Is Kallis selfish? S. Rajesh from an old piece at Cricinfo:

For people who have watched him over the years, though, his approach has often been baffling: despite having almost every stroke at his command - to go with a watertight defensive technique - Kallis seldom dominates bowling attacks the way he should. The innings at Sydney was only the latest example of how he seems to bat in a bubble, oblivious to the team cause - less than a couple of months earlier, Kallis plodded his way to 91 off 146 balls in an ODI against India at Mumbai, as South Africa only managed 221 and ended up losing the match.

I was thinking over regarding Kallis. I think he might well be incapable of slogging successfully more than any thing. None of his shots early on in the inning he played today versus the West Indies, even when he was hitting sixes, were slogs. They were good cricket shots.

It might well be that he is incapable of playing outside his comfort zones or cannot make runs effectively when he tries to. How many times have you seen Kallis slogging successfully over a period of time?

A problem is, he doesn’t even try to hurry things even when the situation demands at times like in a period in the game versus Australia till it was too late (even if playing slowly in the earlier portion of the inning might have been to ensure that wickets are kept in hand before the final flurry).

So in the end, he ends up harming his team a lot of the times while at the crease if the situation demands quick runs. As a result, he is often termed as selfish which may not necessarily be true.

I was about to write a lengthy post but Gaurav Sabnis has already said a lot of what I would have. Do read. As I had said immediately after India’s exit from the world cup, the situation provides a golden opportunity for the BCCI and hopefully, things will improve from now on in Indian cricket.

I have maintained for quite a while that I feel that Tendulkar has a lot of good cricket left in him and maintain the same. This post is more about going into the captaincy aspect though.

I think Tendulkar would be a very good captain if and when he does get the opportunity. He has one of the best cricket brains I have seen, players regard him highly. In his earlier tenure, he over taxed players, expected too much out of them and did not get the support of the board at times like when the board sent for Noel David. He got the support of the board too on occasions but I believe the captain should get more support.

Given his past experience (bad experience can also be a great stepping stone) and his brain, plus Mumbai guys at the helm in the BCCI, Tendulkar coming back to captain would be a good choice and is also not some thing which can be ruled out.

The possibility of Tendulkar becoming captain was real after Tendulkar accepted the vice-captaincy in the recent past in sharp contrast to a few years back when he didn’t want to captain even in tour games where the tour captains were resting. Many I spoke with back then said that it was impossible. It isn’t any more which further reiterates never say never where Indian cricket is concerned..

West Indies, the home team, are playing New Zealand at Antigua but strangely, there is negligible crowd in the stadum. It just isn’t right for a stage as big as the world cup. Modern sport’s money comes in through advertisements, sponsors and the television audience and the stadium audience forms a tiny fraction of the money generated. So organizers can feel that lower the number of crowds, lower the hassle.

This time, weird restrictions have been imposed about which Mark Nicholas and Tony Cozier were discussing during commetary. For instance, people cannot leave and comeback to the stadium if they feel. In a cricket match which spans 7 hours, this is impractical. Also, horns, honks and other musical instruments which bring in the flavor of a West Indies crowd have been disallowed.

Add to that, the ticket prices are pretty high and you know why more people are not coming into the stadiums. Atmosphere is vital in a sporting event. It is the third team out there which many people remember once the event is over and done with. A better way would be to lower prices and bring in more crowds. The younger generation should be tapped by allowing school children in for free for particular matches.

Regardless of how important or unimportant money from the stands is, where this aspect is concerned, the most vital point to take in stock should be how to fill the stands as much as possible.

Earlier:

Now:

What is it signifying??

Cannot see India losing.

Cannot hear the audience outburst against the team

Cannot speak in front of media about the causes of defeat.

Via email from Hemant.

Despite the Smith injury after which South Africa lost momentum and the brilliant spell from Tait, South Africa shouldn’t have succumbed the way they did. While Australia had Clarke and Ponting after Hayden was out, South Africa had Kallis - competent batsman but couldn’t hold onto his wicket and play aggressively at the same time.

That was the real difference between two otherwise very evenly matched sides - South Africa had Smith, Australia had Hayden; South Africa had Andrew Hall pegging the run rate in the end, Australia had Tait bowling a superb spell.

The match also shows that Australia will kill you if you give them even the smallest of leeways and why Australia is the best team in the world despite what the ICC rankings will try to tell you.

[Match scorecard]

India’s world cup debacle is a golden opportunity to correct things in Indian cricket. For too long, Indian cricket has been structurally weak despite having so much money. In a piece in Wisden in 1959 for instance, Vijay Merchant said:

Unstoppable as they (India) are on pitches that suit their style, most of the Indian batsmen remain seriously suspect when the ball starts moving off the seam.

