April 24, 2011

How do you determine the value of a player?

It won't be long before IPL franchisees figure out a formula to calculate the true worth of players
  shares 121

It's ironic that currently cricketers receive the highest pay for playing the shortest game. Three hours of effort in an IPL match reaps far greater rewards for a player than a gruelling five-day Test. This doesn't make sense - economic or cricketing - but it's a matter of supply and demand.

However, in the same way that businessmen establish a worth for their employees, IPL owners and other franchisees around the world will eventually find a way to put a value on players. When that happens, cricketers will have to get used to fewer rich contracts that don't make sense. After all the franchisees are businessmen who didn't amass their fortunes by making poor deals. It won't be long before they realise - some already have - a player has a certain value and beyond that mark you're over-paying for talent. As a witty economist once said: "The ancient Greeks used to sit around and argue whether men or women have more hair on their head. Did they ever think to count?"

The first figure the franchises will need to arrive at is the value of a win. There's more to it than just the prize money, as a franchise can add to its value by building a winning tradition. Once a win can be roughly valued, then a reasonable estimate can be made of each player's worth. The franchise owners can better decide what is value for money in each player's case.

Obviously for marquee players like Sachin Tendulkar, MS Dhoni, Shane Warne, Kevin Pietersen and company, there's also a marketing value to be added. These players can't be judged solely on what they do on the field, even though they represent good value as cricketers.

A quick look at the early going in this year's IPL gives a clear indication that the latest auction has produced a few potential steals and some dud deals. The Mumbai Indians appear to have gone to auction with more money than sense. To pay a huge fee for both Andrew Symonds and Kieron Pollard, two powerful strikers who field well and can bowl a bit, seems to be a case of overkill. Both are able to play a full season, so why not buy only one and have a cheap replacement available if the star player is injured?

In the first five matches Pollard faced two balls and Symonds hit just two sixes, with neither contributing greatly to a Mumbai win. Forget the economics, having both those players in a side where Tendulkar is renowned for regularly batting a good proportion of an innings that only lasts 120 balls doesn't make cricketing sense.

Both Pollard and Symonds are viable propositions if they are regularly clouting sixes and contributing to at least a couple of victories a season. It's difficult for that to happen when neither is getting much time at the crease. As one of the rich clubs, Mumbai can afford to make a few monetary mistakes but eventually even the high rollers tire of fiscal folly.

Some of the less affluent clubs can't afford to make million-dollar mistakes. They are looking for bargains - a reasonable value player who performs extremely well. In that category, both Jesse Ryder, for the Pune Warriors, and Paul Valthaty, of the Kings XI Punjab, represent good value for money in the early going.

In 2003 the bestselling author Michael Lewis wrote Moneyball, a book in which he delved into the art of valuing baseball players in America. The gist of the book was about how the general manager of a less affluent club was utilising modern statistics to unearth players who were undervalued. Since then, even more sophisticated statistics have been devised in baseball to give a rough indication of what a win is worth.

A similar statistical transition will take place in Twenty20 and eventually this may even flow through to the longer games. So the message is clear to cricketers: enjoy the high wages for short games because soon "value for money" will become the owners' catch-cry.

Former Australia captain Ian Chappell is now a cricket commentator and columnist

Comments have now been closed for this article

  • POSTED BY jay57870 on | April 27, 2011, 13:29 GMT

    Chappell just can't grasp the true meaning of value. He's obsessed with slogging, measured by mighty sixes and huge strike rates. No wonder he's barking up the wrong tree. Who's winning matches for Mumbai Indians? Obviously it's total team effort: batting, bowling, fielding, all in unison. Meaning total team value is bigger than the sum of its parts. That's synergy. Among MI batsmen, builders contribute the most: Tendulkar, Rayudu, Sharma. Even Symonds. He and Sharma did most in a consolidating-building mode. Pollard is a slogger: flashy but can't be counted on as a consistent, reliable player like a builder. Tendulkar is a reliable constant: last year he was the top IPL scorer, but only had 3 sixes, in leading MI to the final. More important, how do you measure intangibles: character, self-belief, passion, work-ethic, mentoring, leadership, staying power? How do you assess Sachin's true worth? You cannot. He's Invaluable! Priceless! A National Treasure! Ian just doesn't get it.

  • POSTED BY jay57870 on | April 27, 2011, 13:18 GMT

    (Contd) Another sad MLB reality: Bankruptcy is as American as baseball and Chevrolet. Two MLB clubs - Chicago Cubs & Texas Rangers - went bankrupt recently. And last week the MLB Commissioner seized control of the storied LA Dodgers club from its feuding owners. The big problem: Mismanagement and bad finances. The IPL? So far so good. Ian, you missed it: the frugal Rajasthan Royals won the inaugural IPL trophy with the least costly player payroll! Maybe the MLB can learn a thing or two from the IPL: Its novel auction, which limits contracts to 3 years, with salary caps. As any numbers geek knows, MLB clubs have big busts too: Those deadly long-term contracts with dud stars. Yes, statisticians have a role to play, but only in the support staff. Decision-making should best be left to selectors, captains & coaches, with owners having a say. The IPL model is working fine; it weathered a major crisis last year. The future? Like any business, market forces will determine IPL's value.

  • POSTED BY InnocentGuy on | April 26, 2011, 23:02 GMT

    It's always that way with wages. People who do hard physical labor and put in 90 hrs a week are the least paid. People who sit at the top of the tree and never see light of day from within their air-conditioned offices/cars/homes are the highest paid. It's similar, that people who spend years in the domestic/test circuit go unnoticed while a couple of hours and six or two here and there in the IPL reap lots of rewards! MI is so rich that they can afford million dollar deals for their backups - as Ian pointed out, clearly Symonds and Pollard are there to provide the big hits, should Tendulkar fail at the top and it's for that that MI paid close to a million dollars for both Symmo and Polly.

