after 17 long years of toil for India. However, this statement may just have been the last straw in a sorry 3 weeks, which began on the 17th of March with India’s defeat to Bangladesh. The tragic circumstances of Woolmer’s passing, as well as the idiotic reaction in India may have contributed as well. Cricinfo has been quick to profile possible successors almost as though they expected Chappell to quit and had these profiles prepared just in case. Sambit Bal has written about a revolution being necessary in Indian Cricket. Without intending to be flippant about it, this is the common refrain. After every defeat of any consequence, it is possible to predict a pattern of events – first anger, then abuse, then feeble commentary about “stray reactions” which may have gotten out of hand, plenty of abusive press, fractures within the team coming to the fore, heads rolling – until things come a full circle when India take the field in their next game.

At the core of India’s trouble is the inability and refusal to accept that Cricket is indeed a Sport. It is not an exact science, it is not completely predictable and it is not an instrument of national pride or escapist fantasy (i don’t know what can be scarier than the fact that Cricket is the platform where these two ideas can be used interchangeably in India today). Chappell talking about process is one thing – him being second guessed every step of the way betrays a complete disregard for the notion of the process.

The process is one which promises a diligent work ethic and the single minded pursuit of certain stated goals – in this case – Player development and establishment of the next generation India team. Indias cricket did not buy into Chappell’s process and indeed it is possible to speculate that he was unable to persuade India to buy into it. But was it his job to persuade the broader public to buy into the process? What does Dilip Vengsarkar’s fear of public backlash in playing a young team in the 2007 World Cup say about the obstacles that were apparent to the execution of the process? That this World Cup squad was the best available squad for India on paper is unquestionable – that it represented player development being put on the back burner is equally true.

Where do we stand now? What lessons do we learn here? Is the accepted wisdom going to be that Chappell paid the price for his failure to get results in the World Cup? If this is so, then it would be extremely unfair to Chappell, because the results he achieved on the whole were superior to those achieved by Wright. The gains of the 2003 World Cup were squandered by John Wright and Sourav Ganguly in the two years after the World Cup from 2003-2005, mainly in the 2004-05 season. It took Chappell to turn that around and instigate the removal of Ganguly. What followed was India’s most successful ODI season ever (i cannot help but harp on this because today it is a glimpse of what India have squandered by giving in at the first setback to the youth policy). The team of the future will not be built around Tendulkar and Ganguly and Kumble. The team of the future cannot ignore them either.

The pressure, especially when it comes to events like the World Cup, is so much, that the selectors by their own admission found themselves factoring in possible “backlash” (Chappell’s SMS to Rajan Bala…… more on that in a moment). I don’t blame the BCCI for their short term decision. I do however hope that they will learn their lessons and ensure better communication, less off the cuff communication and put their foot down. The BCCI President should be shouting from the rooftops complaining that HIS players families have to live under armed guard while the players go to the World Cup. He should be complaining to any one who will listen that TV Channels have tended to misrepresent stories and manufacture them where they don’t exist. The BCCI has been weak in its endeavor to be nice to everybody. Rajan Bala should be on the BCCI reporters blacklist for having the cheek and lowliness (i can’t think of another word here) to stand in front of TV cameras and read out an SMS sent to him by Chappell, a month after it was sent. The TV Reporters did not have the presence of mind, or probably did not care enough to ask what the context of that SMS was – whether it was for an on the record report, or an off the record communication from the coach to a senior columnist in good faith.

If you think this is out of line and that this in unrealistic, read this comment by Jacques Kallis – “I’ve never minded criticism but I think there’s a line you don’t cross and certain people crossed that line. That’s fine, I’ll remember who those guys are in future.” I have never come across any Indian player, except possibly Dravid making a firm decisive statement like that about any one in the press – and they have faced more idiotic nonsense than Kallis does. They are instead reduced to wondering whether they will face physical threats upon returning home to India.

So it has come to pass – Chappell has quit, the press has had a field week, the BCCI has been busy keeping everyone happy, the players have been shattered – all because India lost 2 Cricket matches. Is it Cricket which needs a “revolution” – or is it fans and the press who need one? The first draft of Cricket history in India is being written with an eye on the ratings – that is a disservice to both country and cricket.

Hopefully Chappell will be less trustful of Indian reporters. That is more likely than Indias reporters developing an interest in Cricket. And i make no apology for making a generalized reference to “reporters” or the “press” because the press itself is unwilling to criticize its own. Until that happens – until newspapers actively call the TV Channels bluff – there is no other way to refer to them. Just as the team is taken apart – players pitted against players, players pitted against management, so that they can be individually exposed, so it needs to happens with the Cricket press.

