The (Out) Law of Averages

A couple of years ago, as part of my statistics course, we were given an article on statistical fallacies in sports. We were then asked to come up with a different statistical fallacy we had found in a sport. It wasn't too difficult to find one. Here's what I wrote and the statistical evidence to back it up.

One of the biggest clichés in the sporting world is the Law of Averages. While there is a real theorem that a random variable will reflect its underlying probability over a large sample (The Law of Large Numbers), the law of averages typically assumes that unnatural short-term "balance" will occur. Television commentators, including former cricketers often claim a batsman is “due” as he hasn’t scored a “big one” for a while.

In order to test this “Law of Averages”, the stats of the 15 batsmen with the most number of innings were studied (Consider it roughly equivalent to the number of plate appearances in baseball). The reason for choosing these 15 was that they provided the largest samples for study. I calculated the number of innings each of them took to score a hundred and used it as a benchmark to test the law of average, rounding it up to N. For example, Allan Border scored 27 100’s in 267 innings, which roughly came out to be a hundred every 9.9 innings. Hence, according to the law of averages, if Border hasn’t scored a 100 in 9 consecutive innings, his tenth (Nth) inning should be a 100. I then calculated the probability of this event using the formula:

P’ = N₂/(N₁+ N₂), where

P’ = Probability of scoring a 100 in n^th inning after (N-1) consecutive scores of less than 100

N₁=No. of instances when batsman didn’t score a 100 in ‘N’ consecutive innings.

N₂=No. of instances when batsman scored a 100 after ‘N-1’ consecutive scores of less than 100.

The P-Factor is a measure of how frequently a batsman scored when he was “due”. A P-Factor of more than 1 indicates a batsman delivered more frequently when he was “due” as compared to his career record. Table 1 shows the analysis of the sample. Of the 15 batsmen sampled, 12 have a P-Factor of less than 1.1, 7 of which have a P-Factor less than 1! Seems to me that even some of the best batsmen don’t fare any better when they were “due”, isn’t it?

Player	Innings	100's	Innings/100's	N	N1	N2	P	P'	P-Factor
Allan Border	267	27	9.889	10	87	9	0.101	0.094	0.931
Steve Waugh	260	32	8.125	9	92	8	0.123	0.08	0.65
Sachin Tendulkar	237	39	6.077	7	65	13	0.165	0.167	1.012
Alec Stewart	235	15	15.667	16	86	6	0.064	0.065	1.016
Brian Lara	232	34	6.824	7	69	14	0.147	0.169	1.15
Graham Gooch	219	20	10.95	11	63	7	0.091	0.1	1.099
Sunil Gavaskar	214	34	6.294	7	58	11	0.159	0.159	1
Michael Atherton	212	16	13.25	14	62	4	0.075	0.061	0.813
Mark Waugh	209	20	10.45	11	46	8	0.096	0.148	1.542
Rahul Dravid	205	24	8.542	9	64	9	0.117	0.123	1.051
David Gower	204	18	11.333	12	69	6	0.088	0.08	0.909
Desmond Haynes	202	18	11.222	12	62	6	0.089	0.088	0.989
Inzamam-ul-Haq	200	24	8.333	9	49	6	0.12	0.109	0.908
Jacques Kallis	194	29	6.69	7	68	9	0.149	0.117	0.785
Geoffrey Boycott	193	22	8.773	9	55	8	0.114	0.127	1.114

There is Always a Story if You Want One

I must admit there are times when Soulberry can spoil my day with his crusade against anyone who has a bad thing to say about the IPL. But there is a reason why I go to his blog everyday and it's not masochistic. He can write some really thought-provoking posts and I came across one such post today.

I'll admit to being put off by the whole sports journalism business thanks to the nature of sports coverage in India. That and the fact that I believe the power to make a difference lies with the administrators and not media-persons. But isn't it a profession one indulges in only because they felt they would enjoy it? You would never get parents in India pushing their kids to do a journalism course. So why is it that this job becomes so tiresome after a point of time? Why do these journalists marvel at Tendulkar enjoying his cricket even after 20 years in international cricket?

