Who Makes These Draws???

There must be some really stupid people incharge of domestic competitions. A few months ago I had written on BCC! about how the rules of the knockout stages of the Ranji Trophy made no sense. Subsequently Mumbai benefited from playing Haryana instead of Uttar Pradesh in the quarters and went on to win the title. They did put in a solid performance against Delhi in the semis and played out one of the most memorable finals against Karnataka, but it doesn't change the fact that neither they nor Uttar Pradesh should have been seeded higher just because they made the finals of the previous Ranji season.

The 2010 Champions League starts in a little over a month and I happened to visit its section on cricinfo earlier tonight. There was some rubbish about branding, positioning, etc. and they've hired Amitabh "Serial Brand Ambassador" Bachchan their brand ambassador. I don't know how it makes any sense and I also find it contradictory that they want this to be as big as the UEFA Champions League but are only focusing on the Indian market. But I'll go along with it anyway.

Then I checked out the draw for the tournament. Now the format this year is different from what it was in 2009 because you don't have any English teams. Therefore, this is the break-up of where the teams come from.

India: Chennai (Champions), Mumbai (Runner-up), Bangalore (Third Place)
Australia: Victoria (Champions), South Australia (Runners-up)
South Africa: Warriors (Champions), Lions (Runners-up)
Sri Lanka: Wayamba (Champions)
New Zealand: Central Districts (Champions)
West Indies: Guyana (Champions)

Surely the way to go about this would have been to have 3 champions in each group, with the runners-up from India, Australia and South Africa drawn in the group other than the one the champions from their country were drawn into. Instead each team in Group A won its domestic T20 competition, while Guyana are the only team in Group B to have won their T20 competition.

T20 might be the most unpredictable of the 3 cricketing formats, but it's a bit of a stretch to put Chennai, Victoria, and the Warriors in the same group. Below are three possible combinations which I believe are better than the good folk running the tournament have come up with.

Group A	Group B		Group A	Group B		Group A	Group B
Chennai	Mumbai		Chennai	Mumbai		Chennai	Mumbai
South Australia	Victoria		South Australia	Victoria		Lions	Warriors
Lions	Warriors		Warriors	Lions		Victoria	South Australia
Wymb/CD/Guy	Bangalore		Bangalore	Wymb/CD/Guy		Bangalore	Wymb/CD/Guy
Wymb/CD/Guy	Wymb/CD/Guy		Wymb/CD/Guy	Wymb/CD/Guy		Wymb/CD/Guy	Wymb/CD/Guy

I think the best option would have been the first combination - Winners and Runners-up from India, Australia and South Africa go into opposite groups while #2 and #3 from India are paired together, and each group has 3 champions. I'm sure some people might disagree, in which case I invite them to share their point of view :)

Shooting Yourself in the Foot

A few months ago I wrote a post on a parameter to gauge how efficient a partnership is. Yesterday was a classic case of a team getting it wrong and losing a chance to gain an advantage.

Virender Sehwag set out like a house on fire like he always does, scoring 64 off 63 before close of play on Day 2. India were chasing a mammoth score of 642 on a flat pitch and needing to win this test if they wanted to win the series. The only way it could happen was if Sehwag batted through the day, and even then the odds for an Indian win would have been tall.

Well they certainly didn't help themselves in trying to shorten them. The pair did decently well on Day 2, working at an efficiency of 54 percent. However, for some inexplicable reason Vijay ended up taking a lot more strike on the third morning. He faced 62 of 90 balls from the start of the 21st over to the end of the 35th. His scoring rate (32 off 62) during this period was decent by test standards Sehwag at the other end was scoring much faster (21 off 28). The partnership efficiency for this passage of play was just 31 percent.

What it also did was slow down Sehwag's charge as he was getting hardly any strike. Even before he got out on 99 he had been dropped at backward point when he was on 89 and had offered a half chance to backward short leg. The man likes to see runs being scored and the opposition always looks to get him out by cutting off his boundaries, although he's smart enough to keep his tally going by taking the singles on offer. However, he can't do anything about the score if he doesn't get the strike. It sounds very simplistic and obvious and yet if you see most of his innings you'll see he invariably ends up facing less deliveries than his partner(s).

