Disappointed on two fronts with the Indian team selection. Firstly, our two reserve fast bowlers, Ishant Sharma and Pankaj Singh, seriously lack in experience. If one of the 3 fast bowlers get injured, we might have to play one of Sharma and Singh in a test in Australia.

Munaf Patel would have been a better option IMO. He may be like Akhtar in that he finds it difficult to play all tests in a series but if we used him properly, he could have been a good reserve option at least. Inzamam talked in an interview how he used to save Akhtar for crucial matches and not play him every time. Perhaps we need to do some thing similar with Munaf. Pankaj Singh is a tall fast bowler who has taken 5 wickets v Mumbai recently but really, do we want to blood or try some one like him on a tough tour like Australia.

If I was Chopra, I would be pissed. This guy has been making runs after runs after runs and yet, he can’t get into the Indian test team. Sehwag hasn’t done any thing of note recently to deserve a place in the test side right now. He doesn’t fill me with confidence. Given that he is Sehwag and he might deliver some of his old magic, it is okay if the selectors feel that they should select him. However, they should have then gone for a reserve opener in the form of Chopra (or Uthappa).

They should have been brave enough and dropped one of Karthik and Dhoni from the team or taken a fast bowler less. If Sehwag doesn’t work, we would have the real possibility of Karthik opening again and that doesn’t fill me with any confidence. Just don’t open with Dravid - I am hearing every one talk of the real possibility of Dravid opening (Chetan Sharma mentioned it yesterday). Even trying out Yuvraj to open (though I am not adverse to the move of Yuvraj opening) for the first time is not an ideal scenario in a tour like Australia but that is what happens when you do not choose some one like Chopra in the side.

Over all, this team might work if people are firing. The weakness with the squad, however, is that the bench options - a strength of India over the past 12 months, is not solid enough. So if the first XI or the 12th option doesn’t gel, we would have to look at carrying a player like Ishant Sharma or Singh in the XI (Forget Singh, even Ishant Sharma, while he might be a decent option for the future but really, do we want him to play in a first XI in a test in Australia) and that is inviting trouble as Sri Lanka found out by playing Fernando in the test XI.

Today’s two dismissals by Aleem Dar reiterates why it is time we use technology in cricket. Sure some one can say that Aleem Dar is a poor umpire but some one being a poor umpire shouldn’t mean that games are affected like they are. Even the best umpires make mistakes as they are only human. The problem is larger.

Cricket is a sport where dismissals are a key element. In test cricket, there are a maximum of 40 dismissals. A batsman given out when not out or vice versa can have a huge impact on the way the game shapes up. So why should we not use technology where it can help us conclusively where decisions are concerned?

Kasporwicz was not out in Ashes 2005 if we go by the rules. However, there was no way the umpire could have judged the same with the angle he had and made the best decision he could have made given how he saw things. If we can get a decision like that right within a minute (which is practical given we can see replays on the screen instantly), why should the thid umpire not talk with the umpires officiating and immediately get the decision right?

Do such decisions waste too much time? Let teams use referrals - 3 or 5 in a game. Every time you use a referral incorrectly, you have one referral less to use in the game. Simple.

Would it undermine the authority of the umpires? Not really. We would cut the pressure from the umpires this way more than any thing. At the end of the day, we should strive to get decisions right wherever we can. It is ludicrous that the whole world can see what y decision should have been and yet we have the scenarios of x batting when he is clearly out or x sitting in the pavilion when he is clearly not out.

Is Tendulkar a match winner? S.Rajesh puts forward the fourth inning figures.

How many times were matches really winnable by the time the fourth inning was played? For instance, in this match in South Africa, we had to make 430 plus to win in the fourth inning. So this stat - a poor fourth inning average is not a criteria for proving match winning ability.

More often than not, matches are won and lost in the first and second innings where Tendulkar averages 72 and 51 respectively.

…but some times, people take it too seriously. Just not worth it. Sigh.