I realize the value of the press’s unwritten pact that it will never criticize its own, and in matters political this is valuable because it makes the press powerful and largely independent. In the context of Cricket, this is of no importance. Cricket does not need a powerful press – Cricket needs a press interested in Cricket – on the field. I don’t care what Cricketers do off the field. It is Cricket i follow, and Cricketers do not interest me beyond their cricket. I must claim here that this how it must be. I do not see how it can be otherwise. The whole industry is based on the Cricket that the cricketers play. This may seem obvious to the reader, but it is seemingly forgotten in the hurly-burly of the 24×7 news cycle, which tends to become an end in itself.

Until this view gains prominence, there will continue to be victims – like Greg Chappell. The other perpetual victims are cricket fans – like you and me. I can not make a more telling inference than to say that Cricket seems incidental for various reasons to everybody except the 15 players who make up the India squad and many many others who play first class cricket. Vengsarkar worried about backlash, Chappell’s decisions in the end came to be defined by his desire to explain things to the press, the BCCI president has to keep everyone happy, the press needs to look after ratings, Rajan Bala wants his 2 minutes of fame and will stoop to any level to do so… where is Cricket in all this?

Why are we not talking about the emerging evidence that the Sri Lankans are on a red hot streak and possess a bowling attack that is special in its ability to control an ODI game….. India, West Indies, South Africa and now England have felt the Sri Lankan sting. Yet, losing to Sri Lanka was purely a function of India playing poorly, and had little to do with Sri Lanka.

People will look back at this 50 years from now, and hopefully find it absurd.

Chappell, Tendulkar and the Press – which of these is the "Mafia"?

Sachin Tendulkar has commented on reports that Greg Chappell was unhappy with the attitude of the senior players. It is possible to count on the fingers of one hand – with fingers to spare, the number of times that Tendulkar has made a public comment about the Indian Cricket Team.

The whole situation is bizarre – The press reports that Chappell said what he said, then reports that Tendulkar is upset about what Chappell said. Cricinfo’s headline in the matter is disappointing. While this may once again amount to hair-splitting, it is in these details that quality and standards are revealed.

All the quotes attributed to Tendulkar reveal his frustration. The Chappell comment is actually a quote from a source close to Chappell, not a comment from Chappell himself. Tendulkar’s only reference to Chappell had a huge “if” in it. Textbook spin all in all.

The Press Mafia driven by the desperate need to feed the 24×7 news cycle feels free to quote anonymous sources in Cricket or in Bollywood, or in some similarly inconsequential walk of Indian life. I have never heard them quote a source close to any top politician or bureaucrat revealing anything damaging to either. Im sure politicians and their aides are as loquacious as Chappell and his aides. The press will never turn on its own – unwritten Mafia like quality. If Aaj Tak runs a full day of ridiculous headlines comprising of outright lies and near lies, embellished with the choicest speculation, that for some reason is never a “news story” – even though it probably affects the millions of people who watch Aaj Tak adversely feeding them untruths.

It is exasperating to see this – the sheer cheek of pitting Tendulkar v Chappell just to prove their thesis that the senior players were pitted against Chappell. How can reporters, whos duty it is to report events, get swept away by events as they have in the aftermath of India’s World Cup exit?

Amidst all this, Anand Vasu describe what seems to be a clash of cultures between the Coach and the Players. The World Cup Exit seems to have destroyed the Indian Cricket Team. It seems increasingly, that either Chappell or Dravid will quit their jobs. Even if Chappell is retained, i do not see Tendulkar accepting Captaincy with Chappell at the helm. Chappell by all accounts is a brilliant batting coach – something even Ganguly has acknowledged. What the defeat at the World Cup and subsequent abuse seems to have done is to wash away the glue that holds a group of high achievers together – self-esteem. Clearly, an level of disappointment unprecedented for any player in this squad has been exacerbated by the abusive, contemptuous atmosphere in India. Cricket’s house of cards has come tumbling down in India.

Cricketing View

From "Hang them!" to "Hang on to them!"