One of the biggest reasons for doing a job is money. Okay, that statement was Shastri-like in its obviousness. But for sports journalists it has to be something more than that because they're not as well-compensated as those investment bankers and marketing minds in the corporate world. This means the job has got to provide one with the opportunity to make a difference. At times it conflicts with the editor's requirement. Gotta look at the bottom line after all, and the bottom line says people would rather read about Virat Kohli's attitude than his commitment when he turned out for a Ranji game a day after his father passed away. When Yuvraj has a few bad games it's because he has problems with the captain. It can't be cooked up, afterall a "top source" told our reporter about it. It has become more important to have out of work celebrities criticise cricketers for talking about cricket and put a sexist spin to it.

But amidst all this are cricket fans who put up with a boatload of rubbish just so they can watch some cricket. They are large enough in number to help the bottom line and will stick with the sport even when it's not fashionable.

Last year I had the privilege of going to a test match at the Basin Reserve in Wellington. Since I was on holiday I also went to watch the players practise the day before the test began. There were a lot of people at the ground and I got to speak with some. Among them was a father who had brought along his 6-year old son to show him how Sachin Tendulkar batted. A day later the man also brought along his old man and the three generations in the family shared an experience that perhaps only sport can provide. On the fourth day of the test the Sky Team were going to have a talk with Ravi Shastri during the tea interval. The way the match was going it could have been the last day of the series. Some of the people on the event staff were disappointed that they couldn't get to hear from players in the Indian team. According to them, these players were more popular than most of the Kiwis and the people of New Zealand wanted to hear their stories. They wanted to know how the Tendulkars and Dravids had achieved so much in the sport, their cricketing journey, how it had affected their personal life.

Of course it never happened because the board does not allow players to speak in public, and as someone who has seen how the media can make a scandal out of nothing I can see where the board is coming from. But would such a situation arise if our sports journalists have the drive to write about something that sticks in the mind of the readers/listeners/viewers? There is always a story behind an athlete, and it is invariably one that inspires the common man, for it takes a lot of passion, commitment and sacrifice to play professional sport. Movies have been made on such stories and have been very successful. There is no reason why bringing these out in columns or interviews wouldn't get as many "eyeballs" as Deepika Padukone at an IPL game.

FICA and the need for a Collective Bargaining Agreement - II

Alright, so after much deliberation and research I've come up with what I think is a pretty good Future Tours Programme from 2015 to 2019. The FTP has been drawn up with the following factors in mind:

1.9 test-playing nations play each other in home and away series (T20, ODI, Test) over a period of 4 years.
2.There are separate windows for IPL and Champions League so that players don't have to choose between their national side and their club. However, players have to be available for selection for atleast 75 percent of the bilateral matches their national side is part of.

3.There will be two Twenty20 World Cups (2016 and 2018) and one Champions Trophy (2017).
4.Every country apart from Bangladesh gets to host a major tournament.
5.The FTP will culminate with the Final Four of the World Test Championship and the ODI World Cup. The Final Four will be decided based on the points per test (Total points earned divided by number of tests played).
6.Every board contributes a percentage of its total revenue into a pool. The total money is then equally distributed among the national boards. The revenue from IPL and Champions League need not be shared.

Supersubs in IPL

A few years ago the ICC tried to use the supersub to spice up One-Day Internationals. The move wasn't very popular with most teams as captains didn't know how to make best use of a 12th man. To be fair to them, having to announce their supersub before the toss seemed a bit odd - Cricketers aren't the most cerebral people around and captains ended up thinking of the supersub as a nuisance.

Since the IPL is a domestic competition (Suppressed laughter) and the BCCI is very keen to provide a platform for young Indian cricketers, they seem set on having only 4 overseas players in the XI. This means there are 6 overseas cricketers who are cooling their heels in the dugout. So how about trying supersubs in the IPL?