Mukul Kesavan writes in The Telegraph:

Whether Subhash Chandra of Zee follows through with his Packerite circus or not, it’s on the cards that sooner or later someone will. Someone certainly should…

…A league based on team franchises and open to foreign players is a good idea in principle. I can see no disadvantage to a league where Ricky Ponting and Mashrafe Mortaza and Muttiah Muralitharan turn out for a Twenty-20 tournament called the Wipro Cup or a 50-over league sponsored by Tata. It would give Indian spectators a club league to follow in the same way as English spectators follow the careers of sides like Arsenal and Chelsea, packed with brilliant foreign recruits. Athletes like Ponting would force Indian players to lift their game. It’s also a ‘just’ idea: it’s unfair that fine players like Shane Bond and Mohammad Ashraful make a fraction of the money that Sehwag or Yuvraj have come to take for granted simply because they have fewer consuming countrymen watching them on television.

Quite right. The BCCI has for far too long neglected the interests of cricket in India. They might try to convince you that they have the interest of cricket in mind by promising initiatives but actions, like this means that money is the real interest, not cricket, where BCCI are concerned.

Monopolies reduce standards. Only when free markets prevail do enterprises feel the danger of becoming insignificant if they do not perform and standards truly improve. As Kesavan says in the piece, I hope some one does form an alternative cricket league, even if Zee backs out. In any case, there is a bleak possibility of interesting times ahead.

Among the steps the BCCI announced to improve Indian cricket were many related to domestic cricket. Sidharth Monga dissects these initiatives. I share the view with Monga that the Duleep Trophy should be scrapped. He writes:

The Duleep Trophy, supposed to be the highest-level first-class tournament, is robbed of gloss because of its timing. An inter-zone tournament should have the best performing players of the season participating but, by being staged at the the season’s start, the selections are based on the previous season’s numbers. Also, the Duleep Trophy was the step between the Ranji Trophy and international cricket, and was a prize of sorts for doing well in the Ranji; instead of diluting the identity and character of the Duleep Trophy it’s better to scrap it and make the Ranji season a bit less cramped.

There are quite a few other problems with the Duleep Trophy.

Players in Duleep Trophy teams are very different each year. It means that the team system and the benefits these systems bring do not come into play in a Duleep Trophy team. For instance, if we take the North Zone team assembling to play a game versus the East Zone, the Delhi players in the North team will hang out with their Delhi buddies, the Punab guys with their Punjab team mates, so on and so forth.

You come to play. Game finishes. You go back to your states. The sole goal of individuals is to notch up big scores or take truckload of wickets so that they can impresse the selectors. Aspects like team spirit, playing as one unit and developing together over the years are lost.

It also clogs up the calendar and eats up into the Ranji Trophy season. England faces a similar problem of too many and indistinguishabledomestic tournaments.

Matthew Engel speaks about them in the 2007 Wisden Almanack editorial:

The current set-up is not merely the worst that has yet been invented, but possibly the worst that could be imagined: the Championship interspersed with three one-day competitions, turgidly organised and distinguishable from each other only by the length of the matches. The destruction of the once-beautiful knockout cup should be used as a case study of blithering administrative idiocy. In Washington, politicians get impeached for less…

…Sport needs above all a narrative, a straightforward storyline that the public can grasp. Ashes cricket has it - and how. The World Cup will probably get one. So do all successful sporting events. Going along for the spectacle of a Twenty20 may be one thing; but the county cricket enthusiast is vanishing - turned off by the hopeless mish-mash.

Why should we, in India, need millions of tournaments? Duleep Trophy, zonal one dayers, Ranji Trophy and Ranji one dayers - the list never ends. Have a tight 10 team top division and lower divisions with a promotion/relegation system, one each for first class and one day cricket, and that should be enough. The Irani Trophy match has tradition and is a nice curtain raiser to the domestic season and so keep it but that should be it.

Australian first class teams play 10 first class games in their domestic competition each year. It provides tough, hard fought contests which benefit the players and builds up a story which people can follow. Ensure that the games are scheduled in such a way that international players can play at least play in half of the domestic matches (BCCI has indicated it will ensure players play more domestic matches in the future) if not more.

Years ago, we scrapped the Quadrangular/Pentangular. Now, it is time to scrap the Duleep (and stuff like zonal one dayers) and take a step forward.

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..

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.

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.