tag:blogs.cricinfo.com,2008:/bluesbrothers//133 2008-05-01T14:27:55Z Movable Type 3.34 tag:blogs.cricinfo.com,2008:/bluesbrothers//133.6274 2008-05-01T10:58:46Z 2008-05-01T14:27:55Z

For what it’s worth, here’re my thoughts on the Indian Premier League. The format: It’s exciting but repetitive, and after the first two or three games the cheerleaders became a distraction, even a chore, getting in the way of the...

Ashok Malik The format: It’s exciting but repetitive, and after the first two or three games the cheerleaders became a distraction, even a chore, getting in the way of the game. To be fair, these are points others have made as well and I can only nod in agreement. Perhaps more judicious use of Indian music and cultural products would make more sense to Indian crowds over the longer term. Somebody in Mumbai has suggested a bhangra troupe; film songs specific to players or descriptive of the situation (a six or a dismissal, as the case may be) could be other, equally corny ideas. In the vintage years of Test cricket, boundaries were occasional. One-day cricket (F50 if you prefer) made fours and sixes common. T20 threatens to make them commonplace. If a six is hit every other over it is going to cease to be exciting. T20/IPL will need to devise new benchmarks. Perhaps vertical targets will be set: “Hit the red line near the clubhouse balcony and score eight; hit that black line on the floodlight tower and score a 12.” ]]> Wren and Martin rules of grammar, do you? The teams: After the player auction, I remember telling a friend that Mumbai and Jaipur were the weakest teams. Mumbai was a “Dad’s Army”, and Jaipur seemed to have lost the plot. Shane Warne has proved me spectacularly wrong by inspiring and leading the Jaipur team into close to the top of the table, at this juncture. Even so, I’m still betting on Chennai, Delhi and Kolkata making the semi-finals. Jaipur and Mohali are my current favourites for the fourth slot. Nevertheless, given that one top-order innings can decide the match (McCullum, Sehwag, Hayden and Gilchrist have all provided examples), any prediction is the equivalent of planning a leisurely stroll on a minefield. That aside, the departure of Hayden, Hussey and Oram is going to have other teams fancying their chances against Chennai. One question that was raised before the IPL was how the old guard would take to the newest format. Dravid and Laxman have looked completely out of sorts, and need not be first XI sure-shots in IPL 2009. Given his ODI history, Ganguly was expected to relish T20 but even he’s disappointmed. Tendulkar’s been kept away by injury, of course; but the larger message is obvious: the IPL has played out generational change before Indian crowds. To go back to the mobile phone metaphor, epic novelists cannot, should not be asked to write text messages. In a perfect world, they should fade away with memories of their skills intact. One classicist who’s shone in the IPL, however, is Glen McGrath, who gave up playing for Australia a year ago. He’s been the bowler of the tournament so far and still looks good for another two years of international cricket. His spell against Bangalore on Wednesday (April 30) night was exceptional by any standards – Test, ODI, whatever. It takes rare courage to quit sport – or anything – when your powers are still with you. McGrath is in that league; he’s done IPL an honour by signing up for it. The brands: One of the challenges for the eight franchises is to build loyalty to the club, beyond loyalty to an individual player. Those who were Manchester United fans in Bryan Robson’s time, remained United followers in Cantona’s era and are gladly cheering Rooney today. That template is the IPL franchisee’s dream. It’s unfair to be asking this question in year one, month one, but how have the IPL teams fared in terms of building brand loyalty? There is, of course, a degree of local following – Delhiites back the Delhi Daredevils, Mumbaikars want the Mumbai Indians to win. The real test is how much support a team has garnered outside its base station. Here, individuals are proving magnets rather than corporate or collective identities. Dhoni’s fans are rooting for Chennai, Sehwag’s adherents for Delhi and so on. Among the owners, Reliance/Mukesh Ambani and Kingfisher-UB/Vijay Mallya could have made a cross-country impact but have been let down by underperforming teams. To my mind, the biggest success has been Kolkata’s. Knight Riders is seen as Shah Rukh Khan’s team rather than Saurav Ganguly’s. The Shah Rukh tag has brought in incremental sponsorship and following. It’s a wise move. Saurav will be gone in two years or so, Shah Rukh will still be around, and still be iconic. To have a non-player who won’t retire as your “key man” makes good business sense. ]]> tag:blogs.cricinfo.com,2008:/bluesbrothers//133.6250 2008-04-28T17:40:41Z 2008-04-28T19:13:36Z