  • POSTED BY unkith on | April 26, 2011, 19:18 GMT

    Good article but I would argue that it fails to comprehend two things: 1) Value for money vs star power - IPL caters to the Indian market, where star power is the way to go, no matter how good/bad your product. In an over populated country, narcissism is bound to brew & celebrity endorsement is the strategy to a proitable campaign. Yes Mumbai have both Pollard and Symonds, neither of whom have contributed too much except may be Symonds in the last match. But it does'nt matter. The crowd pays to see them in the same outfit as Bhajji, Malinga and Tendulkar. All of Mumbai's home games have been sold out. Why? Due to the insane levels of star power and resultant wins. And who makes the money? The businessmen. 2) For a true businessman a sporting win far undervalues profits. Iconic players mean more sponsorship, means higher capacity stadiums means greater profits overall. So unfortunately or fortunately, it's not all about winning, it's about the money. And in India, celebrities = money.

  • POSTED BY PnvPhD on | April 26, 2011, 18:36 GMT

    Interesting article. But I hope crickets boards also do a similar value analysis. IPL is like a war, but in a war-movie while international cricket is real war.

  • POSTED BY vinocalmm on | April 26, 2011, 15:07 GMT

    yeah absolutely true. symo and polly should have to up to the order.sachin have to step down atleast now to giving the stoke makers up to the order. this is better for the team otherwise nothing gonna happen for mumbai indians for sure

  • POSTED BY shlrocks on | April 26, 2011, 9:41 GMT

    I think mumbai's strategy on having both Symonds and Pollard is "better to have them in our team even if they don;t get to bat, rather than have them against us and score big"

  • POSTED BY mightymf2000 on | April 26, 2011, 9:35 GMT

    You are right Ian soon they will figure out who is worth what.

  • POSTED BY STARFISH14 on | April 26, 2011, 8:37 GMT

    The indian players were the most sought after players in the auction because they are the only players who will play the full tournament every time. But if the leagues are played on the guidelines of IPL it would be good. the league cricket should build on it and should follow the football leagues' rules. this would make cricket globally hit. I think the value of the player depends on his caliber. Andrew Symonds price of $850,000 is not more given his caliber. but Michael Hussey, Rahul Dravid and some other players were paid relatively less price. this needs to be sorted out. HOPE THAT THE CRICKET BECOMES A GLOBAL SPORT........................

  • POSTED BY nce8 on | April 26, 2011, 7:33 GMT

    Nice article. I completly agree. It's lucky that Mumbai has tendulkar.

  • POSTED BY jay57870 on | April 27, 2011, 13:29 GMT

    Chappell just can't grasp the true meaning of value. He's obsessed with slogging, measured by mighty sixes and huge strike rates. No wonder he's barking up the wrong tree. Who's winning matches for Mumbai Indians? Obviously it's total team effort: batting, bowling, fielding, all in unison. Meaning total team value is bigger than the sum of its parts. That's synergy. Among MI batsmen, builders contribute the most: Tendulkar, Rayudu, Sharma. Even Symonds. He and Sharma did most in a consolidating-building mode. Pollard is a slogger: flashy but can't be counted on as a consistent, reliable player like a builder. Tendulkar is a reliable constant: last year he was the top IPL scorer, but only had 3 sixes, in leading MI to the final. More important, how do you measure intangibles: character, self-belief, passion, work-ethic, mentoring, leadership, staying power? How do you assess Sachin's true worth? You cannot. He's Invaluable! Priceless! A National Treasure! Ian just doesn't get it.

  • POSTED BY jay57870 on | April 27, 2011, 13:18 GMT

    (Contd) Another sad MLB reality: Bankruptcy is as American as baseball and Chevrolet. Two MLB clubs - Chicago Cubs & Texas Rangers - went bankrupt recently. And last week the MLB Commissioner seized control of the storied LA Dodgers club from its feuding owners. The big problem: Mismanagement and bad finances. The IPL? So far so good. Ian, you missed it: the frugal Rajasthan Royals won the inaugural IPL trophy with the least costly player payroll! Maybe the MLB can learn a thing or two from the IPL: Its novel auction, which limits contracts to 3 years, with salary caps. As any numbers geek knows, MLB clubs have big busts too: Those deadly long-term contracts with dud stars. Yes, statisticians have a role to play, but only in the support staff. Decision-making should best be left to selectors, captains & coaches, with owners having a say. The IPL model is working fine; it weathered a major crisis last year. The future? Like any business, market forces will determine IPL's value.

  • POSTED BY InnocentGuy on | April 26, 2011, 23:02 GMT

    It's always that way with wages. People who do hard physical labor and put in 90 hrs a week are the least paid. People who sit at the top of the tree and never see light of day from within their air-conditioned offices/cars/homes are the highest paid. It's similar, that people who spend years in the domestic/test circuit go unnoticed while a couple of hours and six or two here and there in the IPL reap lots of rewards! MI is so rich that they can afford million dollar deals for their backups - as Ian pointed out, clearly Symonds and Pollard are there to provide the big hits, should Tendulkar fail at the top and it's for that that MI paid close to a million dollars for both Symmo and Polly.