I'm not privy to what was discussed in team meetings or on the pitch but if I were Gary Kirsten I'd instruct my batsmen to look for singles when they're batting with Sehwag. Put away the odd bad delivery but the first instinct should be find a gap and get Sehwag back on strike. Not only will it increase the scoring rate, it will also get the other batsmen going and they won't be stuck when Sehwag is finally dismissed.

The anti-superstar

It is no secret that fans the world over love and cherish their sporting heroes. These heroes do things most of us can only dream of. Some have style, some have charisma, some have raw power and aggression. Some have all of these. But every great sporting dynasty has a rock which cleans up the mess left behind by his team's stars. He's not very flashy, doesn't look hot in jeans, doesn't court media attention. He just keeps going out his job of helping his team win matches.

Derek Fisher does it for the present-day Lakers. The Yankees have Derek Jeter. The treble-winning Manchester United had Roy Keane, the feat being emulated recently by FC Barcelona and Inter Milan who have for years relied on Xavi Hernandez and Esteban Cambiasso respectively. Cambiasso was also big for the Real Madrid from the pre-Galacticos era. Coming to cricket, Australia had Damien Martyn to solidify their famed batting. The West Indies had, at different times, Rohan Kanhai, Alvin Kallicharran, Richie Richardson, Carl Hooper, and Shivnarine Chanderpaul.

This brings us to the team that is at the top of the table right now. Whether India is the best team in the world is an argument for another time and place. For now, I'm going to focus on the rock in the Indian team. It might come as a surprise to some but the person I'm talking about is not Rahul Dravid. No, Dravid averages a shade over 40 since the West Indies tour of 2006. That he has held onto his number 3 position is more a case of his reputation preceding him.

Here's a look at the performance of Indian batsmen since that tour:

No surprise that the two openers lead the team in terms of batting average, although Gambhir hasn't played a test in Australia, England, Pakistan, South Africa or the West Indies during this period. Sehwag's claim to being one of the best is quite legitimate, although he doesn't get past fifty as frequently as some of his teammates (Gambhir 46%, Tendulkar 41%, Laxman 40%, Dhoni 37%, Sehwag 34%). Ofcourse he makes up for it by scoring the biggest hundreds of all Indian players. Meanwhile, VVS Laxman averages almost as much as Sehwag during this period. Skeptics can point to the high number of not outs, but they are overlooking the fact that even though he hasn't get a lot of hundreds, his efforts have been crucial in that he's come in to bat with the team either in trouble or looking to score quickly to enforce a declaration. A lot of times he has had to shepherd the tail as he bats at 5 or 6. Moreover, he has the second-best percentage of 50+ scores so clearly he's been batting really well.

Laxman's performance looks even better when you consider he's been consistently prolific even away from home. Here's a look at how Indian batsman have fared on the road since the West Indies tour.

Tendulkar leads the team when it comes to away performance while Laxman is a close second. Sehwag is third but his average and percentage of 50+ scores drop considerably when he plays away from home. One thing these stats don't tell you is that Laxman has been better than Tendulkar if you exclude performances against Bangladesh. In fact, his average drops to 44 if you take out that opposition. Laxman, though, has maintained his performance by averaging 50.52 if you exclude his innings against Bangladesh. He's also more consistent than Tendulkar, going past 50 in 42% of his innings while Tendulkar has done it in just 34% of his innings. There is definitely a case for Laxman being the most reliable middle order batsman in the side.

So where does Laxman rank among middle order batsmen (Positions 4 to 7) across all teams? Pretty high actually, he has the fifth highest average since September 2006.

 Note that he has the highest average for Indian batsmen during this period (This doesn't include his innings at number 3). Again, these numbers look even better when you consider he has maintained his performance away from home. It's all the more admirable considering he's played everywhere except in the West Indies and Pakistan during this period. Here's a look at how he compares with other middle order batsmen away from home during the aforementioned period.

Samaraweera and Clarke drop out of the top 5 and is replaced by AB de Villiers whose home conditions have been kind to bowlers and Sachin Tendulkar thanks to his strong performance in Bangladesh (4 hundreds in 4 tests). Jayawardene is still up there but has been very inconsistent, although he's converted each of his five fifties into hundreds. AB de Villers tops the away list and is sixth otherwise. This augurs well for the youngster who has made no secret of his ambition to be the best batsman in world cricket. Shivnarine Chanderpaul has also been consistently prolific, once again proving that it's important to have a solid batsman to anchor the batting. It's a pity he's surrounded by so many mediocre players, in another era he might have been part of a leading test team.