1.Announce the XI after the toss alongwith two supersubs.
2.Indian players can only be substituted with their compatriots.
3.Overseas players can be substituted with anyone.
4.Supersub cannot bat for someone who has been dismissed.
5.Supersub can only complete the quota of overs for the player he replaces. If the player he replaces hasn't bowled, the supersub can bowl 4 overs.

Partnership Efficiency

A few months ago I was discussing the importance of rotating strike and how there was no real indicator of the efficiency with which two batsmen worked a partnership. In an ideal world, you'd want the batsman scoring faster to have all the strike. Of course the chances of that happening are worse than that of Harbhajan scoring a hundred. So maybe there could be a parameter that can tell how good the batsmen were in ensuring the one scoring faster got enough strike. I like to call the parameter "Partnership Efficiency". Simply defined, it is the ratio of balls faced by the two batsmen divided by the ratio of their strike rates. For example, if batsman A has scored 35 off 35 balls and batsman B has 42 off 50, the partnership efficiency for this pair would be (35/50)/(100/84), which is 58.8%. As a captain you could look at whether your big hitters are getting enough strike. You could also look at which pair in your side is the most efficient and ensure they get to bat together for as many overs as possible. You could also analyze how well your bowling and fielding units have done to ensure the fast-scoring batsmen in the opposition aren't getting as much strike as they should.

FICA and the need for a Collective Bargaining Agreement - I

And so we finally have the Players' Association standing up for their rights. It was about time they did it. Maybe the Indian players will follow suit, though it seems unlikely.

Cricket is one of the few team sports which can be played throughout the year thanks to the geographical diversity of the nations participating in it. So while it may be too cold to play in Australia, South Africa or New Zealand in the months of May, June and July, teams can happily ply their trade in the Caribbean or absorb the atmosphere at the home of cricket. England might be too cold after September, but you have the subcontinent with its relatively pleasant winters to welcome international cricket.

The ICC, to its credit, has framed a Future Tours Programme (FTP) which international teams adhere to. Unfortunately, there are two areas where it short. Firstly, it only specifies the minimum amount of cricket each side has to play over the duration of the Programme. What this means is teams can schedule series over and above the FTP schedule. This has resulted in certain teams playing each other more and more frequently. India and Pakistan played each other four times in less than four years. During the same period India didn't play a single test series against New Zealand, and only one series against Australia, West Indies, and Sri Lanka.

Boards would argue that they have a right to maximise their revenues as long as they fulfill the requirements of the Future Tours Programme. From a business point of view, it seems like a valid argument. But the business of sport has certain qualities which make it different from other businesses. How popular would the Barclays Premier League be if you only had Arsenal, Chelsea, Liverpool and Manchester United play each other? Would the NBA thrive if the Lakers and Celtics decided to just play each other? Sooner or later fans would get bored of seeing the same contests again and again. This is something the national boards need to realise, and the sooner they do it the better it would be for their coffers.

Secondly, the unbridled success of the Indian Premier League has opened up new earning opportunities for cricketers. No longer do they have to depend on playing for their country to earn a good living. They have big businessmen willing to pay them a lot more for a lot less work than they put in for their national teams. It would be foolish to expect these players to say no to that kind of money. There might be some exceptions, but for every Ricky Ponting there are ten Chris Gayles. One could argue Ponting already makes a lot more money playing for Australia than Gayle gets for leading the West Indies, and that the Jamaican has a much bigger IPL contract than his Australian counterpart.

The FICA has suggested a World Test Championship so as to give a context to every test. Their argument is such a format would keep the fans interested throughout the course of the championship. It's quite true, a West Indies v/s New Zealand test would be of interest to both sets of fans if there was a semi-final place on the line. It may be of interest to a lot of neutrals if their side's passage to the next round depends on the result of this game. The recent ODI between Pakistan and Australia was a prime example. A lot of Indians were watching that game while their team was playing the West Indies.