  • POSTED BY unkith on | April 26, 2011, 19:18 GMT

    Good article but I would argue that it fails to comprehend two things: 1) Value for money vs star power - IPL caters to the Indian market, where star power is the way to go, no matter how good/bad your product. In an over populated country, narcissism is bound to brew & celebrity endorsement is the strategy to a proitable campaign. Yes Mumbai have both Pollard and Symonds, neither of whom have contributed too much except may be Symonds in the last match. But it does'nt matter. The crowd pays to see them in the same outfit as Bhajji, Malinga and Tendulkar. All of Mumbai's home games have been sold out. Why? Due to the insane levels of star power and resultant wins. And who makes the money? The businessmen. 2) For a true businessman a sporting win far undervalues profits. Iconic players mean more sponsorship, means higher capacity stadiums means greater profits overall. So unfortunately or fortunately, it's not all about winning, it's about the money. And in India, celebrities = money.

  • POSTED BY PnvPhD on | April 26, 2011, 18:36 GMT

    Interesting article. But I hope crickets boards also do a similar value analysis. IPL is like a war, but in a war-movie while international cricket is real war.

  • POSTED BY vinocalmm on | April 26, 2011, 15:07 GMT

    yeah absolutely true. symo and polly should have to up to the order.sachin have to step down atleast now to giving the stoke makers up to the order. this is better for the team otherwise nothing gonna happen for mumbai indians for sure

  • POSTED BY shlrocks on | April 26, 2011, 9:41 GMT

    I think mumbai's strategy on having both Symonds and Pollard is "better to have them in our team even if they don;t get to bat, rather than have them against us and score big"

  • POSTED BY mightymf2000 on | April 26, 2011, 9:35 GMT

    You are right Ian soon they will figure out who is worth what.

  • POSTED BY STARFISH14 on | April 26, 2011, 8:37 GMT

    The indian players were the most sought after players in the auction because they are the only players who will play the full tournament every time. But if the leagues are played on the guidelines of IPL it would be good. the league cricket should build on it and should follow the football leagues' rules. this would make cricket globally hit. I think the value of the player depends on his caliber. Andrew Symonds price of $850,000 is not more given his caliber. but Michael Hussey, Rahul Dravid and some other players were paid relatively less price. this needs to be sorted out. HOPE THAT THE CRICKET BECOMES A GLOBAL SPORT........................

  • POSTED BY nce8 on | April 26, 2011, 7:33 GMT

    Nice article. I completly agree. It's lucky that Mumbai has tendulkar.

  • POSTED BY _Highness on | April 26, 2011, 7:33 GMT

    I guess Chappell has missed the point in this article. What he has written is correct when it gets to Soccer Clubs in Europe or Base ball clubs in the US, where there is nothing called a "player cap" on clubs / franchises. In the IPL, there is an amount decided by the governing council, (9 Million USD this time) which is available to all franchises. In case the franchises, don't use that 9 Million, they will need to pay that back to the IPL. (this time Rajasthan Royals, had to make do with 7 Million USD as they had to give a 2 Million USD court guarantee.) Given that this amount has to be spent on players, there is no meaning evaluating players. In the sense, the 9 Million USD is a tax for maintaining the franchise. It must be spent on the players. So the question of evaluating value, under current rules, and trying to save money using intelligence, does not apply to the IPL under the current rules. One expects Chappell, to be more aware of topics that he is pontificating about.

  • POSTED BY rko_rules on | April 26, 2011, 1:08 GMT

    Ian is right in saying that Mumbai Indians have wasted their money in buying both Symonds and Pollard, because they both rarely get to bat in a single game.

  • POSTED BY raul00900 on | April 26, 2011, 0:16 GMT

    I think Saurav Ganguly is a good reward for money , moreover RCB will be more than happy that Nanes is injured so that they garbed Chris Gayle. One thing is for sure there are two players who are shining this season 1) Chris Gayle 2) B Mc Cullum both for KKR . SRK must be feeling bad LOL

  • POSTED BY Zahidsaltin on | April 25, 2011, 22:44 GMT

    I think he is spot on in analysing the issue. But there are two things which make it tight. First , the restriction of 4 foriegn players and second is the process of auction wich will always make the clubs to fight for top 20 players. I think, a provision of playing 5 foriegner could make it much cheaper and easier for franchisers. I could very easily form an equally competetive playing eleven by having Tamim, Mohammad Hafiz, Imran Nazir, Abdul Razaq, Wahab (all together 1,5 million) combined with some comparetively decent Indian players

  • POSTED BY gracegift on | April 25, 2011, 15:02 GMT

    Some big football clubs have a 'holding' mentality. They buy the best players and even bench most of them so other clubs cannot use them. Maybe Mumbai don't want Pollard or Symonds to play against them, and they certainly have the moolah to ensure that!

  • POSTED BY jay57870 on | April 25, 2011, 14:28 GMT

    Chappell is off the mark again, this time pretending to be a sports economist. Let alone his bungling of cricket players (recall "Duminy's a great in the making"), now he lectures us on how to number-crunch a player's monetary value. His flavour-of-the-month topic: Sabermetrics - the arcane science of baseball statistics & analysis. Let the truth be told. Yes, most, if not all, MLB clubs have sabermetricians on the payroll; some even in the front office. But the notion, that a formula can correctly calculate a player's true worth, is misleading. The actual results are mixed. Look at the (un-named) "less than affluent" club in "Moneyball": It's the Oakland A's. Yes, they were able to find bargain players with high value, often outperforming richer clubs. But when it counted, winning the big one, they were at best an also-ran. They won the World Series last in 1989. Compare with the NY Yankees, the biggest spending MLB club: They're a dynasty with 27 WS trophies. Nobody's close. (TBC)

  • POSTED BY Capt.jaideep on | April 25, 2011, 14:22 GMT

    Prices in all markets depend on supply and demand. Good all-rounders always command a premium.There are always hits and misses with big players and that cant be predicted at the time of the auctions. Some low priced players perform admirably and in subsequent auctions get their due.Its a pity that such performing players have to wait 3 years to realize their true worth. Some good players miss out on lucrative prices because of their lack of availability. I guess not being selected for West Indies, was a blessing in disguise for Chris Gayle. Look Malinga has to fore sake test cricket so that he can play a few IPL seasons. I think it is all a hog wash to talk about national priorities vs playing in the IPL. After all these are all professional players and they need to maximize their financial benefits before they go out through the revolving door.