The whole piece is a must read. In it, Merchant talks about the problems ailing Indian cricket it is scary how not much has improved in almost 50 years. Tap talent, build better cricket training schools and only then, maybe after 10-15 years, will we really be able to say that cricket is in a healthy state in India.

Allan Donald says that the world cup should be called off.

The ICC differs in viewpoint. At this moment, as suspects of Bob Woolmer’s murder aren’t known, the show going on is okay. However, if some one is arrested who is deeply associated with cricket or associated with betting/match fixing or some thing, it will be very difficult for the world cup to carry on.

Update 2: Woolmer was strangled. The world cup and cricket comes under a shadow.

Update: Cricinfo is reporting breaking news on Woolmer.

Pervez Mir, the Pakistan Cricket Board spokesman, told AFP: “The police suspect that Woolmer may have been murdered. They have started an investigation.”

A lot of people said to me after hearing the news of Woolmer’s death that cricket is just a game. However, with so much money involved in the game, cricket is far more than that today as is most professional sport. Modern sports generates so much money and provides employment to so many people, not just the sportsmen playing the game. It will be a sad day for cricket if Woolmer was indeed murdered regardless of who did it.

*****

Bob Woolmer’s death has come as a huge shock. As a keen follower of South African cricket in the 90s, I had the opportunity to see how brilliant Woolmer’s cricketing mind was. Cricket is a game which has plenty of room for strategy and innovations if some one is creative. Cricket suited Woolmer perfectly in this regard. He brought innovations and thought about the game with a modern perspective for which he was widely regarded as the best coach in the world.

As a coach he had success with Warwickshire county club and then reached great heights with South Africa. Australia has been the best cricket team in the world for what now seems an eternity. However, for a period in the 90s - 1996-99, South Africa had the best one day side in the world. No small credit for that goes to Bob Woolmer. Woolmer always had that new point of view no one could have thought about and it was evident every where - whether it was team strategies, field placements or team compositions.

All rounders and lower order batsmen started getting a new meaning in international cricket. South African lower order batting would have guys like Shaun Pollock, Lance Klusener, Nicky Boje. Even Pat Symcox made runs and was contributing to the team apart from his bowling. I remember a match versus Australia where Woolmer opened with Lance Klusener and brought Pat Symcox in at number 3. Klusener made 92 and Symcox made 26. South Africa ended up with 301 and won comfortably in the end. That’s just one match which shows how brilliant Woolmer was.

Many people suggested that Woolmer shouldn’t coach Pakistan but he followed his beliefs. Not that long ago, the team was progressing exceedingly well. Woolmer was creating depth in the batting and bringing in more options for the team in bowling. Woolmer always had a vision with a team and specific players were backed if it was believed that they could do a job which would add to the over all team strength of the team. So Shahid Afridi was brought back when no one gave him much of a chance. There were many other interesting things done in Pakistan cricket in that phase where they were looking good - things like Shoaib Akhtar being disciplined and then brought back which could extract the best output out of him. In his short time with Pakistan, Woolmer managed to create an attachment in the hearts of the common Pakistan cricket fan just like he had done in South Africa.

In 1999, Woolmer couldn’t win the world cup with South Africa. Pakistan in 2007 was to be Woolmer’s redemption. Sadly, Pakistan cricket went from one low to another in the past months culminating with the exit of Akhtar and Asif from the world cup. Without the bowling spearheads, there was little chance of Pakistan winning the world cup.

First as a player, then as a coach, Woolmer served cricket and added a lot to the game. RIP.

The two upsets will give hope to the minnows in cricket for many years to come. Hope can lead to formation of goals and goals, when aided with proper plan of action, can lead to great things. So 17th April, 2007, has the potential of having many positive effects.

There is another aspect I am wondering about. Pakistan is out of the world cup in the first round and India has a very real chance of following suit. So will this trigger off lowering of following of cricket? Has the lowering of following already started but we just do not notice it yet?

Earlier, people used to follow every ball when India played. Now, many are happy with just following the score. I remember how the Eden Gardens used to be full and you had to pay double the price written on the ticket to watch the game if you didn’t buy your ticket early. However, the last few years have seen lower number of crowds and empty seats - some thing unimaginable earlier.

People will not go on following a sport forever and are not immune to factors like results. Many years ago, hockey enjoyed huge popularity. However, losses and disappointing performances over the years has meant that hockey is a shadow of it’s former self in India. Wins are very crucial for increasing and/or sustaining the popularity of a particular sport in a nation in the long run.

Given the following cricket enjoys, India and Pakistan should produce far more successful cricketers and cricket teams. However, the lack of infrastructure over the years has meant that talent cannot be tapped or honed properly. 17th March should be a warning sign for the authorities in India and Pakistan to get their act together and chart out a proper plan for cricket for the people wont always keep following, the sponsors won’t always keep coming and the money won’t always keep flowing.

The bubble can indeed burst.