Unfortunately, the BCCI and the ECB have objected to such a format. The two boards generate the highest revenues among ICC members and are averse to sharing a percentage of their revenue with the rest of the members. One has to ask the question: How much would their revenues drop if they agreed to a World Test Championship? Sure they would put a percentage of their revenues in a pool, but they would also get a further percentage of it back. Also, they would still make as much money if they could sell TV rights and sponsorships for more, which they most definitely will on account of a World Test Championship having a larger and more prolonged fan-following. In a nutshell, they would have a smaller share of a bigger pie. How is that a bad deal when you consider it would benefit the cash-starved boards of New Zealand and West Indies, which would in turn help them develop cricket in their country?

A similar format needs to be worked out for One-Day Internationals as well. While teams and officials seemed very happy with the recent Champions Trophy, it seemed like no one had noticed the sparse turnout for most games. Administrators and players seem to think they're the ones who decide the fate of cricket when it is actually us fans who will decide the direction cricket takes. We live in a world where we have countless entertainment options. If not cricket, there is soccer, tennis, formula one, rugby, basketball, baseball. If not sport, there are movies or soap operas. And I'm not even getting into how women drag their men along for shopping or for a night at the discotheque.

I thought I would be able to share my thoughts on a possible solution but this post has been surprisingly long. I'll end it here and have a separate post for what I believe could be the way forward for the ICC and FICA.

Rewarding the Faith

No I'm not talking about my religious beliefs. This is about a game of football that gave hope to romantics the world over. A game between two of the biggest clubs in Europe, at the biggest stage in club football, in one of the most historic cities in the world. A match-up between one of the greatest football managers the game has ever seen and a manager who had far exceeded expectations in his first season as manager of the club he proudly represented as a player for over a decade. A contest to decide the best football player in the world - Would it be the 24-year old Portuguese winger with the strength and pace that characterize modern footballers, or would it be the 21-year old Argentine phenom who needed growth hormones to even grow into what would be the smallest frame on the pitch in Rome? If only I could write well enough to put a really dramatic spin to it.

As it turned out, Manchester United came out with the intent of testing Barcelona's patched-up defense from the start. It took a lot of people by surprise as most of the pundits were expecting United to blunt Barcelona the way Hiddink's men so effectively did in the previous round. For a while, it seemed to have taken the Catalans by surprise too. But once Iniesta combined with Eto'o to catch United off-guard it seemed like someone had sucked the air out of United. Barcelona dominated the game thereafter and should have scored a few more before THAT moment...

There had been endless debate about who is the better footballer between Cristiano Ronaldo and Lionel Messi. The former is the World and European Play of the Year and is always happy to be the centre of attention. He is big, strong, fast, has two good shooting feet. The latter has been touted as the next Maradona for quite a while but hasn't lived up to his reputation against the big boys from England. But this was his moment to shine.

Xavi sent in a cross and the little Argentinian found himself completely unmarked just outside the six-yard box. But the ball was slightly behind him and no one would have expected him to even get to the ball let alone get it on target. Instead, he contorted his body and somehow cushioned a header over Edwin Van der Sar. The man had given a fitting answer to all those who had doubted his ability, and in the process even surprised some of his own teammates. Puyol's reaction says it all. Josep Guardiola had promised his men would play beautiful football. He felt this was how football was meant to be played.

While my views might be biased by my passion for Barcelona, I couldn't help but draw a parallel between this win and life. A lot of us spend years looking for the ideal job, the ideal partner. We come across posers and pretenders who test our faith in what we truly believe and it's really difficult to keep believing in your actions being right. There are moments of weakness when you lose faith in yourself and do the exact opposite of what you stand for. But isn't it so much more rewarding when you realize your goal by following the path you've always believed in? That sense of having achieved something you've always been looking for, something you found elusive in this world of cynics masquearading around as realists?