It's hard to find faults with Laxman's performance over this period. People have tended to get carried away by Sehwag's brilliance and Tendulkar's second coming, but Laxman has been matching them all this while without getting a tenth of the recognition and respect. Even now, opposition players consider Sehwag the key wicket despite Laxman being at the other end. Maybe this plays into his hands as bowlers might relax a bit when bowling to him. It is in this backdrop that one feels happy for Laxman being regarded so highly by the best team in the world in recent years - They have considered him Very Very Special ever since they got  Laxmaned at the Eden Gardens.

How Dysfunctional Can Cricket Get?

The inevitable has happened. John Howard's push for becoming the ICC Vice-President has hit the mountain of a roadblock that all but Cricket Australia could see. This has kicked off a fresh round of accusations and counter accusations from the sides on either side.

Cricket Australia is miffed at its candidate being shafted without the boards having a logical reason to do so. Maybe they're not aware of all the Australians who can't stand the sight of their former Prime Minister. Maybe they thought their Big Brother attitude toward New Zealand would go unnoticed by the cricketing fraternity. One doesn't know how it managed to convince its neighbour to not back Sir John Anderson, a man with extensive experience as a cricket administrator. Is it surprising to see this happen when a few months ago Inderjit Singh Bindra's push for an ICC post was considered dangerous for the sport simply because he's Indian?

Australian journalists are talking about the ICC being split along racial lines. They usually start their editorials with their general dislike for Howard the politician and go on to state that it shouldn't be the reason boards object to his candidature, and that it isn't. They point to Zimbabwe's objection being a result of Howard's stand against the Mugabe regime, to which others point to his indifference to the apartheid regime in South Africa. They refuse to believe the man was opposed to his countrymen touring Zimbabwe because of the lessons he learnt from his indifferent stance toward South Africa.

Sri Lankans can't get over the fact that Howard called Muralitharan a chucker. Howard isn't the only man to call him that and I don't see why he had to be politically correct about a cricketer's action just because he was Prime Minister. One of the greatest spinners in the history of the game has shared Howard's view. It led to Murali consider filing a lawsuit against him. Apparently an international umpire was asked not to call Murali for chucking in the final of a World Cup. He refused and he didn't stand in that game, although that may have nothing to do with his stand on Murali's action.

These things only point to people wanting a puppet heading the ICC. An impotent and incompetent man completely devoid of any opinion or the will to act on one, not that John Howard is a man of impeccable character. It's probably a good thing that he won't be heading the ICC in two years time. One hopes it will be Sir John Anderson instead.

But neither is Sharad Pawar. The man hardly has a legacy of uniting people, he was the brains behind the biggest split in India's biggest national party. His tenure as the country's Agriculture Minister has seen hundreds of farmers committing suicide and steady increase in food prices. Coming to his cricketing legacy, he has his fingers in the IPL pie (Not that other politicians and BCCI officials don't). When he lost the BCCI election in 2004, his protege Shashank Manohar got the curator at the VCA Stadium to prepare a green top in order to help Australia win. The Aussies weren't going to look the gift horse in the mouth and duly demolished India to win their first series in the country in 35 years.

As for the fans, the Asians are happy to see their boards having so much leverage over the so-called white countries. One can increasingly see them wanting to get back at the white boards for decades of subjugation. Some are happily wishing for a split in the cricketing world so that their team doesn't have to share any money with the countries that are equally responsible for making the sport so popular in their country. On the other hand, the whites can't come to terms with the power shift and want to go back to the good old days when they had all the power.

While all this is happening, cricket drifts from one meaningless series to another. England and Australia are about to finish an inconsequential ODI series, India will play their second test series in Sri Lanka in two years and the Kiwis will join the two nations for a tri-series for a second year in a row. We still don't have a structured international calendar which sees teams playing each other equally over a period of time. There is major disparity in the amount of money the sport generates in various countries. The governing body can't arrive at a consensus on how to implement the UDRS.