  • POSTED BY on | April 25, 2011, 14:13 GMT

    Ian Chappel thoughts are good on IPL players value. But these thoughts are rendered in Cricket brains long long back. This is IPL 4 season not at begining. What is going on is as good as.., as cricket it is. Reason is simple.., statistically correct measure does not give surity of cricketers present form and their health guarenty. "Past performance does not guarentee in future" can apply here.

  • POSTED BY on | April 25, 2011, 14:03 GMT

    The truth is, no one deserves that much money to play 20 overs. Test cricket should be advertised and applauded. Value should be given to quality, not cheap entertainment.

  • POSTED BY nonchalantroy on | April 25, 2011, 12:00 GMT

    Before IPL-4 started nobody knew who is Paul Valthaty..and now when he has played two explosive innings..Ian is saying that he is a good bet...I think what Ian wanted to put forward was correct but was not able to come up with some solid points to back them...

  • POSTED BY Dhoni_fan_from_a_dada_era on | April 25, 2011, 11:39 GMT

    its an extremely enlightening article. even if the examples are a bit shoddy, the idea is clear. Sooner than later the IPL owners will have to think about statistical modelling of some KPIs to evaluate players when they go for auction or a proper transfer window model is created.

  • POSTED BY DrSunilSharma on | April 25, 2011, 11:21 GMT

    You are right Mr Ian Chappell there should be way to gauze the worth of the player. The player auctions give big money to the players on their past performances so Paul Walthaty and Jesse Ryders were great value for money. But some time their is more than the actual value of the player for BCCI and IPL frenchise to consider the Marquee player and star attraction to enhance the ticket sale. BCCI ( Board of Cricket of India ) is luring with money and diplomacy the top cricketing stars from other Cricket playing Nations auctioning the players for the ludicrously attractive money to join a Indian Premier League (IPL) teams. Unfortunately, the cricketing boards are helpless to stop their top cricketers disserting their own teams or even prematurely retiring. It is heartening to know the tentacles of BCCI have spread across whole globe and tightening its grip, due to unfair muscle gained due to top sponsors and TV rights owners raining their wallets more and more .

  • POSTED BY sramesh_74 on | April 25, 2011, 11:17 GMT

    Can Vijay Mallya read this article? For the mega bucks he spent on an ordinary player like Saurabh Tiwari, he could have retained Ross Taylor and Robin Uthappa.

  • POSTED BY h.k.foysol on | April 25, 2011, 8:44 GMT

    The tournament is not finished yet. Let see who contribute what at the end of the tournament. I wasted my time reading this one.

  • POSTED BY on | April 25, 2011, 8:35 GMT

    I would say Dan Christian has been the worst of the lot. The DC payed $900,000 for this guy? He is talented, no doubt. But a guy going for 45 in his 4 overs of bowling and then making a quick fire 15 off 10 balls has to be the worst buy of the auction. Hope he proves me incorrect. This lad must be under immense pressure to justify his price tag in totally alien conditions and in an unforgiving format. Irfan Pathan may be added to this list as well, but i may give him a leeway since he's coming off from an injury. I still believe MI's top 6 are as good as anyone can think of. Symmonds can play a dual role of both a hitter and a consolidator, while Pollard is licensed to kill from ball 1. They are chalk and cheese IMHO.

  • POSTED BY Nathan_123 on | April 25, 2011, 8:00 GMT

    This article is one of the few articles of highest quality I have read on Cricinfo. Well done to Ian Chappell for such a wonderful article and I thoroughly enjoyed reading it. Thank you!

  • POSTED BY thianavi on | April 25, 2011, 7:57 GMT

    It is ironic that within a day of this article being published, Symonds plays a crucial role in a Mumbai win.

    You are truly an Empty Vessel, Ian. Lots of noise....very little substance...

  • POSTED BY hsudhindra on | April 25, 2011, 6:07 GMT

    Last year Pollard came good only towards the end stages but that's when it mattered most! Premature article. Let's wait for the season to end and then make judgements.

  • POSTED BY Munish.Kalia on | April 25, 2011, 6:04 GMT

    Well as there is the saying in Cricket "A run saved is a run made", same goes with IPL auctioning. If there is a good player available for auction who can smash you all over the park like Pollard and Symonds can do, and if you have the money ,better have them playing for you rather they are smashing you out of the park. I kind of not agree with you Mr. Chappell in this because the problem with the IPL auction is that when franchises buy the player they donot buy for 1 season, they have to look for 3 seasons and availability for 3 seasons, there can be a case when Pollard be available for this but not for next season. Not to forget the fact that Pollard was supposed to play home series for WI but he was allowed by his board for this time around. But otherwise you are right there would be some economics involved when this IPL matures and probably in next auction in 2014 we will find more mean and commercial pickings rather than fan based or nationality based.