I would like to come clean here and admit to having strayed from the values I thought were unshakeable. In the process I've hurt the people I've cared for the most. I've even lost one of them, maybe forever. And there is nothing I won't do to atone for my mistakes. But does this mean I'll undo the wrongs I've done, or get back the people I've lost? Probably not. But has this made me want to do whatever I can to be a better person? Absolutely.

FC Barcelona 1-1 Chelsea FC (FC Barcelona advance on away goals)

The second semi-final saw more of what we've seen in Chelsea-Barcelona ties in the last few years. There were a number of controversial calls and both teams had more than one refereeing call to be upset about over the two legs. Chelsea, to their credit, defended a lot better at home than they did at the Camp Nou. Barcelona, not to be cowed by their opponent's physical advantage, kept looking for the opening that would secure them that precious away goal Chelsea had passed by in the first leg. Their job was made tougher by an Essien thunderbolt that brought back memories of last year's semi-final. Meanwhile, the Norwegian referee Tom Henning Øvrebø was having a howler and had denied Chelsea two legitimate penalties and wrongly sent off Eric Abidal in the 65th minute. To top it off, he denied them a third, and the most obvious penalty, when Anelka's poke saw the ball hit Pique's extended arm.

You knew Chelsea would be content to sit on the lead and only attack when they absolutely needed to. With Messi being muscled out of the game and Eto'o forgetting the meaning of a soft first touch it all seemed to go pear-shaped for the team that many consider the greatest ever to play for Barcelona. And then it came! Essien failed to make an easy clearance and the ball fell to Lionel Messi. This was his moment, this was his chance to respond to Ronaldo's challenge. Instead, he shielded the ball from his markers and did the right thing by finding the open Iniesta. Iniesta, who has lived in the shadow of Xavi all season, fired what was his team's only shot on goal all game. Unfortunately for Chelsea, it went in and Barcelona were ahead on away goals. Chelsea had one last chance and Ballack fired a shot that hit Eto'o under his arm, although it should be noted that the Cameroonian had no business having his arm up. The final whistle blew shortly after and the referee was mobbed by Chelsea players. Didier Drogba came off the bench in his flip-flops and seemed to think he was on Jerry Springer, while Lampard and Terry were measured in their criticism of the Norwegian.

It wasn't the prettiest of encounters but it did have two wonderful goals. Chelsea paid for their reluctance to attack and Barcelona were rewarded for sticking to their guns inspite of being a man down. Sadly, the refereeing left a bad taste in the mouth.

And we're back

It's been a while since a tree fell in the proverbial forest. The last time I posted was right before I embarked on the most eventful 16 months of my life. So here I am, back to blogging about sports.

Let's start off with some football, shall we?

Last week saw two of the best clubs in Europe make the final of the continent's premier club competition. Here's how it went down in the semis.

Manchester United 4-1 Arsenal FC

Manchester United under the experience and leadership of Sir Alex dismantled Arsenal with one of the most professional displays in European football of late. Everyone knew United had dominated Arsenal in the first leg and only the most passionate of Arsenal fans expected it to be different at the Emirates. Cristiano Ronaldo decided to throw the challenge to Little Leo Messi by scoring two goals and creating another. However, United fans were left bemoaning the sending off of Darren Fletcher for a foul that wasn't.

Time for Introspection

Every sport wrestles with the idea of bringing about change, because it is the tendency of man to do so. But there comes a point where one has GOT to move on. Technology was first brought in to assist umpires in 1992. While the purists have always looked at it with a sense of cynicism, the question one needs to ask is this: Would using technology reduce chances of players being hard-done? If yes, there should not be a second thought to making use of it whenever necessary.

The recent calls for implementing a referral system have met with stiff resistance from those who feel:

1.It undermines the authority of the umpire.
2.There should always be a human element to the game.
3.Technology isn't 100% foolproof.

