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.

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