  • POSTED BY NBRADEE on | April 25, 2011, 6:00 GMT

    Mr Ian Chappell is right to question how much players worth in professional cricket, especially based on contracts offered these days in T20 leagues. Keiron Pollard is not lighting the game up on the field, especially with his bowling. No matter what his bat says, he's always going to be paid based on his potential, an intangible that will vary as time goes by because he's not going to get many balls to face for any team he plays for. PRODUCTIVITY is going to determine his and every player's payday in the future, and as in American sports a statistic is going to be created to finally measure players over time. I still feel that ability to draw a crowd is not enough. Leadership should be the biggest credential, because successful teams will be those that continually win in a version of the game that is still evolving, and if Dhoni, Tendulkar, Vettori and others get their respective teams into finals perpetually, that is what franchises should pay for, not sixes hit!

  • POSTED BY Wacco on | April 25, 2011, 4:53 GMT

    In response to Ian Chappell's fantastic analysis I have another view about the Pollard and Symmo example. If owner has deep pockets, by recruiting two players with redundant but high skill levels, it nullifies the chances of one of them to represent another team which needs those skills dearly to balance their line-up…..Kind of an ambush strategy. This is, of course, more common in NFL (US) - especially among division rivals.

  • POSTED BY andrew.henshaw on | April 25, 2011, 3:20 GMT

    I think Symonds and Pollard are both justified. But consider the case of Dan Christian - no star power (ie. not a recognised name) and done zilch with bat and ball - complete waste of $900,000.

  • POSTED BY on | April 25, 2011, 2:30 GMT

    Well philosophically speaking, you are correct - the value for each player will have to be estimated correctly in order for each decision to make business sense. But I think Ian misses the point with Keiron and Andrew. Keiron has not been able to prove his value this year yet - but he's definitely a solid gamble to win you a few games. And the reason that you want Keiron in your team is to bat around Sachin. Sachin plays the high speed anchor - role to perfection. And Keiron cannot be expected to bat (even on his day) for 40+ balls. The 2 facts live well with each other. Andrew's role is a floater - can be a keiron on his day and Sachin on another. So the thought process cannot be faulted there as well.

  • POSTED BY Bentos on | April 25, 2011, 0:05 GMT

    you are saying about the lack of thought by MI but Tendulkar and Rayudu have batted quite well so far and apart from today the likes of sharma and symonds were not needed, pollard on the hand you know at some point he's just going to explode as last year he started slowly then was just unstoppable.

  • POSTED BY on | April 24, 2011, 22:14 GMT

    This is expecting too much... IPL is just 4 seasons old, EPL has been around for so long yet we see that some players are bought for extremely high rates while some players are underpayed. Putting a correct price tag on players is not so easy.

  • POSTED BY Baramulla on | April 24, 2011, 22:12 GMT

    Ian, I respect your comments but sorry to say that you got this wrong. You need big name players to sell tickets and fill the grounds, owners do not care if the Symonds or Pollard get to bat or not as long as the tickets are sold and sponsors are lining. I think we all may be missing the point you may have had this article with the upcoming Aussi T20 league in mind!

  • POSTED BY RGRG on | April 24, 2011, 22:01 GMT

    Clearly from the examples cited, Ian Chappell is not following IPL, which he will probably take it as a compliment :)

  • POSTED BY on | April 24, 2011, 21:57 GMT

    Purely based on cricketing sense, buying Pollard and Symonds might be an overkill. However, I would disagree this on purely strategic sense. It is well known that symmo and pollard can change the game on their day. Now if you can afford them, why not buy them and keep them in your team. This will help in ensuring that competing teams dont have such a depth or have to cough up huge sums or will have to look for alternatives . This simply makes it difficult for competitors to acquire talent .A classic example of this phenomena can be seen in English Premier League (Football) .Manchester City submits bids for many players even if they have no requirement in that particular role/position.They can afford as long as they have the financial might to do so. As long as the players dont mind their restricted opportunities (owing to abundance of talent in playing 11) and they are paid a huge amount, this makes it harder for other franchises to buy such quality talent at a bargain

  • POSTED BY aabimalik on | April 24, 2011, 21:50 GMT

    i would agree to a certain extent with chipelli but being cricket fan i would not prefer it. they would need to let this process go on coz it would bring out the best of world cricket. where the concern arises is packing one side with bigger player is what one think about taste of win and if one is spending he suddenly care about the money and win brought fan and money both. here i m also thinking why they just sided good Pakistani player for playing cricket. and seeing upto know the bowling standard only count number come up with good bowling stats and one upto as we all know come up good ragularly. where in the first IPL bowling standard with inclusion of shoaib sohail naveed bring best in the IPL and thrill as well. this what we know why. and third IPL is all about run getting I would say to win more cricket fan and more money they need to bring Pakistani Player in this. AS sports is for all why.

  • POSTED BY AsherCA on | April 24, 2011, 21:17 GMT

    Pollard & Symonds backing Sachin, Sharma & Rayudu gives MI multiple strings to the bow. Any 2 of these 5 on a good day would win a T20 match for MI thru their batting within a 3 / 5 over window. Also - if MI are batting 2nd, thanks to entities like Pollard & Symonds in the MI lineup, they cannot be sure of how much is too much. This could result in their attempting to aim too high 7 as a result, reach low.

  • POSTED BY Ellis on | April 24, 2011, 21:13 GMT

    Chappell knows as much about player valuations as I do about nuclear physics. That is, nothing! The time to decide on value is after the season is over, not on a match by match basis. Given the $ contracts in the IPL, Symonds and Pollard are well worth the money they are paid. Both are multi faceted players and contribute not only in the three departments of the game, but in their attitude, commitment and determination. There will always be good buys and bad buys in the IPL, just as there are in baseball, basketball, soccer, ice hockey etc. Perhaps Chappell's next article should be on a subject he is au fait with. This one is a bust.