To them, I would like to say this: The wheel wasn't invented to belittle man's inability to travel faster, it was invented to help him ease the burden. It is also ineffective on snow/ice/water. It's been centuries since the invention took place, and I don't think people walk with any less dexterity than they did prior to the invention.

The second test between India and Australia has led to more calls for a referral system, and I would like to suggest the framework for it based on my limited understanding of the game.

1.Each side to have 3 challenges per innings. The team issuing a challenge retains it if it is successful, otherwise they lose it.
2.Challenges to be issued by on-field players ONLY.
3.On-field umpires to adjudicate on every decision.
4.Third umpire can be called into action ONLY when a side uses one of its challenge.
5.Use of hotspot to aid the third umpire. Hawkeye and Snickometer to be discontinued from television coverage.

Points 2,3 and 4 ensure the human element to the sport is not lost, as

• The players wouldn't have access to technology to know if they should issue a challenge.
• The on-field umpires would be required to be alert at all times as they cannot fall back on the third umpire.
• The third umpire has access to the best technology to deliver the correct decision.

You can be sure there will still be instances like the Symonds stumping being administered, but you can also be sure of the frequency of those would be a lot less than what it is now. The current plight of the ICC Umpires is because they're not sure to what extent they should embrace technology. Once the decision to invoke technology is out of their hands, they will have to solely concentrate on giving their own decisions, and this would only lead to them honing their skills a lot more sharply than they do now, which is what we would all like to see.

Taking the Middle Road

The World Cup has finally begun and teams would be looking to score points over each other at every possible stage of a game. All teams have either the muscle upfront or the firepower at the end, some have both. But these brute forces would be of no use without the stealth in the middle overs. Click here a look at how teams have fared* in the period when the field was spread out and before the slog overs** since the beginning of 2006***.

South Africa have usurped the number 1 position from Australia, and part of the reason could be their dominance of sides during the middle overs. The Proteas are the most prolific team in the middle overs, scoring at a rate of 4.91 runs an over, while averaging 41.24 during this period.

Unfortunately for their opposition, they haven't returned the favour when they're bowling. They are the most miserly of all teams when it comes bowling in these overs, conceding just 4.02 runs an over. What's more, they have the best bowling average too, with each wicket costing just 22.59 runs, a record Glenn McGrath would be proud of!

Australia have scored their runs pretty quickly too, they're third on the list with a run rate 4.87. They also have the best average of the bunch, scoring 47.78 runs for every wicket they lost.

But their bowling has been quite indifferent. In fact, Australia have the worst economy rate of all bowling attacks at 4.97 runs an over, 3 of the biggest successful run chases and another close shave of 342 spoiling their figures considerably. The one silver lining is they have picked wickets regularly during this period: they have the second best average at 32.69.

Sri Lanka have maintained the tempo set by the openers by scoring at 4.91 runs an over, although their average at 35.16 is a bit on the lower side. But their slow bowlers have kept it tight by conceding just 4.68 runs an over and with Muralitharan in the attack they've managed a commendable average of 34.94 runs a wicket.

India had a great start to 2006 with series wins against Pakistan and England. But they had a horrid run thereafter, before they brought Ganguly back and moved Tendulkar to the middle order. Their scoring rate has fluctuated with their fortunes, before finally stabilising at 4.81 runs an over. They also have the third best average at 40.38 runs per wicket.

But with the middle overs being the least inopportune time to bowl their part-timers and the opposition looking to take ones and twos against an average fielding side, they have conceded 4.71 runs an over and taken 80 wickets in 34 games at 41 runs apiece.

New Zealand have been struggling with their top order and it has meant that their middle order has had to consolidate the innings before increasing the run rate. They have managed a reasonable run rate of 4.81 runs an over, while their bowlers have kept the opposition in check by conceding just 34.53 runs per wickets at 4.68 runs an over.

The West Indian batting has been as fickle as the English weather, and their record shows the positives and negatives cancelling each other out. They have scored their runs at an average 4.68 runs an over.

