What Jose Will Never Admit

1. Porto beat Manchester United in 2004 after United had a perfectly legitimate goal ruled offside.
2. Jorge Andrade being sent off for allegedly kicking the ball at a Porto player in the semis.
3. His accusations toward Anders Frisk caused the referee to retire after angry Chelsea fans made death threats.
4. Ricardo Carvalho pulled down Victor Valdes as John Terry headed the ball into the Barcelona goal in the second leg at Stamford Bridge in 2005.
5. Chelsea prepared a sandpit for Barcelona in the first leg at Stamford Bridge in 2006.
6. Asier Del Horno should have been booked for a studs up challenge on Lionel Messi before he was shown a direct red for kicking the ball onto him after the referee had already blown the whistle.
6. Chelsea got a penalty in the second leg even though there was no foul on John Terry.
7. Michael Ballack should've been booked for a foul on Thierry Henry in the first leg of the semi-final in 2009.
8. The aforementioned foul was in the penalty area and would have resulted in a penalty and Barcelona most likely going into the second leg with a lead.
9. Eric Abidal was wrongly sent off in that game after Anelka tripped on himself.
10.Diego Milito's goal in the first leg of the semi-final in 2010 was offside.
11.Thiago Motta elbowed Sergio Busquets. Even if Busquets hadn't made a meal of it, that was a red.
12.Barcelona had a goal ruled out because Toure was deemed to have handled the ball, even though he had no time to avoid it.
13.Pepe should have been sent off in the Copa Del Rey final.
14.Sergio Ramos got booked for elbowing Lionel Messi.

Edit: I had got the first one wrong. Porto's goal at Old Trafford was fine, it was United who had a goal disallowed even though Scholes was atleast a metre onside. Props to Rohan the United supporter for pointing it out.

The World Doesn't Move to the Beat of Just One Drum

It's amazing how there appears to be an unwritten code that demands footballers to get on with it despite being kicked around. Apparently it's a bigger crime to stay on the ground when you're fouled than it is to commit the foul in the first place. So who cares if your most precious asset, your legs, are constantly stamped on and/or poked at by elite athletes even though it's the ball that they need to be kicking? I mean what's the big deal if an Eduardo or a Ramsey breaks his leg? Who cares if a player misses multiple months due to an injury? They knew what they were getting into, isn't it?

Sure, everybody knows football at the highest level can be a very risky game where you're one bad tackle away from having your career ended. But why hold it against players when they do everything they can to ensure it doesn't happen to them? I dislike the exaggerated reaction to fouls as any other person, but it can never come close to a malicious foul even if that foul didn't result in a serious injury. One of them can influence the course of a tie, the other can influence the course of a tie and a player's career. People would do well to maintain a sense of perspective in such cases.

It is in this context that I would like to view last night's game between Real Madrid and Barcelona. Anyone who knows a thing or two about football should have seen it coming. There was no way in hell Real were going to allow an open game, even though it might just have been in their favour to be more aggressive on the ball rather than on the opposition players. Barcelona were missing all three of their left backs and had to slot in a semi-fit Carles Puyol to play in that position. It also meant they were without their first-choice centre back, and Diego Milito was also injured. As a result, they had to play a defensive midfielder in that position. They were also missing Andres Iniesta, who just happens to be one of the best creative midfielders in world football.

Why then would you put out a side at home to just sit back and absorb whatever Barcelona throw at you, especially when you have spent hundreds of millions on players who are supposed to score goals for a living? Lassana Diarra was penalised twice in the first half hour for tackling from behind and not getting a piece of the ball. He was pushing the limit all game and on another night he might have been booked. But when you as the opposition player see the referee not do anything about such tackles, why wouldn't you protest? If kicking players is a legitimate tactic to intimidate them, surely making the most of such challenges and pressurising the referee is just as fine? Unlike Rugby or American Football where contact is essential, it is only incidental in football. Don't tell that to most of the fans though, who think kicking players is an absolutely legitimate tactic.

Ofcourse the flip side to this argument is that players like Alves and Busquets made the most of the fouls committed on them. But does it change the fact that those fouls were committed? Pepe's studs up tackle on Alves is the kind that ruins careers. I remember UEFA banning Michael Essien for two games for a similar tackle on Jamie Carragher in 2006, and I bet people would be quick to point out that those two games happened to be against Barcelona.

I could say a lot about Mourinho and his one-eyed view of incidents, but I'll leave that for another post. For now, I'm going to enjoy this piece of brilliance from Messi and I hope that whoever I marry lets me name my first-born Lionel.

O Captain, My Captain! Give me my Humble Pie!!!

They used to ask who wrote Ian Botham's scripts. I think it's time people asked that question about Mahendra Singh Dhoni. Those who think it's disrespectful to question Dhoni's tactics miss the point: We all want him to lead the side to victory. Just because we disagree with some of his decisions doesn't mean we don't want him to be captain. Conversely, just because we agree with some of his decisions doesn't mean we'd blindly back him on everything.

I thought the decision to play a third seamer in the last two games was the wrong one. Dhoni admitted to making that mistake in the semis and I'm glad he can do that inspite of the intense scrutiny he's put under. Playing Sreesanth ahead of Ashwin was wrong too, but it didn't cost us a win. On another day it might. On the other hand, it was the right thing for Dhoni to bat at 5 with 3 offspinners in the Lankan side. As good as Yuvraj has been, he's never been comfortable against them. The required rate was very much under control and it made a lot of sense to save him for bowlers he could hammer all over the Wankhede. It would've been the right decision even if Dhoni had gotten out.

I think Dhoni understands this, and as long as we're civil about expressing our opinion it's alright. It was nice to see him not take the bait Ravi Shastri dangled in front of him. He knew he hadn't batted well in the World Cup so far and wanted to prove a point to himself. He's a much bigger man than Shastri and all those bitter "experts" will ever be. Let's not talk about how sick it makes us when we see a cricketer endorse a brand right after he's been dismissed. These guys have a much shorter career span than so many of us and we should let them decide their priorities. Question their tactics, but please don't question their motives without concrete evidence because these guys have worked so much harder than any of us to be where they are.

Anyone I talk cricket with knows I did not think India would win this World Cup before the start of the tournament. It wasn't because of the weight of expectations or anything, I just thought a lineup that hadn't played together for the past year or so, out of form middle order batsmen and a bowling attack that sold itself short in its quest for wickets could win three knockout games in a row.

As it turns out, it took the side a while to realise Kohli's place shouldn't be messed around with. The brilliant allround performance of Yuvraj was obviously the biggest boost for the side, one not even his biggest supporters would have expected. Everyone knew he had the ability to pace his innings in ODIs but no one expected him to bowl 10 overs and take 2 wickets almost every game. The bowling was just about good, but Zaheer provided the leadership it desperately needed and Yuvraj took away the headache of the fifth bowler. It is amazing that of the many "experts" on TV & in the media, none of them has picked up on Zaheer's knuckleball. Sometimes it helps to expand your horizons. Kudos to whoever got Zaheer to try that delivery.

The addition of Raina gave the side a leader in the fielding department. It is difficult to quantify the impact of fielding, but if ever there was a case for recognising a player's "intangibles", Raina is a prime example. I remember an incident from the game against Pakistan when a throw came in and Nehra wasn't aware of it. The ball would've hit him but Raina stepped in to take the blow. It's the sort of thing TV cameras never pick up, but the men on the field do. It would be wrong to not touch on his lower order batting in the two knockout games. The team was right in trying Pathan at the start of the World Cup, and it was also right in going back to their finisher when Pathan couldn't deliver. It's not a knock on Pathan, he should be (And I bet he is) proud to be part of a World Cup winning side.

Last but not least, a big Thank You to Gary Kirsten. You have sacrificed over 3 years of family life to turn us into a proper team. You have done it without being overbearing, without going behind the players' backs, and with a lot of dignity even when things didn't go the way India wanted them to. I hope you enjoyed working in our land and achieve great success in whatever project you take up. I wish you would have stayed longer but nothing comes before family and nation. Just don't join the Mumbai Manhooses. They're Evil :)

History Beckons...Again

This might be the age of ratings and rankings but those who have watched test cricket over the years would largely agree that teams focus a lot more on a series than they do on calculating how many points they need to retain/improve their spot on the ICC ladder. That is why, while India have retained the number one spot irrespective of the result of the Newlands test, a lot of people are skeptical about their status as the number one. One of their arguments is that India have never won a series in either Australia or South Africa. It is also why a lot of people are touting England to be the best side in the world, even though they've been beating up on the weakest Australian teams since the 1980s.


There is no denying the fact that India's home win over Australia in 2001 was a watershed moment in the history of Indian cricket. That Australian team was the strongest to visit Indian shores since the 1994 West Indies side that hadn't lost a series since 1979-80. Back in 1994, India took a 1-0 lead after the first test but blinked in the second test when they had the chance to finish the series and tell the cricketing world that they were a force to reckon with. The Windies came back and forced a win on the back of an all out attack in the second innings of the third and final test. The Windies continued their streak, India continued to be underachievers. A few months later Mark Taylor's Australia who ended their dominance and in the process made Australia legitimate contenders for the best side in the world. It took them 4 more years to separate themselves from the pack but once they did it, they remained the undisputed best side in the world for almost a decade.


There have been quite a few series since 2001 when history beckoned India, who cheated themselves out of an historic result. In 2003-04 they faced an Australian team without its two best bowlers. After a brilliant comeback in the first test at Brisbane, India showed they had the resolve and the ability to bring the Aussies to their knees at Adelaide. However, they collapsed after Sehwag played one of the best Boxing Day knocks at the MCG. The final test saw Australia save their unbeaten home record of 10 years thanks to some docile Indian batting, inability to mop up the tail, shoddy wicket-keeping and dubious umpiring.


Three years later they had another chance, this time in South Africa. India were in all sorts of trouble going into the first test at Johannesburg. They had lost the ODI series 4-0, their captain had a broken finger, the relationship between the coach Greg Chappell and the players was deteriorating, and the chairman of selectors Dilip Vengsarkar had recalled former captain Sourav Ganguly - the man who was said to have been dropped at Chappell's behest.


The pitch that greeted the visitors was green and had cracks running through its length. Infact, the start was delayed because the curator thought the pitch wasn't ready. India won the toss and chose to bat in what was perceived to be a show of aggression. They didn't put up a big score but the South African reply put India's score in perspective, as the hosts were bowled out for just 84. A first innings lead of 165 was enough of a buffer as India won their first test in South Africa. However, just like in Australia, they squandered the advantage by losing the very next test. It was all the more sad because South Africa were without their best player - Jacques Kallis - for that test. The third test was played on an unusually rough wicket. India got the crucial first innings lead and looked set to push for an historic series win, when debutant Paul Harris tied down Dravid and Tendulkar on day four. India collapsed after those two couldn't kick on and Kallis anchored a fairly tricky run chase after captain Graeme Smith had played another one of his famous fourth innings knocks. Another series, another opportunity lost. This time serious questions were raised of Tendulkar's place in the side, as he was in the middle of a lean run and had failed to take on Paul Harris.


After a disastrous World Cup campaign, India started rebuilding and registered series wins in Bangladesh and England, as well as their first home win over Pakistan since 1979. Next up was an away series against an Australian side that had won 14 tests in a row, although 12 of those wins had come when Warne and McGrath hadn't retired. The selection for the tour betrayed a defensive mindset, as Wasim Jaffer did just enough to ensure the selectors wouldn't drop him and an out-of-form Rahul Dravid was moved to the top of the order to accommodate Yuvraj Singh. Shockingly, the selectors had completely overlooked Virender Sehwag as he wasn't even in the list of probables for the tour. I don't know how they went from that to picking him in the final squad but it was the only bright spot in an otherwise defensive selection policy. Maybe Ian Chappell's opinionated piece calling for Sehwag to be in the side tilted it, although going by the comments it seems like Indians thought he was trying to finish off the Indian team by making such an outrageous suggestion. The preparation for the test series was far from ideal as the side had just one practice match before the first test at the MCG, and even that match was hit by incessant rains.


Sure enough, India got rolled over in the first test as they failed to score 200 in either innings. Another heartbreaking loss followed in the second test at Sydney as India failed to bat less than a day to save a test they should have won. There were a lot of questionable calls from both umpires but if Anil Kumble is honest to himself he will know his side had no business collapsing on the final day. He should also question his decision to accept Ponting's pact on walking if the fielder claims a catch. I'm sure he accepted it with the best of intentions, but there was a reason why no other captain agreed to it. Kumble did lead his side to an inspiring win at Perth but the series was already over as Australia had retained the Border Gavaskar Trophy by taking an unassailable lead in the series. One couldn't help but think India didn't give themselves the best chance to register their first ever series win Down Under. A year later South Africa broke Australia's unbeaten home record of 16 years by winning two of the greatest tests in recent times.


India have crept slowly and surely up the ladder and are now perched on top of it. However, their position at the top isn't that steady and it needs a statement like the one Australia made in 1995 for the side to assert themselves as the undisputed number one. That this side has the ability and belief to bounce back is now known to even the skeptics. The Durban test took care of that, although one could argue that a better preparation going into the first test of the series may have helped the side draw if not win at Centurion.


But all that is behind us and with just one more day of cricket left in the series this Indian team has the chance to establish itself as unarguably the greatest ever to come out of the country. Weather interruptions notwithstanding, they have 340 runs to get in a minimum of 90 overs. It's a difficult target in the best of circumstances so it's probably more difficult considering South Africa's new ball pairing and the state of the pitch. Most sides wouldn't dare go for it and I suspect that's exactly what Graeme Smith is counting on. Tactically speaking, playing for a draw is only going to put more pressure on the Indian batsmen and I think they should play to win this test.Let me make it clear that by playing to win I don't mean they should go out and throw their bat at everything. To me, it starts with the openers actively looking to take singles against the new ball. The loose deliveries may or may not come, but rotating the strike will not only force Steyn and Morkel to frequently alter their line, it will also put Smith on the defensive. Over the past 13 months South Africa have failed to force a win on Day 5 on four occasions, two of which came at home. Kallis won't be bowling and if India get through to lunch at 100/1 or better, we might just get a close finish. The problem for India is Sehwag has had a bad series and he's never been a good second innings batsman. Also, Rahul Dravid has shown no signs of getting out of a funk that's seen him not score a hundred outside India or Bangladesh in four and a half years.

But there is a far more important reason I think India should play to win this test. Time and again they have blinked at the sight of making history. 20 years from now when people look back at what will be known as the golden era of Indian cricket, they won't remember the series India drew in Australia. They won't remember the series India lost in Australia or South Africa. And if India don't play to win today, people will sure as hell not remember the day India drew a test series in South Africa. But what they will remember is an Indian side that looked history in the eye and this time didn't blink, even if it means they ended up falling short in their effort. To me, settling for a draw is the easiest option India can take. However, there is a tougher option out there and it's given Dhoni and his men the chance to make this the greatest ever series in the history of Indian cricket. The flip side is a series loss, which is really no different from their past results in this country and won't be remembered as fondly or for as long as a series win.

50 years ago a West Indies side made history in Australia when Sir Frank Worrell won over the cricketing world with one of the greatest series of all time. The Windies lost the series 1-2 but got a rousing send-off from the city of Melbourne. To this day, that series is remembered fondly by players on either side. The lasting legacy of that series is it gave a name to the rivalry between two of the strongest cricketing nations. I doubt we'll have a similar legacy from the series going on in South Africa, but it can be an historic series nevertheless. History beckons...is India ready to make it?

IPL Player Retention and Auction Dynamics

The list of players retained by IPL franchises is out and it’s no surprise to see Mumbai and Chennai retain their full quota of four players. Rajasthan have retained two while Delhi and Bangalore have retained just one player each. Some of the choices like Tendulkar, Pollard, Dhoni, Raina and Sehwag are obvious ones. There are a couple of picks that surprised me, namely Shane Warne and Virat Kohli. Not because I don’t think they are good enough to be retained but because I don’t think Bangalore and Rajasthan would have had to bid $1.8 million and $1.3 million respectively should these two players have gone into the auction. I assumed the $1.3 million figure for Warne as Rajasthan also retained Shane Watson. Come to think of it it’s also a stretch to believe Watson would have drawn a bid for $1.3 million let alone $1.8 million.

So how does one explain this? Well, one thing that needs to be noted is the franchises may not be paying the retained players the same amount as that they lose from their auction money. For example, it could very well be that Mumbai Indians are paying Tendulkar, say $2 million, but they’ll lose on $1.8 million from their payroll. Conversely, they could be paying him $1.5 million and still lose $1.8 million before going into the auction. In essence, the amount a franchise pays to a player it retains has been negotiated internally.

It’s easy to understand teams retaining players on a salary higher than what they lose before going into the auction, especially if the owners are as rich as Mukesh Ambani or N Srinivasan. But there is an interesting scenario wherein a team might choose to lose a higher amount from its payroll despite paying him less. In their brief history Rajasthan have been the smallest spenders in the IPL. It hasn’t affected their performances a lot. Afterall, they won the inaugural IPL and were just one win away from a semi-final spot in the last two seasons. It could very well be that Rajasthan got Warne and Watson to settle for a lot less than $3.1 million put together, thereby avoiding a scenario wherein the franchise could get into in a bidding war and either lose them or have to pay an amount greater than what they signed these two for. This may also explain them not retaining Yusuf Pathan who might have declined the salary Rajasthan were offering him. Afterall, he could well go for more than $900,000 or whatever amount Rajasthan were willing to offer. Sure they now have just $5.9 million for the auction, but if Mumbai and Chennai are confident of building a squad with just $4.5 million each then Rajasthan wouldn’t have a problem building theirs with $1.4 million more to play around with.

How does all this affect the auction? For starters, half the teams are going into it with a smaller purse than the other half.

Team	Auction Money (USD)	Players Remaining	Average Price (USD)
Deccan	9 million	25	360,000
Kochi	9 million	25	360,000
Kolkata	9 million	25	360,000
Pune	9 million	25	360,000
Punjab	9 million	25	360,000
Bangalore	7.2 million	24	300,000
Delhi	7.2 million	24	300,000
Rajasthan	5.9 million	23	256,521
Chennai	4.5 million	21	214,285
Mumbai	4.5 million	21	214,285

Some of the spots will be taken up by domestic players who won’t go into the auction. These players include Ambati Rayudu, Siddharth Trivedi, T Suman, Mithun Manhas, Iqbal Abdulla. However, anyone who has played for India will go into the auction. This means players like Cheteshwar Pujara, Umesh Yadav, Abhishek Nayar, Saurabh Tiwary, Ashok Dinda, Venugopal Rao will be able to test the market.

Now we have a situation in which some teams have more leverage going into the auction. But there is another variable in this whole process as teams don’t know the order in which players would be bid on. Hence, there could be a scenario in which a team is forced to bid an excessive amount for a player just because he happened to be among the first few names out of the hat. As a result, they may not have enough money to bid on a lot of other quality players later on in the auction. Mumbai and Chennai are in the weakest position as far as the auction is concerned, but they’ve covered up well through the players they’ve retained. They just need to guard against getting into a bidding war early on in the auction as it would be difficult to have a proper squad if they have to spend $1 million or more on getting a good keeper-batsman (Mumbai) or a wicket-taking fast bowler (Chennai). The other teams could identify the missing pieces in Mumbai or Chennai and try upping the price of players who these two teams might need desperately.

I don’t know if all this sounds interesting to most people. It does to me because I think this is where the businesspeople in the franchises need to think hard about getting the slightest edge over the others. Players will be locked in for three years and if the suits screw up at the auction there will be a lot of trouble on and off the field. One just needs to look at the Kolkata Knight Riders and the Bangalore Royal Challengers from the first season to realize the importance of player acquisition.

Shut Up and Bowl

I'm going to come straight to the point before getting into the details. Harbhajan Singh has got to go. Not permanently, as every cricketer deserves to come back if he shows that he's improved, but atleast for the time being.

I haven't read anything from the men who matter about Harbhajan's prolonged run of poor bowling.  Maybe they're unaware of it. Maybe they don't have enough faith in the alternate options. Afterall, neither Ojha nor Mishra has performed much better than Harbhajan. What's more, they don't make Ravi Shastri make outrageous claims about them being allrounders.

But how is it that no one has picked up on Harbhajan blaming everyone but himself everytime he doesn't perform? A few years ago he had a problem with the Kookaburra ball. He made no secret of the fact that he didn't like the ball as its seam wasn't as prominent as that of the SG ball and that it went flat very quickly. It was never a problem for Murali or Warne. Even Vettori seemed to do okay with that ball and he played his home games on pitches that weren't necessarily suited to his bowling.

One could give Harbhajan the benefit of doubt here as he was still new to test cricket and didn't get to practise with the Kookaburra enough as more often than not Kumble was India's pick for the lone spinner in away tests since his brilliant performance Down Under in 2003-04. Over the years though, Harbhajan has played tests in Pakistan, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka, Australia and the West Indies. He has also played a lot of limited overs cricket around the world so one would think he would have learnt to use the Kookaburra better. If he has he's surely done a great job of hiding it, for his test record in these countries is very mediocre.

He's done well in New Zealand and the West Indies but struggled elsewhere. It's hard to say he's suffered because of the ball or that he's adjusted to it.

So what about his performances at home with the SG ball that he seemed to like so much? They're nothing to write home about either. An average of over 35 with a strike rate of 76.5 would be unacceptable for the lead spinner of an attack that has thrived on spin in Indian conditions.

It is all the more disappointing considering he averaged a little less than 24 and had a strike rate of just 55 until the end of 2005. The last 5 years should have been a period in which he graduated to the status of a world class spinner who took wickets in all conditions. Instead, he's been reduced to making excuses for his performance by blaming the groundsman. It's interesting that while he says critics think he bowls well only when he takes wickets, his opinion of the pitch itself changed based on the number of wickets he took on it, as just 5 days before his criticism of the pitch he was quite happy about it after taking 4 wickets on that day. And I'm not even getting into the fact that he took the last 4 wickets to fall in the New Zealand innings after Zaheer Khan had struck the telling blows by getting 4 of their top 6 (Oh wait, I just did).

Daniel Vettori, on the other hand, has 11 wickets in the series and has had to bowl at the stronger batting lineup than the one Harbhajan has bowled to. He also has to lead his side unlike Harbhajan who is utterly incapable of even leading his team's bowling attack. Vettori has quietly gone about strangling the Indian batsmen even when the pitch hasn't offered much turn or uneven bounce. He's kept Sehwag quiet by the batsman's free scoring standards and really tested Tendulkar in the first test by conceding just 7 runs off the 65 deliveries he bowled to him. It might have had a role to play in Tendulkar stepping out to him and losing his wicket on Day 3 of the second test as Kartikeya suggests. Unlike Harbhajan, Vettori has used his experience to his advantage instead of being stuck on the condition of the pitch.


The team management has stuck by Harbhajan through his worst times as a cricketer when he was accused of racially abusing Andrew Symonds. A lot of people, some credible and some not so much, backed him as they believed his version of the story. They have also backed him despite 5 years of performances ranging from average to downright pathetic. Yet, he's shown no sign of even admitting that he needs to improve. It's about time Dhoni or Tendulkar told him to Just Shut Up and Bowl.

Cricket with the FT - By Lionel Barber

A couple of days ago I received an email asking me to spread the word about an article in the Financial Times. The article is from Lionel Barber, editor of the Financial Times, titled ‘Cricket with the FT’, which talks about his day playing cricket with Imran Khan at his hilltop home overlooking Rawalpindi and neighbouring Islamabad.

Please note that the article is not mine and I haven't had any part to play in the writing of it. Do go through it and scoot over to the original which is on the FT website.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Cricket with the FT

By Lionel Barber

Our black four-wheel Toyota accelerates uphill, weaving past potholes and buffalo, en route to the hilltop home of Imran Khan. Hours earlier, aboard a Pakistani air force helicopter, I toured for two hours the areas north of Islamabad devastated by the worst floods for nearly a century. So I ask myself: which is the riskier journalistic venture: flying in a Russian-built M1-171 over a terror-stricken, nuclear-armed country often described as the most dangerous on earth or squaring up to the bowling of Imran, one of the finest cricketers of his generation?

Fixing a time and location for our sporting encounter has proved a challenge. Imran is a professional politician these days, the founder and head of the opposition Tereek-I-Insaf or Movement for Justice. He is also a prodigious philanthropist. Inside two and a half weeks, he raised 2.5bn rupees to help the flood victims; now he is in the middle of a 20 million dollar annual fund raising exercise for the cancer hospital he set up in his native Lahore in 1996 in memory of his mother, a victim of colon cancer; and he is expanding Namal college in the rural north, built in association with the university of Bradford, where he is chancellor. Plainly there is not much spare time for anything, let alone cricket with the FT.

Yet the man who greets me in his airy and stylish home is in excellent physical shape. He is tall, sinewy and, at 57, still strikingly handsome. The mop of ebony black hair shows no sign of fading, let alone receding. He is wearing a white shalwar and cream kameez and brown Peshawari chapal (sandals). By contrast, I have brought a new cricket bat, new pads and new batting gloves, courtesy of Farhan Bokhari, the FT's long time Islamabad correspondent. And I have lugged my quasi-antique protective box (Dulwich College 1st XI 1971-72-73) all the way from London. Is Imran Khan taking me seriously?

"I almost didn't make it," says the great all-rounder and six-hitter, by way of confirmation. Like many of his countrymen, Imran is enraged by the stand-off between President Ali Asif Zadari and the judiciary which is challenging the president's right to immunity against longstanding but unproven corruption charges. Imran has ill-disguised contempt for Zadari, the widower of former president Benazir Bhutto. "We were ready to go out on the street at any time," he says with a booming laugh. "We were ready to go this morning."

Imran talks rapidly, just like he used to bowl. I first saw him play in The Parks in Oxford in the summer of 1975. Two things stick in my mind: Imran's wonderfully high action which allowed him to generate far more pace and bounce than most mortals; and the fact that the Varsity side, which Imran captained, was playing Somerset, an exciting county ream which included Viv Richards, the swashbuckling West Indian batsman, and a promising young fellow all-rounder by the name of Ian Botham.

It is time to break the news, Imran and I were contemporaries at Oxford but we never met at the crease (thankfully - Ed).

"Really?"' exclaims the maestro, "What years? And which college?"

Imran has obviously become accustomed to every Tom, Dick and Harriet claiming to have been at Oxford with him in the 1970s. But he appears satisfied by my own credentials (St Edmund Hall 1974-78). I ask Imran what he makes of the recent betting scandal involving the Pakistani national cricket team.

"It's more prevalent than you think. It could be going on everywhere."

Toward the end of his 10-year reign as Pakistan's cricket captain, Imran remembers being woken up in the middle of the night by an anonymous caller claiming four members of his team had been bribed to throw the game. Imran summoned his side the following morning, "I told them I knew how well each of them could play and if anyone did not perform I wouldn't just have them banned I would personally ensure they went straight to jail."

Imran retired from cricket in 1992 aged 39. In fact, he tried to stop earlier but the fearsome dictator General Zia-ul-Haq literally bounced him out of retirement, insisting he carry on playing to serve the national interest. Imran calculated a few more years of celebrity would help him raise money for his cancer hospital so he went along.

Since retirement, he has only played twice, both times alongside his two young sons playing against their cousins on Ham common near Richmond, London, after the titanic Ashes series of 2005 which England won. Imran says he no longer plays or watches though his boys are passionate. Enough of the excuses, I say. It's time to play cricket!

We stride out into a magnificent garden overlooking Rawalpindi and neighbouring Islamabad. Having inspected the makeshift wicket, I mutter about uneven bounce and speculate, in my favourite Richie Benaud accent, that there could well be some turn for the bowler. Finally, after a semi-professional roll of the shoulders and twirl of the bat, I prepare to take strike.

© Alixandra Fazzina/Noor Images

Imran's first delivery is a slow loosener. I move forward to the pitch of the ball and skew it 15m into the would-be covers near the house. Mental note: move feet more adeptly. Imran's next delivery is slightly faster. I play a forward defensive stroke with the bat slightly angled to leg; Imran says he is impressed and asks me what grade cricket I played at Oxford. A couple of games for The Tics (The Authentics; Oxford University second and third team) I reply proudly.

The next ball catches me slightly unawares and I fall into the old bad habit of tipping over to the leg side, a technical flaw never ironed out at school. Quietly cursing, I compose myself for the next ball, an off-cutter which grips the grass and darts into me, catching the left glove but not so viciously as to offer a chance to a would-be short square leg. Imran's dog, a female shepherd called Sherni (Lioness) barks approvingly at his master's cunning delivery.

I decide it is time to take the offensive. Imran is barely bothering to bowl with a run-up and although his action is still admirably high, the pace is more than accommodating. For some reason, he is also complaining about the weight of the white ball. His shirt is carrying a small island of sweat. The next delivery is full length and I hit it with a straight bat but without quite timing the shot.

Imran compliments me on my drive and bowls the last ball of the over, another full-length delivery. And this time I do everything right: the feet move quickly, the bat-lift is high and the follow-through is confident. Ball meets bat and races past Imran 50m or so to the edge of the garden and on down the hill into the underbrush.

Imran is momentarily surprised but immediately gracious. "Good shot, but we will not find the ball now."

I had imagined floating a few Freddie Titmus style off spinners to the Great Man but I rapidly sense this is the time to retire to the pavilion. And so we march in together, honours even. Imran signs the bat and then reverts to politics, talking eloquently and passionately about Pakistan, Afghanistan and the counterproductive Americans military presence. As I take notes, I look briefly around the room. Three tribal swords from Waziristan on the wall, two beautiful carpets hanging to the left and right - but not a cricket trophy in sight.

"I auctioned them all for the cancer hospital," explains Imran. He never realised his own sons would share his passion for the game. As we bid farewell, I sense that I have been in the presence of not merely a (great) player but also a gentleman. The product of a bygone age, not just in cricket but also in politics.

Lionel Barber is editor of the FT

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

PS: Since this isn't my work I would appreciate it if readers didn't comment on this post and would share the original piece in FT.

A Little Bit of Respect

For the Black Caps wouldn't be uncalled for. I had the misfortune of catching some of the coverage on the news channels and it would be an understatement to say that it was patronising toward the Black Caps. This is a team that hasn't lost more than a test in a series against India since 1988. Granted the two teams haven't played each other all that often and not in a series with more than 3 tests, but it still says something about the spirit of the Black Caps.

Suhas has been painting it black on his blog and has done a good recap of the last 3 times the Kiwis toured India. A lot of fans have been advocating a multi-tier test league with the Kiwis being relegated to the second tier. The popular opinion is they are no match for the Indian team and the big sides should be allowed to play among themselves because money is the overriding factor in the sport and playing weaker sides affects the bottom line. It's a very convenient "solution" as it assumes the status quo won't change anytime soon.

At a time when other sports are doing their best to make themselves as global as possible, the cricketing elite seem to be leaning the other way. I really don't agree with it and those who know me know this well enough. Inclusiveness is the very essence of sport. For years the West Indies sent their best players to the subcontinent even though the Aussies saved themselves for better conditions. Those Caribbean Gods were the hottest ticket in whatever town they were in and didn't not show up just because a town wasn't fun enough for them.

While the Kiwis have never achieved that sort of acclaim, no side has competed the way New Zealand have despite their limitations. They were the last side to beat the Windies before they embarked on a 15-year run of not losing a test series. They have also won a series in Australia, something none of the subcontinent sides have managed in their history. Since 1995 they have also registered series wins in the West Indies and England, something neither Pakistan nor Sri Lanka have managed during that period.

None of this has a bearing on the series that starts in a little less than 7 hours. But it does point to a side that has the ability to compete and the record to show for it. Undermining them is not the same as calling Bangladesh an ordinary test side, and Virender Sehwag copped a lot more flak for saying something that was proven right in the series - Bangladesh did fail to take 20 wickets in either test that series. The Kiwis might be coming off a whitewash in Bangladesh but let's not forget it was a different format. Let's also not forget that India recently lost both its ODIs to Zimbabwe but it didn't affect their performance in the test series in Sri Lanka.


As an Indian, I am obviously hoping we win all 3 tests. But then I hope for it every series. However, and it seems highly unlikely, it won't be the worst thing if the Kiwis win a test as long as it's not the first test: I'm going for that game and I don't want to see us lose when I'm at the game :)

Tough Love for Young Cricketers

Most people I talk cricket with know how much I detest the hype around Rohit Sharma. In fact, there's an ongoing storyline about Nohit on Bored Cricket Crazy Indians and Naked Cricket spent his vacation time in Goa stalking Nohit to find out what he was up to.


I don't think those of us who bag him really hate the guy. We can all see he has the ability to bat genuinely well, just that he doesn't make that ability count as often as he should. A few years ago there was another player who had impressed everyone with his exciting batting at the Under-19 World Cup in 2004, two years before Rohit Sharma was the mainstay of the Indian team at the Under-19 World Cup in 2006. That player was Suresh Raina.

Raina made his international debut a little over a year after the 2004 Under-19 World Cup. He played a few decent innings but didn't do enough to nail down a place in the side and was rightly omitted from the squad for the 2007 World Cup. Until that point he had played 36 matches and scored 612 runs at an average of 26.61 and a strike rate of 72.68. The Indian middle order was very strong so Raina didn't get a lot of time to bat. He had just 28 innings in those 36 matches and he batted at number 6 or below in 19 of them. Not the best way to cement your place in the side. Few people succeed in that role at the start of their career. Hussey did it but unlike Raina he had a lot of experience albeit not in the lower middle order.

Raina made his comeback on the back of a strong performance in the 2008 IPL. He's batted in various positions but looks to have matured into a batsman who can adapt to the situation. I think his primary role in ODIs is going to be that of a finisher. In addition, he's India's number 3 in Twenty20 cricket and has had a good start to his test career. The test series in South Africa should be a good test for him.

Rohit Sharma's career has followed a somewhat similar path. Just like Raina, Sharma made his international debut roughly a year after he played the Under-19 World Cup. He too has played some brilliant innings but hasn't shown the consistency required to cement a place in the side. Even their numbers are quite similar, as Sharma in his first 41 matches has scored 695 runs at an average of 24.82 and a strike rate of 72.24. However, and this is not to bag him, Sharma has batted in 38 of those 41 games (Raina had 28 innings in his first 36 matches) and he's got a lot more opportunities to bat in the top 5 (25 times in 38 innings compared to 9 in 28 innings for Raina). Since the start of 2010 Sharma has scored a couple of hundreds but has still not been consistent enough. Meanwhile Virat Kohli has done a lot more in the chances he's got and with the hundred at Vizag should have sealed a place in the 15 for the World Cup.

Sharma is just 23 years old and if he sorts out his game he should have a long career ahead of him in all formats of the game. Just like Raina in 2007, maybe an exclusion from the World Cup squad for 2011 might be needed for Sharma to work on his batting and come back the same way Raina has. If he does, we might just have to stop calling him Nohit!

IPL 2010 Schedule

In the previous post I had looked at how the schedule for the next IPL season should be like. This one is about the schedule for the last season and analysing how games were spread between teams and venues over the course of the season.

1. There is a slight disparity in the number of night games for each team. While four of them played 9 night games each, Chennai had 8 night games while Kolkata and Mumbai had 11 each. Deccan had 12 night games, perhaps justified since they didn't really have a home venue.
2. There was a very even spread of the number of weekend games for each team. Six of them had 6 six weekend games each while Bangalore and Delhi had 5 each.
3. Six of the eight teams had 5 home games at night while Rajasthan and Bangalore had 4 each. Considering Bangalore had one less game on the weekend maybe it should have had 5 home games at night. Rajasthan played 4 of their home games at Ahmedabad so maybe they could have had 5 home games at night too, although I had been to a couple of those games and both were sold out.
4. Again, there was a very even spread of the number of home games for each team on a weekend. Six of them had 3 home games each while Bangalore and Delhi had 2 each.
5. There was a little bit more variance when it came to the number of travel/rest days for each team compared to what I have proposed for next season. I guess it makes sense because there were a lot of days on which there was only one game. Sure the league could have given Bangalore more days at the expense of Kolkata but it's not like the difference was huge.