First, Dhoni hit some amazing sixes.

Then, there was controversy over whether Dhoni was out.

A lot of people are speaking on this.

• Amit Ken.
• Manish Varma.
• Saakshi Juneja.

My take - Firstly, Lara had no business interfering. Umpire’s decisions should be respected. Sadly though, Lara is likely to get away with a match fee cut, if at all, and nothing more.

Secondly, in the perspective of the match, it shouldn’t really matter as it is unlikely to come to six runs to decide the test match. So Dhoni did the right thing by ending the controversy then and there. Cricket can be funny and it will be hilarious if it ends up being a close thriller and those 6 runs could have had an impact.

In other cricket stuff, Murali has wielded his magic over the English once again. Read Zainub Razvi’s review of the match here.

I have been a huge Wasim Jaffer fan since forever. He has had a strange career really. For many seasons, he kept piling the runs but wasn’t picked. Then, when he was picked for his first stint in the team, he wasn’t in the best of form. He was also shown up against movement, paricularly versus the English. You have to make the little of the smallest opportunities you get in Indian cricket as there are so many players competing for spots.

Read the rest of this entry »

Hmm.

Various sections of the media have highlighted how India has been superb of late in the one day arena. A few aspects have to be noted, though. India hasn’t faced the tough challenges till now. So it is too early to go euphoric over recent run of one day cricket victories. If any thing, we have we have even failed in instances where we shouldn’t have. With all due respect to the English side, why couldn’t India win convincingly versus an English side at home with half the English side missing? Time is asked because we are a young side. We were a young side in respects like bowling but weren’t the English side young and inexperienced as well?

Read the rest of this entry »

Sachin Tendulkar has been ruled out of India’s test series in the West Indies. The decision was to be taken after a fitness test today. The decision has now been taken and it has been announced to the public.

Telegraph Calcutta reported some thing contrasting in the morning before the decision was made:

…a well-placed source informed he’s going to make the Test squad.

“Sachin will be in the West Indies for the four-Test series… That’s a certainty,” the gentleman told The Telegraph on Monday.

It is evident now that however well placed the source, it wasn’t that well placed to provide the leak. Such reporting means that a newspaper can claim next day we told you so if the decision goes along the lines of their well placed sources. If it does not, they can always explain - that is if they bother to explain.

Now I am not questioning Telegraph’s credibility here. I am questioning why such an item makes a newspaper even if we assume it is from well placed sources? Shouldn’t statements be quoted only if people are named? Else it only leads to speculation and can encourage creation of false news all across by every other sports media. Not on according to me despite the obvious selling potential of such news, regardless of whether real or fabricated.

Almost every one in the Indian cricket team has Brazil as their favourite football team.

Glory hunters? Yeah.

The too much cricket issue has been a point of debate all over the cricket world of late. BCCI added 25 days to the Indian cricket calender to the disgust of many.

Sanjay Manjrekar puts in his perspective in the May issue of Cricinfo magazine:

However, there is a fundamental difference between sport and business: making profits for shareholders or maximising earnings can never be the primary objective for sports administrators. It is important for the BCCI to grasp that it’s top priority should be ensuring the long-term health of the game, including players.

It is a fine piece written by Manjrekar. The magazine also has a piece by Sidharth Mongia which speaks on the poor system of umpiring which exists in India - the result of which is that no Indian is a part of the Elite panel of ICC umpires.

Read the rest of this entry »

The BCCI isn’t pleased that Sehwag has voiced his thoughts. I have already commented on the issue four months earlier and have nothing to add. It must be noted that Sehwag was stopped to write a newspaper column a few months ago as well. Dhoni, meanwhile, has signed an exclusive contract with NDTV to give his comments for them.

I wonder what Dhoni can really speak on as he cannot speak on his team mates and selection issues. The matches? You have to be careful because if you, even for a moment, imply some thing against the BCCI, you can be sure of being taken to task! I did see Dhoni and Sreesanth speaking up in the media on how they have no problem with too much cricket. I see that they have not been reprimanded by BCCI.

Okay, I get the picture. You can speak if you approve of the BCCI’s methods but not if you oppose it. Subtle rules, I must say.