  • POSTED BY vikosaurus on | April 24, 2011, 21:08 GMT

    with 4 international player limit, and the way the earlier batsman have been playing, its too early to judge if he is valuable or not. i think 850k is justfied. In a situation where malinga is not playing, mumbai have to chase a score around 200, thats when symonds comes into picture. As a bowler, most indians can pla him but as a batsman and fielder, he is definately a player u want in ur team.

  • POSTED BY on | April 24, 2011, 19:54 GMT

    Ian, hopefully today's game featuring Mumbai answered your question. The points table can also potentially answer your question.

  • POSTED BY InsideHedge on | April 24, 2011, 18:37 GMT

    Ian is right about MI's lack of thought at the auction but he's wrong about the examples he cites. As others have stated, both are fielders of the highest class. Pollard is a poor bowler tho, Symonds should lend a hand once his shoulder improves.

    However, MI have not been thoughtful with the acquisition of Jacobs and particularly James Franklin. I would say Franklin is a poor man's Ryan McLaren. The skipper, SRT, appears confused with McLaren/Franklin. Last year, McLaren was tried as an opener but rarely trusted with a full 4 over spell despite having better bowling credentials. Franklin is worse with his bowling so has he been bought as a specialist batter? Instead of Jacobs, MI would have been wise to have acquired either Patel/D.Karthik, pref Patel as he can open and gives MI a L-R combo.

    Lastly, Ray Price means Ali Murtaza's chances are slim to none, this is a pity as he is talented. And no-one understand R. Satish's place.

  • POSTED BY CricSamraat on | April 24, 2011, 17:33 GMT

    In spite of all calculations in baseball, a number of hitters and pichers get overpaid every single year. But, then these players get traded and effectively shunted out of playing. In basketball too, non-performing high-paid players get benched or traded. In Twenty20 as well, similar things are happening, or will happen. Performance eventually gets compensated in a free market - it happens sooner than it used to in old times when National teams used to keep top name players for too many games even when they were just duds.

  • POSTED BY on | April 24, 2011, 15:35 GMT

    well!! I don't fully agree with this. Their worth is seen in matches like with the CSK. Sharma and Symonds showed what they can do and they just did a fantastic job.

  • POSTED BY anmol_a_n_m_o_l on | April 24, 2011, 15:15 GMT

    Dear Sir,

    You're wrong about the requirement of franchises to determine the "value of a win". 3 years ago the budget was 5 million and they spent most of it, and now its 9 million, and they spent most of it. Due to the cap, they only need to determine the relative value of the player, because the fact that teams are spending most of their budget means that the combined value of the players is higher than the budget.

  • POSTED BY CricIsCrazy on | April 24, 2011, 14:42 GMT

    Mumbai Indians Desparately want to win. You kow because they are from Mumbai and they are the richest franchise. Having Symonds/Pollard ensures that the others dont have them thus bettering their chances!

  • POSTED BY amit1807kuwait on | April 24, 2011, 14:30 GMT

    Now Ian Chappell is going to give us a lesson in economics! Once again he would be eating his words. Mumbai Indians showed the value of having Pollard, Symonds and Rohit Sharma in the middle order today. To say that having all of these because of Sachin's insurance at the top is a luxury is a stupid statement in the extreme!!

  • POSTED BY CricketTeller on | April 24, 2011, 14:26 GMT

    All your story is fine, but the examples cited are well worth the money. Today's match is the testament to it. Fielding is always crucial in any form of the game. Depth is important even in 20-20 cause you can lose your wicket any time. YEs, there are some over paid cricketers alright. Irfan Pathan is paid 1.9 million (????), Gautam Gambir got 2.3 million (He is a good player but not worth that money)...

  • POSTED BY on | April 24, 2011, 14:16 GMT

    what if sachin & Rohit Fails on a day MI has to depend on u r mentioned biggies if u have a players like them in down the order players feel free to play game either attacking or stabilizing. what ever happens WIN is the ultimate thing that counts, as watson and clarke are in form in bangladesh,is australia going to decrease the contract price of pointing or hussey

  • POSTED BY on | April 24, 2011, 14:14 GMT

    Ok Botham....today Pollard got out on DUCK and then Symmonds consolidated the innings with Rohit for Mumbai Indians...now go an d determine worth of Pollard and Symmonds both being present in Mumbai Indians squad.

  • POSTED BY forzaps on | April 24, 2011, 13:55 GMT

    I think your statement about Pollard and Symonds is both hind sighted and short sighted. They are both match winners with the bat and you don't assume that the top order is going to bat through every innings. They are also match winners in the field to the extent thats possible. Also, the statement about the Mumbai Indians owners being very wealthy is largely irrelevant (actually its plain misleading) since there is a hard salary cap in place.

  • POSTED BY on | April 24, 2011, 13:53 GMT

    These are STAR Players, They have earned their value and it's them because of whom the IPL is popular. It is absurd to relate STARDOM to runs or wickets. You will find big sex hitters on the streets of India but no one will stick to TV for watching them no matter how long they are hitting. By the way, how many of you really sit and watch Ranji matches?