These are just the issues I can think of off the top of my head. There are many more but I'm not going to hold my breath over them being solved. The administrators, players and fans involved with the sport are a bunch of retards who can't understand the simple fact that it's time to put the past behind them and look at making cricket a truly global sport. I hope they rot in hell alongwith the sport - I have other sports to capture my imagination if that happens.

Only a Question of Intent

Professional athletes the world over do what most of us wouldn't even dream of. They look extraordinarily good when the going is good but perhaps the greatest indicator of their commitment to excellence is how they react to being exposed of their shortcomings. On a macro level, it shows how far a team or an establishment is willing to do to achieve the desired goal. Indeed, it also shows how high they have set the bar for themselves.

The Germany v England match in the Round of 16 of the FIFA World Cup got me thinking about it. In many ways, the Indian cricket is similar to the England football. Both are under constant scrutiny, the players are among the most handsomely paid professionals of their sport, they have a rabid following, and both fall short on the big stage every single time. You could make a recent addition to the list - The Indian Premier League is supposedly the best cricket league in the world just as the Barclays Premier League is supposedly the best football league. I don't know how you define the best in this case but it seems people are increasingly going by the level of interest and the money involved. However, that's a discussion for another time.

The English have traditionally favoured a direct approach to football. There isn't as much focus on the technical aspects or encouragement for players to show their creativity. They have only one major international title to show for it and the team gets exposed at the world stage every two years. They have tried different coaches - English and Continental - for their international team and yet the best they have managed in the last 20 years is a semi-final appearance at the 1990 World Cup and another one at Euro 96. The players who shine so brightly in the uber-competitive Premiership always seem to stutter at the international stage.

A parallel could be drawn with Indian cricket. Those who have watched the side over the years will tell you it suffers from the same problems now as it did 20 years ago. There aren't enough quality fast bowlers, the fielding is abysmal, and there is a general lack of fitness awareness. It's fallacious to say current Indian cricketers are fitter and play better out-cricket than their their predecessors because the comparison has to be drawn with their present-day counterparts. Since the final of the 2003 World Cup, India has failed to progress to the knockout stage in 6 of the 7 ICC tournaments. The lone success came at the first ever Twenty20 World Cup in 2007. They are now under their third foreign coach and each of them has highlighted the need for a proper system that needs to be built from the grassroots level. To use a cliche, they have advocated the need for a bottoms-up approach rather than a top-down one.

Yet, nothing has been done about it. The batsmen who are coming through look hopeless on a wicket which has something for the bowlers. The fast bowlers lose their pace, control and fitness after a season or two. They all talk about the distractions that come with this life and yet none of them have been able to cope with it. The same excuses are brought out time and again - Our grounds aren't in good condition, we don't produce good pitches, selection is biased, and so on. The list is endless and you will hear former cricketers pay lip service to it everytime the team is exposed at the international level.

And yet, if you look around you can see establishments change their culture because they admit their follies and recognise the need to set things right if they are to be competitive. Germany crashed out of Euro 2000 and Euro 2004 at the group stage and while they made the finals of the 2002 World Cup, it seemed more like a case of them being there by default and they got found out by an inspired Brazil.

The Germans decided to set things right after exit from Euro 2004. What had always been a strong, efficient, meticulous German side was now being turned into one with flair and creativity. They embraced the possibility of being slightly vulnerable at the back by adding the threat of their players going forward. It can be seen from the fact that Germany are European Champions at every age-group and the average age of national squad is just 24. The early signs were seen in 2006 when Jurgen Klinsmann led them to a memorable performance at home where his team played attacking football throughout the tournament. Perhaps it was too early for them to go all the way and the Italians played a tactically brilliant game to eliminate them in the semifinal. 2008 saw the Germans go a step further only to be beaten by a Spain side that had been trying to win with the very approach Germany had embraced. Now the Germans have taken their customary place in the quarterfinal of the World Cup and should provide us a memorable contest when they take on the Maradona-inspired Argentina on Saturday.

There is a very obvious lesson that can be learnt from this German team. You could probably say the same about the England cricket team. These two have said goodbye to their past and embraced a different system simply because they have set their sights on being the best and are willing to do whatever it takes to achieve their goal. It's difficult to let go of something you have believed in for generations but it can be slightly easier if you are clear about your goal. The results may not come immediately either but if you have the right people in place they will stay focused on the path they have chosen.

It's Not Too Hard To Admit You Screwed Up

A perfect game is a rare sight in Baseball. It's probably rarer than a 10-wicket haul in an innings - There have only been 20 perfect games in the history of Major League Baseball. An MLB season comprises over 2500 games and the first perfect game was recorded in the year 1880. There have been 1958 tests and 2986 ODIs and a few more T20s. The total number of innings when you combine all these matches would be around 14,000. There have only been two ten-wicket hauls in an innings in the history of international cricket.

Why am I making this comparison? Well, it has something to do with how cricket umpires, and a lot of baseball umpires, refuse to acknowledge their mistakes and are opposed to the use of technology in order to reduce the number of mistakes. It is in this backdrop that Jim Joyce, an MLB umpire for 21 years, openly and unconditionally apologised for costing the Detroit Tigers pitcher Armando Galarraga a perfect game. It wasn't a case of the umpire making a wrong call midway through the game - It would have been the last out and the game would have ended right there had he got it right. No Tigers pitcher has ever pitched a perfect game. The team has been around for over a hundred years and has won Four World Series alongwith 10 American League Championships. Suffice to say the team has been home to a number of great players.

It's really heartening to see Joyce realise his role in the game as that of a facilitator who enables players to go about displaying their ability for the millions who follow the sport. He has shown the way to officials who tend to think they're as important as the players and that nobody is allowed to criticise them when they make mistakes. It's high time they realised technology is only there to help them make the right decision, somewhat like an insurance cover for the times they get it wrong.

Why Don't You Show You Belong?

Let me start off by saying my opinion on whether Bangladesh should be playing test cricket doesn't count. The ICC has made the decision for whatever reason and that's that.

But it's getting tiresome to read about Bangladeshi players trying to prove a point to those who think they don't deserve to be playing test cricket. A few months ago unnamed media personnel took pleasure in Bangladesh getting the better of India for one day of a test match after Virender Sehwag had called them ordinary and that they couldn't beat India because they can't take 20 wickets - Bangladesh have taken 20 wickets in only 4 of their 67 tests. The match predictably ended in a comfortable win for India with Bangladesh vindicating Sehwag by not being able to dismiss his side twice. Ofcourse the narrative after the game was that of the Bangladeshi side running India close.

Bangladesh have now played 67 tests, a reasonably big number to take stock of where they stand. I looked at how they compare to the 9 other test playing nations over their respective 67 tests from the time they started playing test cricket.

Team	Played	Won	Lost	Drawn	Win%	W/L Ratio	Bat Avg	Bowl Avg	Avg Diff
England	67	35	22	10	52.24	1.591	24.4	20.77	3.63
Australia	67	26	28	13	38.81	0.929	22.51	24.26	-1.75
RSA	67	12	37	18	17.91	0.324	23.12	30.7	-7.58
WI	67	18	26	23	26.87	0.692	31.15	33.2	-2.05
NZ	67	3	32	32	4.48	0.094	22.67	37.77	-15.1
India	67	6	29	32	8.96	0.207	26.7	37.23	-10.53
Pakistan	67	11	21	35	16.42	0.524	28.19	33.97	-5.78
SL	67	8	31	28	11.94	0.258	27.22	39.15	-11.93
Zimbabwe	67	7	37	23	10.45	0.189	27.16	37.9	-10.74
Bangladesh	67	3	58	6	4.48	0.052	21.75	50.29	-28.54

It doesn't matter what category you look at, Bangladesh are dead last. New Zealand match them in terms of their Win % over their first 67 tests but have a much better Win-Loss ratio as well as a much lower difference between their batting and bowling average. It's not even that teams that started playing test cricket later have necessarily inferior records. West Indies started playing almost 30 years after South Africa but have a considerably better record. Pakistan started playing test cricket in the early fifties and they have a better record than New Zealand and India, and pretty much at par with South Africa. It's interesting to note that even Zimbabwe started off just as well as India.

It's about time Shakib and his teammates realised they need to stop behaving like they're entitled to something just because they have test status and start winning some tests, or atleast drawing them. They need to realise the odd good performance by one of their players isn't going to get them there and it's the whole team that needs to put in a more disciplined and consistent effort if they want to be respected by the cricketing community.

India Kiss Goodbye to Potential Medals at Asian Games

The BCCI has taken it upon itself to not send either a men's or women's team for the 2010 Asian Games to be held in Guangzhou from November 12 to 27. This is the official line from the board:

"We would not be able to send our team, both men and women, for the Asian Games in China because of international commitments," the BCCI chief administrative officer Ratnakar Shetty said in Mumbai. "We have communicated the same to the Indian Olympic Association."

The news of India not sending a team to the Asian Games came out last night. Yet, none of the TV channels have picked up on it. Come the Asian Games they'll lament the lack of gold medals. Wonder what's stopping them from taking up this issue before the games.

Right. We're hosting New Zealand for a full series in November. The Kiwis haven't toured India since 2003 so it's quite right for the BCCI to not scrap a series against them. Not like they can, they haven't hosted New Zealand for this FTP cycle. I checked the upcoming fixtures for India and New Zealand and as of now there is nothing scheduled for players of either team from September until the 2011 World Cup. It's probably because the itinerary for these teams hasn't been finalised. We know India are playing Australia right after the Champions League and will tour South Africa after the home series against New Zealand. Also, the Kiwis are touring Bangladesh for two tests and three ODIs. This only leaves the month of November for the series against the Kiwis. But why exactly are we playing Australia again? We've already hosted them for two ODI series and a test series during this FTP cycle. It's just an arrangement between the two boards whereby they'll flog this rivalry till nobody is interested. Bit like the scores of ODIs we've played against Sri Lanka since 2008. Even New Zealand toured Bangladesh in October 2008, so why are they touring the country again this year?

Does it really make any sense to be playing some teams way more often that required? Not really. But this is what you get when boards are only looking after their own interests, not that the BCCI is the only guilty party here. The people won't care, they get to see their players frequently. It's not like there's much else to watch on television anyway.

This is just about the men's team. What about the women? Considering their performance at the world stage they should be a shoo-in for the gold at the Asian Games. Again, I'm not aware of the ladies being tied up in a series during the Asian Games.

The board continues to enjoy huge tax exemptions from the central and state governments, has control of stadia at dirt cheap rates and is provided free security from state police. It's quite obvious this shouldn't be happening, more so now that the BCCI has refused to send its players to the Asian Games. But how can this change when you have so many politicians involved with the BCCI?

And what about the players? We hear them talk about how much pride they feel in playing for their country. Why hasn't a single cricketer - current of former - come out and said the BCCI should be sending its players to Guangzhou? Surely this will increase the suspicion on them for taking performance enhancing substances. First they refused to accept the controversial whereabouts clause and now they've been silent over their non-participation at an event that is likely to be the subject of a lot of testing.

Why Captaincy is Redundant

It's scandalous to suggest that captaincy doesn't count for much but it's getting increasingly difficult for me to believe otherwise. I'm tired of seeing captains set template fields and make a cosmetic change every now and then. Commentators cry themselves hoarse every time batsmen edge one down to third man for a boundary. Captains try to plug the gap by taking a fielder out from the covers and putting him in the slip cordon. When was the last time you saw a captain leaving mid on open in a test to encourage the batsman to drive?

The next time you watch a test just compare the number of balls hit to mid on to those hit through the covers or edged behind square. It's amazing that captains continue to ignore this disparity. I've talked to a few cricket followers about this and the standard excuse is the bowler can't afford to drift even slightly as the batsman can easily punch it straight. In that case, why have a fine leg or a square leg? Why not put a deep square leg and a very straight midwicket? The fielder at deep square leg would also be useful as a catcher for the surprise bouncer. The bowler would have to drift way down leg in order to concede a boundary in this case. I think it's worth taking out a fielder from the on side and putting him on third man. Batsmen edge a lot more balls down there than they glance to fine leg.

Another aspect of captaincy I am sick of is the use of the nightwatchman.  As a batsman, I've always wanted to bat as much as I could. I understand some batsmen are more jittery than others and don't want to go out to bat with a handful of overs left, but IT IS THEIR JOB. Bowlers should simply refuse to be sacrificial lambs when asked to go out as nightwatchmen. They're not as well-equipped as their batsmen to see off the last few overs and also run the risk of copping a blow that might prevent them from bowling. But more importantly, the opposition bowlers see a great chance of picking up a wicket. If that happens, the batsman coming in next would be under even greater pressure.

I've seen it happen way too many times, more often than nightwatchmen adding nuisance value to the opposition. Yesterday was a case in point. Bangladesh had done really well to surpass England's total after following on. They lost their fourth wicket with a lead of 98 and just 4 overs left in the day. The captain was slated to come in next but instead sent in Shahadat Hossain. Hossain is a slogger at the best of times and the last person you'd expect to hold up an end. Sure enough, he was back in the pavilion after facing just 4 deliveries and not getting off the mark. Shakib walked in at 5 down with just one more run added to the total and 3.3 overs to negotiate. In sending Hossain before him, not only did Bangladesh lose a wicket. They also lost a batsman who could have added 15-20 runs at the back of the innings.

This isn't just the case with Bangladesh. Just about every team is guilty of such passive cricket. Strauss lost the Wisden Trophy in the Caribbean last year after two late declarations. Dhoni drew a test against New Zealand he had no business not winning after his side had dominated all five days. Ponting has been averse to enforcing the follow on ever since the Eden Gardens test, although it has to be said that he was more aggressive during the Australian summer.

I don't know how aggressive captains were before I started watching cricket about 20 years ago. One could argue they've been more adventurous by pointing to the number of successful run chases in recent times, but it could very well be a result of flatter pitches and decline in the quality of bowlers. To me, captains are robbing us of a more cerebral aspect of the game by not having the will to redefine the way cricket is played.

IPL Needs Rocket Scientists

Or so it seems. The study suggests IPL administrators have absolutely no connection with their most important stakeholders - The fans. Not that most of us don't know about it. I have come across a lot of people complaining of the advertising overkill during the IPL. While one understands the need to recoup multimillion dollar investments, the companies that make these investments also need to understand that too many ads may result in lack of brand retention among viewers. In some cases the viewer may even negatively associate with the brand. I know I'm never going to buy a Max, Micromax or Karbonn Mobile, not that those brands ever appealed to me in the first place.

Consider this takeaway from the survey:


"While 51% of respondents got the names of the brands that dot the teams' jerseys wrong, more than a quarter (26%) couldn't recall even a single brand"

When the IPL started out in 2008, IMG stressed on a Less is More approach with regard to team sponsors. Unfortunately the men who matter decided to ditch this strategy in the very next season. As a result, each team had five to six sponsor logos on various places on their kit. They even moved the players' names to below their jersey number so that they could charge a higher amount for a better-placed sponsor logo.

TV ads didn't seem to leave any lasting impression either, or atleast not a positive one.

"As for the ads on TV, only a fifth of the respondents (20%) remembered any of the much-maligned mid-over ads, which were introduced this season by re-packaging the time gained from the shortened strategic time-outs.

Other ads fared the same: while 38% remembered the ads traditionally run between overs, the commercials that flashed on the side of the screen during play, like strangers sneaking into a photograph, were retained by just 9% of the group.

The report accompanying the survey is clear on what's wrong. "Instead of ads that seem to irritate viewers as they interfere with the flow of the game and thus create a negative image in the mind of the viewers, ads that continue without disrupting the game like boundary boards should be looked into," it says."

Big surprise. Why would I care about Gambhir and Sehwag fighting over Vidya during a tight runchase? I'd much rather want a view of the whole field to see where the fielders are. It also provides sponsors a subtle advertising opportunity through boundary boards. I don't know what percentage of viewers would notice those ads but atleast they wouldn't be put off by them as much as they are when the live feed cuts to an ad at a crucial juncture of a match.

Granted the global economic crisis had everyone sweating over their investments . It didn't help that the league and the Indian Government couldn't come up with a workable schedule resulting in matches being played in South Africa, thereby increasing costs and reducing sponsorship revenue. But you would expect organisations such as MDAG, United Breweries and GMR to understand that they're in this for the long haul. You would also expect the companies that decided to put their logos on players' kits to understand the need for exclusivity and advertisers to be more aware of what is their best opportunity to reach out to its target audience. Maybe they thought the millions of eyeballs Mr. Modi so passionately talks about were solely focused on their ads and logos and that there was a direct positive correlation between increased viewership and sales.

There is a very popular saying in marketing - Half the marketing budget of a company is wasted, you just don't know which half. Unfortunately, rocket scientists aren't exactly adept at marketing so don't be surprised to find even more clutter during the next IPL season.