India lost the Sri Lanka on March 23rd. If you read the newspapers on 24, 25, 26, and haven’t read anything since, you might have been forgiven for believing that India’s squad of 15 players to the 2007 World Cup in the West Indies were history. Everybody from the President of the Board to former cricketers, to the shrill television networks to the general public seemed to have decided that Rahul Dravid and Greg Chappell would have to go. Dravid was unable to inspire, unimaginative and incapable of tactical leaps of faith – in comparison, stated, implied or unstated, to Sourav Ganguly. Greg Chappell was a “poor man manager”, who’s sole contribution in this 18 months as the India coach, in return for the princely sum of 175,000 dollars a year, had been to sow the seeds of dissent and get rid of Ganguly. Dilip Vengsarkar and Greg Chappell disagreed about the selection of the squad to the World Cup it now appears. Something one would expect at the best of times – but not in those mad days. Every statement, every report was strained. Every reporter, and every news presenter personalized the defeat – Indias loss was his loss – a matter of dishonor and shame. Even my blog, with its modest readership recieved a response making some bizarre references to the British Empire, bangles and dishonor and docility.

Another weekend has passed and like the Woolmer murder fading into the obscure small print of the inner pages of the newspaper, the outrage seems to have subsided. Some of the India players are preparing for the first ever 20-20 tournament to be held in post-Dalmiya Eden Gardens. Ajit Wadekar, Sharad Pawar and Niranjan Shah have all made conciliatory noises – Shah went so far as to call Dravid “one of the most astute captains!”

The point here is to gauge the reaction to the performance and not the performance. What Niranjan Shah or Ajit Wadekar or Sharad Pawar say about the Indian side does not in any ways influence or reflect the reality of the Indian team. These players are still as good as they were just before they went to the West Indies. What of the “fans” though? The hollowness of the interest in the sport has been exposed. Nobody in India seems to care about the World Cup – Mandira Bedi has been reduced to being just one of the many faces of TV from being the noodle-strapped diva in India. Indian Express has reduced the number of pages dedicated to the World Cup, and even those pages carry stories about events in Pakistan and India rather than on events in the West Indies. The actual interest in Cricket is minimal. Sponsors have withdrawn from deals with India players. Like sea water receding at low tide, exposing to the world the rejects of the sea at Juhu beach, India has receded from the World Cup, with Cricketers and Cricket lying abused and battered – rejected. Like the tide though, it is only a question of waiting for the next high tide for India’s cricketers. Already though, the madness has given way to a realization that solution to the problems lie in Cricket.

It is here that i disagree. It is my contention that the below par performance had to do with perception amongst the Indian players – a perception driven by the “fans” and proved correct by these same “fans” after the adverse results, that this was more than a sporting contest. Before quotes from Shankly and Lombardi get thrown at me, let me point out that it is one thing for Shankly and Lombardi so say that “Sport is not a matter of life and death, it is far more important than that”, it is quite another for a figurative billion to embody it in absentia. Never before have a more unsporting group demanded such sporting excellence. May be it wasn’t sporting excellence they wanted – may be all they wanted to see was victory and the satiation of some chauvinistic honor.

I still remember – on 15th February 2003, Sehwag and Ganguly got out chasing wide ones against Australia and India collapsed to 126 all out. They were panned for playing poor shots – and conventional wisdom suggested that they these were indeed “bad shots” – never mind that thats how Ganguly and Sehwag tend to play. The very next day, Herschelle Gibbs made 143 against New Zealand and got or missed the inside or outside edge to similar wafts no less than 8 times in the first 15 overs of the South African innings there. Sometimes, the difference between and failure can be the width of the edge of a cricket bat. When India were bowled out for 42 in the second innings at Lord’s against Chris Old and Geoff Arnold in 1974, Sunil Gavaskar explained it very simply – the top 5 batsmen got 5 very good balls and the tail wasn’t very good with the bat in any case.

An appreciation of sport requires an appreciation that such uncertainties are likely. An appreciation of these uncertainties is what drives individuals genuinely interested in Cricket to watch South Africa v England with as much interest as they would watch India v New Zealand. It is what stops viewers from being abusive towards sportsmen. Sadly though, ex-cricketers, with a few stray exceptions, have shown themselves to be from the same hackneyed mould. So have Cricket administrators.

With the result that the the Indian public, ex-cricketers and the Cricket administrators (with the few stray exceptions) have made a fool of themselves in the last 8-9 days of March. The lack of interest in Cricket has been exposed. Surplus chauvinism has been to the fore. TV Channels have been quick on the take – the more outrageous the demonstration, the more prominent the coverage. The more pointed a quote, the more obscure the source.

Sport is supposed to be one of the few Win-Win propositions in the world. Yet, we in India have contrived to turn it into a Lose-Lose one. We have shown that we are quick to condemn – there by showing that we are unworthy of our cricketers. If we do hang on to them, it will be our good fortune. The BCCI has done very well to give the players some breathing space before calling them on April 6th.

Whatever the Cricket board decides, we will have reason only to be sorry – whichever way the decision goes with regard to the Coach and the Captain.

Cricketing View