While their ploy to strangle opposition batsmen with the ostensible off-breaks of Gayle and Samuels has seen them concede just 4.48 runs an over, the lack of wicket taking bowlers means they concede these runs at 48.52 runs a wicket.

Inzamam-ul-Haq and Mohammad Yousuf have carried the Pakistan batting in the middle overs for quite some time. But with the Pakistan captain not enjoying the form from 2005 and Yousuf not being as prolific as he is in test matches, it has been left to the likes of Abdul Razzaq and Shoaib Malik to go for the big shots in the slog overs. This is reflected in their record, with Pakistan scoring at a mere 4.21 runs an over during the middle overs.

Their bowlers have also struggled, with Shoaib Akhtar and Mohammad Asif either being out injured or banned for a lot of games and Umar Gul missing a few games due to injury too. This has seen Pakistan concede 4.94 runs an over and taking just 33 wickets in 22 games at 56.42 runs apiece.

England have just 7 wins in 23 games during this period and it is no surprise when you consider they are the slowest batting side and the costliest bowling unit for almost forty percent of the match. They have managed a run rate of just 4.17 runs an over while losing 78 wickets at 27.24 apiece in just 23 games.

Their bowlers haven't compensated for the shortcomings of their batsmen, going at 4.95 runs an over and picking up a wicket for almost every 43 runs.


* Rows denote Runs scored/Overs faced/Wickets lost/Scoring rate/Batting average. Columns denote Runs conceded/Overs bowled/Wickets taken/Econ. rate/Bowling average.

** The period comprises all non Power Play overs before the 40th over of an innings.

*** Only matches which were at least 45-overs a side and yielded a result.

The Final Fifteen

The Indian team for the 2007 World Cup has been selected. Call them the Men in Blue, Guru Greg's boys, Team India or any cliche, everyone seems to have an opinion about it. The selection has been dissected, analysed and criticised a million times on every news channel in the past week and as expected, it left almost everyone content but not elated. I am going to try and justify or refute the selection of the fifteen.

I believe Ganguly, Dravid, Tendulkar and Yuvraj were assured of their place before the Sri Lanka Series. While Yuvraj may have been on the comeback trail after a serious injury, his place could never have been in doubt as he was the best ODI batsman for India before the injury and never really suffered from lack of form. Besides, his fielding and slow bowling were always going to work in his favour. Robin Uthappa had a terrific domestic season. He scored 854 runs in 7 games at 65.69 runs an innings at a breakneck pace of 81.56 runs per 100 balls in what has essentially been a bowlers' Ranji Trophy. He had a dream debut for India but was dropped subsequently, but he came back with a bucaneering 70 off 41 balls to edge Gautam Gambhir out of the reckoning.

Mahendra Singh Dhoni and Dinesh Karthik have given the selectors a happy headache on the power of their performances as well as their work ethic. While the latter hasn't shone at the International stage, he has shown immense guts, intelligence & fielding prowess to merit a place in the side. With Dravid leading the side and being 34 years of age he shouldn't be expected to keep wickets if Dhoni gets injured.

Agarkar and Harbhajan have been the most consistent bowlers for India in the past 18 months, with the former having taken 66 wickets in 45 ODIs in that period & the latter playing the holding role in the middle overs so well that he has the 4th best economy rate in International Cricket since 2006. The fact that these two run fast and have strong arms also works in their favour. Zaheer Khan has made a terrific comeback into the side and his recent exploits would have been much better chronicled had it not been for our obsession with batsmen. Munaf Patel has bowled well whenever he has been fit and his ability to extract bounce and make the ball nip off the surface while maintaining a tight line is priceless. He may be a walking wicket and a big liability in the field but Pathan's horror spell with the ball meant Munaf was a shoo-in for the squad once he proved his fitness in the firs two ODIs. He went one better, by picking up 6 wickets in those two games.