  • POSTED BY on | April 24, 2011, 13:31 GMT

    Agree with the points suggested in the article.... If you do a simple division of the money paid by effort involved, IPL is the highest paid league in the world - at least what the team management should make sure is that those high prized stars are 'exploited' over the course of the 50 days to realize their potential... for e.g. - After having paid $2.1 mil for Yusuf Pathan, a player who can bat in almost any position in the same way - saving him for Christmas to bat 3-4 overs every match rather than making him bat 12-15 overs if possible - is the best example of not utilizing an investment properly... Also Umesh Yadav bought by DD at $ 750K has barely got a game to play yet.... My understanding is that these players are bound to get their salary even if they are part of the team and not selected to play in any of the 14 matches (unlike in case of the availability issues with the overseas players)

  • POSTED BY on | April 24, 2011, 13:29 GMT

    Agree with the points suggested in the article.... If you do a simple division of the money paid by effort involved, IPL is the highest paid league in the world - at least what the team management should make sure is that those high prized stars are 'exploited' over the course of the 50 days to realize their potential... for e.g. - After having paid $2.1 mil for Yusuf Pathan, a player who can bat in almost any position in the same way - saving him for Christmas to bat 3-4 overs every match rather than making him bat 12-15 overs if possible - is the best example of not utilizing an investment properly... Also Umesh Yadav bought by DD at $ 750K has barely got a game to play yet.... My understanding is that these players are bound to get their salary even if they are part of the team and not selected to play in any of the 14 matches (unlike in case of the availability issues with the overseas players)

  • POSTED BY on | April 24, 2011, 13:27 GMT

    Ian, I don't totally agree with you. Agreed Symonds and Pollard may not have gotten an opportunity untill now, but "Depth" is important. Sachin is not going to perform everyday but it's a long tournament. Top order knows they have depth in batting and it reflects in the way they play. I think money on Symonds and Pollard is money well spent

  • POSTED BY on | April 24, 2011, 13:06 GMT

    Botham , Okay .Pollard scored DUCK and Symmonds rescued Mumbai Indians with Rohit Sharma...you may determine the worth of these 2 being present in Mumbai Indians squad at same time now.

  • POSTED BY harry010787 on | April 24, 2011, 13:01 GMT

    Irony, is what they call it :) Great performance by Symmo and Sharma once again against Deccan

  • POSTED BY on | April 24, 2011, 13:00 GMT

    Last thing here. I see pressure for less on overseas players. A word of warning. Should the game go too far - and just become a domestic Indian competion with say one or two overseas players per side..the rest of the world will stop watching. Sure it will still be a massive draw in India, but outside no-one will care. English domestic T20 has 2 overseas players allowed per side. Symonds, Pollard etc play in this, and the audiences are dwindling year on year. No one outside your home borders is that interested in a domestic sompetition no matter what country it's based in. Remove all the stars, and the IPL will end as a world spectacle (and the stars the world are interested in are those thay have seen perform on the international stage). What Chapelli is saying is sides should be more selective with who they buy and how they fit into the squad and team.

  • POSTED BY on | April 24, 2011, 12:21 GMT

    Good idea for an article Chapelli. Cricket needs stats in the same way as baseball.; Not just runs, but whether they were "clutch" not just wickets but who they were, not just catches but ration of good to bad groundfielding attempts, measured drops. Ability against different sorts of bowlers, Left hand, right hand, spinner, pace etc ALl this is completely routine in even minor league baseball. Sabermetrics for cricket is what we need - THEN we'll know who is worth what. Read "Moneyball" if you want to learn more.

  • POSTED BY hulk777 on | April 24, 2011, 12:14 GMT

    I feel the way the players are auctioned is not good for players. Because some players want to play in addition to getting money. No one wants to sit in the bench while their team is doing good. In future, they should have an Interview and offer letters sent to players from different franchise, player then get to choose the team. After all the professional players wanted to be treated as professionals not slave trading. IPL board should monitor the recruitment process. If they do this, I am sure players will be happy to play for the team they want and also get the money.

  • POSTED BY Charindra on | April 24, 2011, 12:13 GMT

    Funny that of the marquee players mentioned by Mr. Chappell, I can't help feeling that RR made a mistake in paying so much for Warne. He would have been better in a mentoring capacity. His bowling is poor these days, and his captaincy has been all over the place. They would have been better served to spend that money on buying some real match winners. Looks like another disappointing season for RR.

  • POSTED BY azzaman333 on | April 24, 2011, 11:21 GMT

    Chappell is spot on. Having 4 hard hitting all-rounders who can bowl a bit of medium pace (Symonds, Pollard, Franklin, Henriques) is silly. If Malinga or Harbhajan get injured, Mumbai are pretty much stuck with medium pacers and part time spinners. A better investment would've been to buy another specialist bowler instead of Symonds.

    Also, for those using Pollard and Symond's fielding as a justification for spending over $1.5 million on them, I'm sure you could find a couple of cheap Indian players not taking up the international slots to fulfill a specialist fielder's role, and the money saved could easily be reinvested to add depth in other aspects of the squad.

  • POSTED BY Biso on | April 24, 2011, 11:10 GMT

    @Sameer _Kumar. Good one. Ha Ha Ha. The market will finally moderate all. Players, coaches and the real sports writers from the pretenders.

  • POSTED BY on | April 24, 2011, 11:09 GMT

    IPL is a long tounament. We are not even at the half way mark yet. Each team plays 14 games before playoff matches takes place. In MI's 5 matches so far, we have seen batting is in huge form. Yes they have better players than any other team - Did I say 'team'? Cricket is a team game and not individual display. It's always good to have ranks of Symonds & KP to follow whenever there is any derailing effort. Other team that surprised me with ability of stroke players was Pune Warriors. And not to forget first 3 editions DC had almost every big hitter in their team (Symonds, Rohit Sharma, Afridi, Gibbs, Gilly ) now why yell about MI's star power???

  • POSTED BY on | April 24, 2011, 10:25 GMT

    One should understand that no matter Mumbai paid so much amount of money to both Symonds and Pollard, its only important that they are in the team.Its a good thing that the team is playing well without requiring them to perform and secondly, when Mumbai bought them its obvious that the other teams dont have them which is again a bonus!! I respect Mumbai team management for giving more opportunities to domestic players than depending on the high worth International players. Also I think, its more important that the team wins than who is playing for his money worth.

