IPL 2011 Points Table

Blame it on its to the World Cup or the heartburn that comes from watching an obviously weak Daredevils side, but it took me a while to warm up to the IPL this season. I was so indifferent toward the start that during one of the games I decided to go grocery shopping. 3 of the 4 teams to make the playoffs were decided almost before the start of the tournament. The owners of Mumbai and Chennai had got their way with the player retention rule while Rajasthan and Punjab were docked a certain amount of their payroll. Bangalore had bought very wisely as well. It was just a matter of finding out which would be the fourth team to make the playoffs, although the playoff system was a very good move to ensure teams didn't ease off once qualification was confirmed.

But I did get into it as the season went on and there have been some really good performances. I'm not going to get into who are the best and worst players this season as that's not what this post is about.

This post is about the final points table and a statistical assessment of where teams should have been based on their performance. I should add a caveat here. A 14-game sample for teams isn't really big and there will always be large variations because of some lopsided matches. This was especially the case for the Bangalore, as the team's performance improved remarkably with the arrival of Chris Gayle. Just to give you a sense of perspective, Bangalore's estimated win percentage in matches Gayle didn't play was 29.43. In matches Gayle played, their estimated win percentage was 68.57. It would have probably been even more had they not had that huge loss against Punjab, but since a 9-game sample is small it will be prone to such odd results.

The estimated win percentage is based on the teams' average (batting and bowling), strike rate (batting and bowling), economy rate, and balls per wicket lost. I would have loved to incorporate the percentage of dots, singles, boundaries as well but unfortunately that data isn't available very easily. Also, the weight of each statistic was based on data from the previous IPL seasons. Below is the table depicting the actual and estimated win percentage of the 10 teams.

Team	Mat	Won	Lost	Win %	Est Win%
Bangalore	14	9.5	4.5	67.86%	55.95%
Chennai	14	9	5	64.29%	61.93%
Mumbai	14	9	5	64.29%	63.10%
Kolkata	14	8	6	57.14%	62.96%
Punjab	14	7	7	50.00%	44.15%
Rajasthan	14	6.5	7.5	46.43%	41.91%
Deccan	14	6	8	42.86%	50.09%
Kochi	14	6	8	42.86%	38.73%
Delhi	14	4.5	9.5	32.14%	35.24%
Pune	14	4.5	9.5	32.14%	42.49%

* Bangalore and Rajasthan, Delhi and Pune shared points because their respective matches did not produce a result due to rain.

The 4 statistically best sides have made the playoffs, albeit not in the order of their statistical edge. This is the first time in four seasons that it's happened - Mumbai missed out in 2008 and 2009 while Delhi didn't make the semis in 2010.

There really isn't much to choose between Chennai, Mumbai and Kolkata. It's interesting that Bangalore who have the worst estimated win percentage of the four have topped the table. It's due to the fact that teams play just 14 games and all it takes is a run of 5-6 good matches to make it to the top 4. In this case, Bangalore reeled off 7 consecutive wins thanks in large part to Chris Gayle.

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.