Ashok Malik

Just because Harbhajan slapped Sreesanth doesn’t also mean that he called Andrew Symonds a monkey. There is no correlation © Getty Images

Four months ago, he was the wronged Indian, the “Sikh warrior” who had been done in by malevolent Australians. Today, he’s the villain, the hot-head who’s gone too far, been banned for the rest of the Indian Premier League (IPL) 2008 edition – and who was probably guilty as charged by Andrew Symonds too. The most ridiculous aspect of the Harbhajan Singh-Sreesanth controversy – which in any case is the most riveting episode the IPL has thrown up so far – is the fickleness of the cricket media and the regiments of newspaper commentators and sound-bite pundits. With specials programmes like Chhante ki Goonj (The Resounding Slap) and Tamache ka Takkar (The Clash of the Slap) – and I hope I have those names right – making a further mockery of news television, Harbhajan has gone from national hero to international anti-hero, from one ridiculous extreme to another.]]> begun the battle. Third, even if one were to be extraordinarily charitable and exclude the recent tour of Australia and explain it as a case of a volatile cricketer being targeted by a clever opposition, the fact is Harbhajan is not the best behaved sportsman in the world. Sreesanth hasn’t slapped anyone yet but, overall, he’s even worse. Nevertheless, each time this is brought up, it is explained away with some pop sociology or similar claptrap: “This is the new, aggressive India”; “For years, we have suffered, now we will give it back”; “These are boys from small towns, middle India – they don’t care for reputations, they are not deferential to the white man”. I once brought up Sreesanth’s behaviour on a television programme and suggested somebody have a chat with him. It was instantly apparent that almost everyone in the studio disagreed with me. Ajay Jadeja, a fellow guest on the show, jumped to the fast bowler’s defence and said he was absolutely fine and it would be unfair to curb his natural instincts. Agreed, bad behaviour is as old as cricket. Some of what the Australians did under Ian Chappell – and seem to be doing now under Ricky Ponting – cannot be condoned. There is a crucial difference between playing hard and playing dirty. If Indian cricketers – “new”, “aggressive”, “super-confident”: choose your adjective – want to give it back when assailed or want to occasionally needle a batsman as he walks to the crease, I have no problem with that. There is an ocean that separates such acceptable gamesmanship from plain boorishness. Waving his bat, exercising his pelvic muscles mid-pitch, screaming and shouting, bearing his teeth, grimacing menacingly without reason, Sreesanth is the most visible face of this cricket boor; at least on television. The face, let us accept, is ugly. Precedent can justify anything, and nothing. Kepler Wessels hit Kapil Dev in the shin in the early 1990s, John Snow knocked down Sunil Gavaskar in the early 1970s. Neither was right and both should still be embarrassed. Harbhajan and Sreesanth are no better, no worse. There are moral absolutes on the cricket field. The state of Indian society and its evolutionary juncture cannot change those absolutes. Fourth, while Harbhajan is going to be sitting at home for the rest of the IPL and will forfeit his millions as well, it is my guess that Sreesanth has lost more in the long run. As Mahendra Singh Dhoni’s column in the Hindustan Times this [April 28] morning suggests, the Indian dressing room is less likely to take a clear-cut, good-bad binary position on the unseemly business. To the rest of the Indian squad, there need not be one obvious villain and one obvious victim. My hunch is Sreesanth will face a few barbs for, to use a friend’s phrase, “ratting” on a colleague and breaking club rules. This is not a value judgment; it is a cold, cynical assessment. By making a public scene, playing the wronged guy, crying on camera, blaming it on his “fever in the morning”, Sreesanth has betrayed a streak for exhibitionism and a low emotional quotient. On television, it works in his favour. In the Indian team bus, it could be his Achilles’ heel.]]> tag:blogs.cricinfo.com,2008:/bluesbrothers//133.6148 2008-04-17T02:22:02Z 2008-04-17T05:21:46Z

The more things change, the more they remain the same. IPL opens on Friday afternoon to excitement and enthusiasm, hype and hoopla. Yet, there is a certain disquiet over the opacity with which its business rules are being written and...

Ashok Malik The more things change, the more they remain the same. IPL opens on Friday afternoon to excitement and enthusiasm, hype and hoopla. Yet, there is a certain disquiet over the opacity with which its business rules are being written and made up as we go along. The BCCI says it's corporatised Indian cricket, but what about corporate governance? I wrote this in The Pioneer this (April 17) morning.

	Is Lalit Modi a player who is being given authority as regulator? © Getty Images

Much like the Beijing Olympics and China, the Indian Premier League was supposed to be the Board of Control for Cricket in India's coming out party. Much like the Beijing Olympics and China, IPL is turning out to be the BCCI's self-inflicted public relations headache. With the first ball due to be bowled -- and the first cheerleader squad due to begin dancing -- in Bangalore on Friday, April 18, afternoon, IPL is threatened with a boycott by news channels because it wants them to conform to unprecedented restrictions when showing match visuals. It has singled out cricket websites for special treatment, refused them entry to the media box and even the right to buy photographs from the usual news photo agencies. The argument of Mr Lalit Modi, the IPL commissioner, is that the portal rights for the tournament have been sold to an 'American company'. It has exclusive permission to report the match on the Internet and upload pictures. The name of this 'American company' and the address of its Website are, however, unknown. They cannot be revealed because of its upcoming stock market float. How can one visit a Website one doesn't know the address of? Ask Mr Modi and the BCCI. ]]> Actually if you ask the bumptious IPL bureaucracy any questions, you are likely to be told off, dismissed as a small fry journalist who doesn't merit a hearing, since the IPL top brass knows your employer. At a meeting with sports editors in Mumbai this is precisely what happened. The journalists got no clarifications, only a long list of media barons whom Mr Modi had on speed dial: "I know your bosses. Why should I talk to you?" In another life, the IPL commissioner could have been Governor of Tibet. This wasn't how the Great Indian League was supposed to be. The floating of IPL marked the marriage of cricket and capitalism, designed to give India a professional league and transparently-run sports clubs that would be accountable to fans and stakeholders. They would take rational and honest decisions when, for instance, choosing teams -- in short, be all that the BCCI itself had refused to be. Admittedly, IPL has become a huge, huge business opportunity. In the past few weeks, every third BCCI official has been on television extolling the virtues of making money, underlining India's critical importance to the modern cricket economy and pointing out that a domestic T20 league with international stars is a template for 21st century cricket. The self-congratulation may be misplaced but the IPL numbers are true. Simply put, eight teams, all of which are spending big on brandbuilding, have created a market for eight times as many cricket-related businesses than one Indian national team could do. Consider the evidence. In the past four to six weeks, film studios and related production facilities in Mumbai have been so packed with IPL-linked shoots that some Hindi film units have actually migrated to Delhi and other cities. Such advertising frenzy has not been seen since just before the 2007 World Cup; perhaps, it is even larger. The pie has expanded; there is now something for everyone. From Kolkata to Delhi, player agents and endorsement managers who hitherto fought and scrambled to get their favourite players into national reckoning have made comfortable arrangements with one IPL franchise or the other. Yet, there is a fly in the ointment; or, a tampered ball in the kit bag. There is a difference between ethical capitalism and crony capitalism. A business environment without an independent regulator is a non-starter. In the case of IPL, the BCCI and its officials are playing regulator, making up rules as they go along -- alright, some of this may be unavoidable because this is year one -- but also promoting their own business interests and helping friends and associates. Take the media issue. Over the past two years, the BCCI has begun producing its own pictures and hiring its own commentators. It pays a production house to actually put up and man the cameras and then, in real time, transfers the audiovisual feed to the channel that has paid it the most. The same model is being followed by IPL. It has hired TWI as a production house and sold the telecast rights to the Sony network In a parallel move, Mr Modi and his associates have recently announced that the BCCI will eventually set up its own channel and run its own cricket portal. There is nothing wrong with this per se; Manchester United owns a television channel as do many other sports bodies/clubs. The big difference is that there is a clear demarcation between those who run or have a stake in the club's media business and those who regulate the larger media environment for the individual sport. The chief executive of Manchester United TV does not also decide whether journalists from BBC or Sky Sports will be allowed into an English Premier League football match. Now consider what is happening with IPL. Officially, the IPL governing body is a committee of the BCCI. Two members of the governing body are Sunil Gavaskar and Ravi Shastri. This past week they ended their contracts with ESPN/Star Sports and signed on as the BCCI's in-house commentators. It is likely they will be in the commentary box for IPL matches. This seems highly irregular and could amount to a conflict of interest. The Election Commissioner cannot also anchor election news programmes on television. Second, Mr Modi is seen as the marketing wizard of the BCCI. He is the likely promoter of the BCCI's upcoming channel and portal. There is the valid suspicion that he is using his dual status as IPL commissioner to cripple potential rivals and existing media outlets. In short, a player is being given authority as regulator. Mr Modi is a man who wears multiple hats -- BCCI money guru, IPL overlord, a businessman with interests ranging from tobacco to media (he is the distributor in India of Fashion Television or FTV), most influential private citizen in Rajasthan. He is also IPL commissioner. It is an astonishing and demanding array of job descriptions. It would be best for Mr Modi's punishing schedule -- and for the credibility of IPL and the BCCI -- if he gives up the IPL commissioner's post before the 2009 tournament. The BCCI should hire a complete outsider from a totally unrelated industry -- anybody with an interest in cricket and an appropriate background in business economics would do -- and pay him a market-determined salary. It should also ask all IPL governing council members to sign an affidavit that they have no stakes, stated or unstated, in any franchise and are not benefiting financially from the tournament. These are routine insider trading clauses. For years the BCCI has ignored them; IPL cannot afford to do so. tag:blogs.cricinfo.com,2008:/bluesbrothers//133.6107 2008-04-08T17:55:43Z 2008-04-09T04:17:56Z

Ashok Malik

Indian cricket is treating the South Africa series with the same “let’s get this over with” contempt © AFP

Only India could have done this. Just weeks after one of the most rivetting, pulsating and action-packed set of Test matches in history, India is one part – the bad, listless part – of a Test series that is turning out to be a “no contest”. This is not to suggest there isn’t good cricket on offer. The South Africans are playing brilliantly and imperiously, looking – at least in April 2008 – the best team in the world. Their fast bowling has been impressive and made its presence felt even on the tombstone wicket in Chennai. As for Ahmedabad, any team that bowls out the other in 20 overs in the opening session of a Test match – however helpful the pitch and whatever the state of the opposition – deserves accolades. As of now, the South Africans are running away with the series. Other than the bauble of Sehwag’s 300, the Indians have nothing to remember it for. They look jaded and tired; their minds are on the IPL carnival. They are not Test match fit – and this is not merely a reference to the physical condition of individual players.]]> Indeed, the entire Indian cricket structure – establishment, officialdom, fans, media – is treating this series as some sort of a walk-on role, an interlude between the sublime concert in Australia and the rock star frenzy that the IPL promises to be. Frankly, only one side is treating this as Test cricket – hallowed tradition or hard sport, whatever it may be. That side is not India. It’s a question of priorities. More than once, after a long series down under, we’ve heard visiting or Australian captains say that they’re too tired by the end of the endless ODI tri-series that climaxes the Australian season. It’s treated as a tiring and tiresome sideshow, after the main event – the Test series – is over. Indian cricket is treating the South Africa series with the same “let’s get this over with” contempt. From next season, Cricket Australia is junking the tri-series altogether. What if some smart Indian official decides Test cricket is a waste of time? Indian cricket’s focus – commercial and political, given there’re simply more matches to hand out to allied state/city associations – is on ODIs. With the T20 fever at the cusp of turning into an epidemic and with IPL about to explode on us, the calendar is going to be even more packed. It’s a myth that the IPL franchise teams will play a tournament in India for 44 days and simply disappear for the remaining 321 days of the year. Already there’s talk of an “IPL exhibition series” in England. As the franchisees seek to strengthen their brands and clubs identities, they will inevitably lobby for more cricket featuring IPL teams. Let’s not pretend otherwise. What does all this mean? Test cricket will be pushed even further down the agenda. The BCCI will speak about how it treasures the longest game, but do nothing to preserve it. Short Test series will be fitted in between T20 razzmatazz and seven-eight game ODI series. South Africa is playing three Tests, later in 2008 England will come to India for only two. Is there a way out? I have a five-point route map for preserving Test cricket while acknowledging it will have limited appeal in the years to come. Even so, serious film festivals co-exist with multiplex blockbusters. Similarly, Test cricket must be given its due amid a plethora of 20 and 50 over events. So here’s my five-fold path: 1. The ICC should formally announce that all future expansion of cricket nations is going to be in the ODI and, more likely, T20 formats. China, the United States, Malawi, whatever, whoever may someday take part in the T20 World Cup but will never play Test cricket. 2. To ensure quality it would be a good idea, in fact, to reduce the number of Test teams. Bangladesh and Zimbabwe should be derecognised as Test teams. They can continue to play as many ODIs or T20 internationals as they want, even set up IPL franchise clones of their own 3. No Test series should be less than four matches long. Six Test match series went out with the 1980s, but four or five Tests would ensure a fair contest. That length would allow a team to recover from a sluggish start. Imagine a fourth or fifth Test against South Africa, with Zaheer Khan and R.P. Singh back with the new ball and Sachin Tendulkar back in the order ... A three (or two) Test series is a shame, even a travesty. 4. Test cricket should always be played in the host country’s core cricket season. For instance, India must play home Tests between November and February, not in April or May. Sri Lanka must not be forced to host Test series in rain-swept August only because it suits the visiting team’s travel schedule. 5. Since the number of ODI/T20/IPL/IPL-style fixtures is only going to grow (perhaps exponentially), what points 3 and 4 would suggest is that a Test team may be able to play only one or two series in a year. Test series will have to be spaced out, as they once were before a frenetic ICC Future Tours Progamme took over. Nevertheless, fewer Test series are worth the sacrifice provided they are longer and, almost by definition, more engaging. Make Test matches collector’s items. Right now, the ICC and the BCCI are leading a movement toward commodifying Test cricket. It worked for ODIs and may do so for T20, but is the kiss of death for five-day cricket. That is the lesson from the ongoing India-South Africa encounter. tag:blogs.cricinfo.com,2008:/bluesbrothers//133.6047 2008-03-30T12:52:00Z 2008-03-30T20:20:38Z

Ashok Malik

Pushing the limits? © AFP

Are love of cricket and love of India synonymous – or are they, in a contemporary context, mutually exclusive? It’s a question that has troubled me often, most recently when a respondent to one of my posts – which semi-facetiously suggested an Indian batting collapse could inject some energy into a destined-for-a-draw Chennai Test – implied I was being unpatriotic. Since I’ve never measured patriotism or sense of national identity in terms of worshipping dead-on-arrival pitches, I must say I was left bemused. What amazes me even more – and has amazed me for years – is how much and how easily a certain Indian type of Indian cricket fan manages to work himself into a frenzy over fairly inconsequential fixtures. I’m not going to pretend I’m an ivory tower intellectual who doesn’t scream, shout, wave his fist and manically thump the television at a particularly engrossing stage in a cricket match. Of course I do. I respond as a passionate fan, occasionally as a passionate Indian. ]]> Statsguru is a very useful tool provided by Cricinfo and while it can be invaluable for research, it can also lead to some fairly moronic analyses. The other day, somebody wrote in insisting that Srikkanth was only as effective or fast-scoring in ODIs as Rahul Dravid because they both had a strike rate of (if I recall) “71 per 100 balls”; and that by the strike-rate parameter, Sehwag was a greater batsman than Srikkanth. Since the person has obviously already made up his mind, how do you even begin a discussion on batting-bowling equations, pitch conditions, opposition bowling strengths, the evolution of one-day cricket from the 1980s to now? Sehwag may well be a better batsman than Srikkanth – though that is a subjective call and surely all 10,000 or 50,000 people watching a cricket match have the right to see events their way and, in a sense, to watch different versions of the same game – but is a strike-rate enumerator going to decide that?]]> tag:blogs.cricinfo.com,2008:/bluesbrothers//133.6038 2008-03-29T02:51:26Z 2008-03-30T20:21:58Z

A quick response to the negative mail after my previous post. I wasn't comparing Sehwag's batting to Shastri's. The only point I was making was that the two are among the most gritty Indian batsmen ever: hungry, willing to take...

Ashok Malik A quick response to the negative mail after my previous post. I wasn't comparing Sehwag's batting to Shastri's. The only point I was making was that the two are among the most gritty Indian batsmen ever: hungry, willing to take a deep breath and go on and on. Both want to maximise the gifts they've been given. This is unusual for Indian cricket, which -- from Jaisimha to Sandeep Patil to Sanjay Manjrekar, to pick three random names -- has been a saga of under-achievers. While statistics don't tell the whole story, Shastri used his limited talent to hit 200 once; Sehwag, obviously a better batsman, used his greater talent to hit 300 twice. Second, while I'm happy to doff my hat each time Sehwag entertains me and scores big, and scores quickly, it's a little silly to suggest, as one reader has done, that he's better than V.V.S. Laxman. Hayden has hit a triple-hundred and Ponting has not, but nobody suggests the Australian opener is a greater batsman than his captain. Let's not lose perspective and nuance here. tag:blogs.cricinfo.com,2008:/bluesbrothers//133.6036 2008-03-28T14:55:44Z 2008-03-28T14:58:26Z

I still believe it’s a bad, unequal wicket that doesn’t make for a great contest. I still believe this match is likely to be drawn. Yet, nothing, just nothing can take away from Sehwag’s innings. Every time he scores a...

Ashok Malik I still believe it’s a bad, unequal wicket that doesn’t make for a great contest. I still believe this match is likely to be drawn. Yet, nothing, just nothing can take away from Sehwag’s innings. Every time he scores a century – and 10 scores of over 150 bear this out – he goes on to make a big one. He doesn’t throw it away, there’s a hungry, gritty, run-chewing monster inside him. It’s tempting to compare Sehwag to K. Srikkanth, another hard-hitting batsman with a quick eye and delightful wrists who, if memory serves me right, got only two hundreds in Test cricket. I remember both those innings – one in Chennai itself, against Imran in 1986-87, and one a season earlier in Australia (which I heard on the radio, but didn’t see). So often, he’d blaze his way to 30 or 40 and then get bored, twirl his nostrils, make some silly error and go home – another of a long list of Indian stylists who scored fewer runs than they should have. Sehwag started off looking podgy – he is much fitter in real life than the photographs do him credit – but today his stamina spoke for him. It’s remarkable that in team with four batsmen who’re all rated above him, he’s the one who refuses to get out. It would be sacrilege perhaps to mention him in the same breath as Bradman and Lara – the others to have hit two triple hundreds in Tests – but look how he’s polished his limited skills set and where it’s taken him to ... He’s a bit like Ravi Shastri in that sense, only more free-scoring. These past two years have cost Sehwag a lot – his form, his place in the team, his shot at captaincy. He’s lost that slot to Dhoni and if he decides he doesn’t want it, maybe it’ll just free him up for a long innings as India’s most prolific opener since that day in Mumbai in 1987 when Sunil Gavaskar left the crease for the last time. There couldn’t be two more different batsmen; but only one of them ever reached 300. Tomorrow, could he make it 400? tag:blogs.cricinfo.com,2008:/bluesbrothers//133.6031 2008-03-28T02:59:45Z 2008-03-28T03:03:41Z

Just read a piece by Harsha Bhogle in today’s Indian Express on how the ICC’s more sinned against than sinning. Not sure I agree with that. In fact the way the ICC’s made a mess of international umpiring is a...

Ashok Malik Just read a piece by Harsha Bhogle in today’s Indian Express on how the ICC’s more sinned against than sinning. Not sure I agree with that. In fact the way the ICC’s made a mess of international umpiring is a case in point. The first thing an economy needs is infrastructure – before the booming factories, you need to get the power stations running and roads ready. Cricket’s equivalent, I suppose, is the paucity of top-level umpires. The ICC’s Elite panel is woefully small and overworked, leading to, most recently, Simon Taufel announcing he’s had enough. How has the ICC tackled this? In a very ad hoc manner. At its Dubai meeting, I expected a discussion – if not a blueprint – on upgrading umpiring skills across member countries leading to, say a doubling to the Elite panel strength in 15 months or 18 months. Some discussion on using technology to aid umpires or even take over decision-making to some degree would also have helped. It’s all very well to say umpires are intrinsic to the game and cricket needs the “human touch”. These are fine clichés for a Sunday afternoon game – not for a multi-million dollar, serious sporting enterprise. If umpires have to take recourse to technology and replays more and more, so be it. They’re not the stars on the field, the players are. As the biggest economy/stakeholder, the BCCI should be leading the discussion on the future of umpiring. With IPL and with a very busy international programme for its team(s), India needs top-quality umpiring and umpiring solutions more than anyone else. What the ICC has come up with is woefully inadequate. I mean, either Darrell Hair and Steve Bucknor are good umpires or they’re not. Either they’re good enough for all teams or they’re not. I believe Bucknor is no more a top-grade umpire, which is why he should not be standing when England plays Australia or New Zealand plays Sri Lanka for that matter. The ICC can agree or disagree; it can’t half-agree. To keep Bucknor out of India’s matches and keep Hair away from Pakistan’s games sets a very bad precedent. tag:blogs.cricinfo.com,2008:/bluesbrothers//133.6029 2008-03-27T16:25:36Z 2008-03-28T07:47:09Z

What tedium. If it's so hot, why not try night Tests in the Indian summer?

Ashok Malik What a terribly forgettable day of Test cricket – and to think it came right after the rivetting stuff in Australia. If the rest of the series is like this, these matches will be the best advertisement and pre-publicity for IPL and T20. Part of me is already praying for an Indian collapse tomorrow and a follow on. Else, we’re headed for yet another draw. To bat in these oppressively hot conditions is torture, to watch shoddy fielding is even more so. Since the BCCI is in such experimental mood these days – having taken to IPL with gusto – why can’t it decide that all Test matches in India between, say, March 15 and October 1 (or between the festivals of Holi and Diwali that traditionally frame the Indian summer), will be played under floodlights. The first ball could be bowled at 5.30 pm. I know it sounds a silly idea, but it’s better than playing in Kanpur and Ahmedabad in April, as the Indians and South Africans will be doing. On another note, thanks for the welcoming messages in response to the first post. deepak2 warns me I have my job cut out replacing Mukul. Deepak, I’m not competing; if I manage half Mukul’s success I’ll be happy. Actually, if I blog in a year half as good in terms of playing skills and drama as the one in which he did, I’ll be happy. To more excitement, and to fewer days like this one! tag:blogs.cricinfo.com,2008:/bluesbrothers//133.6021 2008-03-26T16:22:07Z 2008-03-27T07:12:09Z

It’s been 24 hours since I was given the freedom to start blogging by Cricinfo’s editors. It’s also been 24 hours since I decided to read Mukul Kesavan’s last post. “Blues Brothers” succeeds – perhaps replaces is a better word...

Ashok Malik It’s been 24 hours since I was given the freedom to start blogging by Cricinfo’s editors. It’s also been 24 hours since I decided to read Mukul Kesavan’s last post. “Blues Brothers” succeeds – perhaps replaces is a better word – “Men in White” and I attempt to fit the shoes of someone of a bigger size. It was appropriate, I felt, to read that valediction, in homage if nothing else. Then I read the responses; at the time there were 126 readers who’d mailed back following that final post. Some liked Mukul and said they’d miss him; others loathed him and couldn’t wait to share their glee at him leaving the crease. Either way, there was strong emotion and great vehemence. It scared me. In India, in cyberspace at least, we take our cricket seriously. Writing on politics – which is my day job – seems almost tension free in comparison. Well, 24 hours are enough to battle trepidation. It’s appropriate to start with an introduction. Like all cricket fans, I’m a contradiction. I grew up reading of the Golden Age of Cricket, of Trumper and Clem Hill (with whom, I discovered to my utter joy, I share a birthday). Yet, as March vanishes into April, I can’t but confess I’m looking forward to the IPL razzmatazz. True, it’s not the same game – but it’s the only one we have. This blog is supposed to be a wide-eyed fan’s view. As a journalist, and one who writes occasionally on the business and politics of cricket, I cannot entirely escape the cynic’s view. So this blog will perhaps reflect the inner confusion of the blogger. So much like the great game isn’t it – immaculate defence one ball, cross-bat swipe the next? Cricket brings out the paradox of life. It’s a strange day to start. A Test match has begun and I haven’t been able to watch it. I don’t get Neo on my television, Doordarshan is not showing the matches – more correctly, not stealing pictures it couldn’t legitimately buy – and even old All India Radio has walked away from ball-by-ball commentary. I’ve followed the match on Cricinfo. By tomorrow, I’ll have to make amends and contact my DTH service provider and get that damned Neo signal. Maybe radio commentary will come my way too in the coming months. India has a plethora of private FM stations but they’re banned from broadcasting news. Live sports matches constitute news and so there’s no commentary on private FM stations. The government, I hear, is considering, allowing news broadcast on private radio. So is cricket on FM the next media revolution my generation must encounter and come to terms with? Will my son, all of 17 months, grow up listening to Delhi Daredevils pulverise Chennai Superkings (and are those corny names) on FM? Will he read my collection of cricket books? Will he watch Test cricket at all? Come to think of it, will we watch Test cricket at all, at least this year? After a pulsating tour of Australia that was, really, the best advertisement for Test match cricket, with all the attendant ceremony and drama, the BCCI has just announced that it’s cutting down the England series in India from three Tests to two. To make up, Mr Sharad Pawar and his friends will torture us with a meaningless ODI tri-series in Bangladesh in the midsummer madness of June! What was that about carefully nurturing Test cricket and not allowing it to be overwhelmed by ODIs and T20 and IPL? Oh just another BCCI yarn ...