Virender Sehwag has been devastating at the top of the order but has failed to kick on to make big scores like he so often has in the test arena. A horror run of form coupled with questions regarding his fitness and commitment to the side meant he was treading on thin ice. Fortunately for him he had a very good ODI series in the Caribbean last year where he had scores of 95 and 97 and an average of 47.40. He is an intelligent bowler and his off-breaks could well be useful if the tracks are slow.

Pathan at his best provides India the option of going in with five bowlers. He is definitely not the all-rounder all of India craves for but at his best he can give you two or three top order wickets and quick runs down the order. One feels he has been selected on the basis of the potential he has and because he is the best bat among the bowlers. Like Agarkar and Harbhajan, he too is quick in the outfield and has a strong arm.

That leaves us with two slots. These were filled by Kumble and Sreesanth, the old warhorse and the young tyro. The former has been one of the most lion-hearted cricketers I have seen play for India while the latter is a bundle of energy.

I am surprised by the unanimous acceptance of Kumble's place in the squad, some have even gone so far as to say he might be a better option than Harbhajan. I am not quite sure where they're coming from, considering Kumble hasn't turned in a single performance in the past few years that would make you sit up and take notice. He has taken 46 wickets at 45.26 in his last 50 matches. Even his economy rate has been bad: He has conceded 4.83 runs an over as compared to his career economy rate of 4.31. His batting hasn't even gone downhill, it's in free fall and he is worse than VVS Laxman when it comes to fielding and running between the wickets. By contrast, Ramesh Powar has the 8th best average of all ODI bowlers since 2006. He has taken 24 wickets at 25.45 in 16 games during this period and is the ideal foil for Harbhajan as he batsmen will look to attack him because of Harbhajan's frugal bowling. This plays right into his hands as he gives the ball a lot of air and gets it to dip on the batsmen. People need to look beyond his portly stature to realise he is quite swift in the outfield and does have a decent arm. I would have gambled on him rather than pick Kumble, but the selectors decided to go with experience and I have a feeling the captain was more comfortable having him in the side.

Sreesanth has been terrific in the test arena. His wrist position at the time of release and seam position have come in for a lot of praise from all quarters but he seems unable to adjust his length in the One-Day game and has gone for over 6 an over in 11 of his 27 ODIs. India had gone in with 4 seamers for the World Cup in South Africa and it's baffling as to why they have picked 5 for this one. It might be due to Munaf's fitness and Pathan's loss of form with ball, but I believe it's a very defensive attitude.

There were three other names which were discussed by the Indian fans.

VVS Laxman was the most popular of them with people questioning the need for 4 openers in the side. I don't think we have 4 openers who can only bat at the top of the order, in fact Sehwag, Ganguly and Tendulkar started off as middle order batsmen and can easily score quickly in the middle overs. Laxman averages just over 20 in 38 innings while chasing and even while batting first he doesn't do well against sides other than Australia. He can't bat anywhere except number 3 and is a major liability in the field. I don't see any of his supporters substantiate their arguments with facts.

Suresh Raina was supposed to be the young Indian hope just 12 months ago. Unfortunately he has suffered from the second season syndrome and his batting was too indifferent for his fielding to make up for. But he has age on his side and he should be one of the certainties in four years time.

Mohammad Kaif's is a very peculiar case. He had a very good tour of the Caribbean last year and has always done well when pushed up the order. He averages 47 at number 3 and could easily anchor the innings in case one of the batsmen got injured. His fielding is world class and the side needs it desperately: He could well be the official substitute fielder of the side in the Caribbean. But this team management seemed to back Raina ahead of him every time they had to choose between the two. As a result, a prospective future captain has been left in the wilderness wondering if he will ever get the respect he so richly deserves.

All in all, it's a side picked with the focus on experience over youth every time there has been a toss-up between the two, but it's a situation forced up on the selectors thanks to India's poor run of form in the last season. Hopefully the Final Fifteen of 2007 will join the family of the Fabulous Fourteen of 1983.