Rahul Dravid had asked for recognition of the player’s association just yesterday. That the player’s association isn’t even recognised yet shows how much the BCCI really listens to the players. Hopefully, it will be recognised now. There is little hope regarding the players speaking their minds and gaining in monetory terms as a result of it, however.

Indian Cricket has suffered for long. My frustrations reached the peak when I called for boycotting Indian cricket in a recent piece.

Things have been surprisingly moving forward in the recent past. The Hindu reports:

The Board of Control for Cricket in India, determined to encourage multi-sports disciplines in India, has given a Rs. 50 crore boost to budding sportspersons in the under-15 age group with ambitions to compete and excel in international meets. The `foster a child’ initiative of the BCCI president, Sharad Pawar, was approved at the Working Committee meeting at the C.K. Nayudu Hall, Cricket Club of India (CCI), here on Sunday.

Now a lot of people do support the idea of providing financial help for other sports. Amit Varma notably pointed out that it is not suitable even to support women’s cricket financially, let alone other sports. My stand is:

Money is just an aid for sport and not the end goal. So if a larger sporting body (financially) gives a small part of their income to a smaler sport to kick start it’s growth, it is very much they way to go forward to boost sport in a country specifically and sport at large.

Coming back to the initiatives the BCCI is taking. The former players are being heard. From The Indian Express:

And showing that the support to Indian cricket’s senior citizens wasn’t just confined to providing them financial security, BCCI president Sharad Pawar acted swiftly upon former skipper Sunil Gavaskar’s complaint about the national team’s support staff sporting the India caps. So, as Ian Frazer’s days of wearing the India cap seem to be over, the committee also decided to extend the existing pension scheme, which covered those who played before 1975, to include those who represented India in Tests till December 31, 1993. Pawar informed that those ‘‘those who have played in 25 Tests or more would be eligible for Rs. 35,000 per month each while those who played in less than 25 Tests would be eligible for Rs. 25,000.’’

The former players missed out on the financial boom cricket is experiencing in the country. Many suffer financially. It is commendable that the BCCI is looking at these aspects. Also, the Indian Cap issue - Sunil Gavaskar has been critical of any one except players wearing the Indian colour. In a test match in the West Indies where Gavaskar was commentating years back, he saw a a spectator wearing a sweater which had the blue identical to one in the official Indian cricket sweater. Gavaskar wondered at the regretfull possibility that a player had given the sweater to the fan. Gavaskar is of the school which says that the Indian colours should be earned and not given away. That increases respect. Finally Gavaskar has been heard to some degree on this minor yet signficant aspect. I do not mind people wearing the team jerseys. But the Indian test cap at least should not be worn by all and sundry.

The spectators at Guwahati were given back their money when the match was not held. The spectators injured from the earlier match in the series were invited to watch a game from special seats. The obvious question would be - why play matches in stadiums which do not have proper facilities. The BCCI says that it is planning to improve stadiums into state of art facilities. There are rumours that BCCI is looking at improving domstic cricket as well. I am more positive this will happen because of 1 simple reason. The people heading the BCCI currently are willing to forward brand BCCI. They seem intellegent enough to possibly realise that India can have a strong domestic inter-city kind of league bringing in foreign players which can be a cash cow in the future
Michael Atherton writes on Modi and the BCCI:

The traditionalists in India, not used to such brash commercialism and naked exploitation, are suspicious of Modi. They see a difference between sport and business: they know that one has a soul, the other does not; that one produces an emotional attachment, the other does not, and that cricket cannot survive without money, yet it shouldn’t exist merely to make money.

Pawar is an sharp politician. He realises the importance of image. So he will do all the image boosting wherever he can. Money will remain the main goal of the powers that be in the BCCI and not cricket. This should not be confused. But if cricket can benefit in the process, I will not complain.

Violence erupted after the crowd waited several hours for the 5th India-England one dayer to start. Excessive rain meant the match was delayed and later called off. Did the Guwahati crowd have to behave in such a manner? Could the BCCI have improved the facilities for draining the water at the ground before scheduling an international match here? Was the security lacking?

Simon Mann writes in his column for BBC: