The IPL was homeless, not destitute, for its parent is the Indian cricket board (BCCI), whose might has exponentially risen with its wealth—and everyone wants to court favour with the rich. Thus England, former masters, now the poor cousins, and South Africa vied to offer IPL shelter, testifying to the BCCI's formidable clout. Rohit Mahajan senses more political undertones to the switch in venue in his article in Outlook magazine.

Manohar's reputation of being laconic was precisely why many chose to see in his candour a stinging rebuke to the UPA. It set tongues wagging—some thought Manohar, a Nagpur-based lawyer, was acting at the behest of Pawar, who was said to be incensed with the Centre playing tricks with the BCCI over the IPL. This perception gained credibility because of a sharp retort from home minister P. Chidambaram...

Writing in the same magazine, Arindam Mukherjee believes IPL II will neither have the fan following nor make the moolah in South Africa, with franchise owners ready to face a postponement in profits.

Last year the league was an unqualified TV success, but worried advertisers will try and bring down rates. Taking a wider view, the teams were looking at a three-year period to break even. That would have to wait. Much would depend on how the IPL management "accommodates" the franchisees' losses—or next year's tourney could see new faces raising the paddle to pick up yet another star player.

John Buchanan's theory of mutliple captains for the Kolkata Knight Riders has drawn its share of criticism. Suresh Menon in Dreamcricket.com believes captaincy by committee has never worked in cricket; all it has done is allowed the nominated leader to spread the blame when a decision has gone wrong.

For example, the recent England-West Indies one-dayer which England won because the West Indies coach John Dyson read Duckworth-Lewis wrong. Do you need an extra captain for the arithmetic, and if so, isn't the coach ducking responsibility?

	Feedback