  • POSTED BY Jeetender on | April 24, 2011, 9:59 GMT

    I dont think the owners of mumbai indians want to earn profit from IPL team, they have personal wealth of 50+ billion dollors and spending $9million on players is pea nuts for them.. Mumbai indians only care about the entertainment and star value of their team (which is good). Their only aim is to have biggest fan base in India(which they already have)compared to all other IPL teams. As long as team is on top ofthe table no one cares who is performing and who is not.

  • POSTED BY bala-chala on | April 24, 2011, 9:49 GMT

    Mumbai is not only wasting money but also reducing the quality of IPL by having both Symonds and Pollard and to a lesser extent Franklin in the same team. They all bat and bowl a bit. In fact in the CSK vs MI match Franklin didn't face a ball nor bowl one. These players in other teams such as DD or RR would have been key performers. The same goes to a lesser extent for Styris and Bravo of CSK. The stronger teams have weakened other teams without exactly strengthening their own. There is a question of fair competition being violated here and the organisers should take steps in the coming years to ensure that such a thing does not happen.

  • POSTED BY stevedd on | April 24, 2011, 9:24 GMT

    Mr. NaveenBongarrapu please do not compare Chelsea with Mumbai Indians. symonds played for DC for 3 yrs and not for MI. munaf, praveen, tait, watson, nannes, warne, morne, albie,ashwin, bollinger, kulasekara, vettori and much more,aren't these the world class bowlers whom MI have faced. wasting players will be known when MI does not reach the knock out stage until then sHHHHHHHHHHHH

  • POSTED BY on | April 24, 2011, 9:20 GMT

    Best value for money is in the A team players from India. The reason behind is their desire to prove themselves and earn national spot(though IPL should not be considered for that). Also it is usually great to see people like Saurabh Tiwary, Manoj Tiwary, Badrinath, Parthiv etc. for local people. Also another good investment would be Indian discards like Rohit Sharma, RP Singh, Robin Uthappa etc. And than I would say good value can earned out of retired international stars like Gilly, Warne, Symonds etc. as they can be good mentors for Indian junior generation.Next I would place Indian current International cricketers for the sake of adding brand value and quality to every team. And than finally I would say current international players from other countries. The reason behind considering them last is, uncertainty with their availability. I think IPL can be definitely used as a breeding ground for creating good cricketers for futures. Jai Ho.

  • POSTED BY on | April 24, 2011, 9:10 GMT

    May be Chappel should understand that no matter Mumbai paid so much amount of money to both Symonds and Pollard, its only important that they are in the team.Its a good thing that the team is playing well without requiring them to perform and secondly, when Mumbai bought them its obvious that the other teams dont have them which is again a bonus!! I respect Mumbai team management for giving more opportunities to domestic players than depending on the high worth International players. Also Mr.Chappel should understand that its more important that the team wins than who is playing for his money worth.

  • POSTED BY on | April 24, 2011, 9:07 GMT

    May be Chappel should understand that no matter Mumbai paid so much amount of money to both Symonds and Pollard, its only important that they are in the team.Its a good thing that the team is playing well without requiring them to perform and secondly, when Mumbai bought them its obvious that the other teams dont have them which is again a bonus!! I respect Mumbai team management for giving more opportunities to domestic players than depending on the high worth International players. Also Mr.Chappel should understand that its more important that the team wins than who is playing for his money worth.

  • POSTED BY sifter132 on | April 24, 2011, 9:05 GMT

    Glad you mentioned moneyball - it really has changed baseball and yes it will only be a matter of time before cricket has something similar. Baseball has a LOT of stats too. In T20 in particular it would be interesting to see strike rates against different handed bowlers, or different paced bowlers. These will become more common.

  • POSTED BY RSK30 on | April 24, 2011, 8:57 GMT

    Yes, when I read this article, I had a thought on Chelsea from EPL - a team that buys already proven players and have little or no focus on nourishing the young talent. That's where I prefer Arsenal. But the same thing may not apply to IPL for that the teams are forced not to retain their players after 3 seasons, at least that's what happened at the end of 3ed season. Therefore, one may not imagine few of the IPL teams focusing on preparing a team of future! It's business in this sense; you put money for today's gain.

  • POSTED BY melayaraja on | April 24, 2011, 8:50 GMT

    Both Symonds and Pollard add a gr8 value to their team. Even if they don't get to bat they contribute well in the field. Everybody in a team cannot contribute in every match. If the top 3 fail, definitely both these players will get more deliveries to face. How about this: even if symonds and pollard were not batting for mumbai in the first few games....at least they were not batting against mumbai bowlers.

  • POSTED BY on | April 24, 2011, 8:38 GMT

    I think it boils down to how much weight a win has on the economics. If having the number of wins outwieghs the price of the two then its agood decisionfor the following reasons: 1. its a safer bet to have both in the team and may be critical if the top order fails. 2. It makes the other team weaker by making them unavailable

    It might turn out to be a good business decision (so far it has).

  • POSTED BY on | April 24, 2011, 8:30 GMT

    Mumbai Indians are like Chelsea or Man City of IPL, they have loads of money, all they want is tropies. There is a stratergy, where you buy very very good players even if you dont need so that they wont play against you. Chelsea used this very effectively in EPL.

  • POSTED BY on | April 24, 2011, 8:26 GMT

    its not about the performance, its about the physiological pressure both symonds and pollard put on the opposition team. plus their energy also derives the local players playing in mumbai indians. the only change sachin should make is to send any one of these players at one down position to get the most out of them. irfan is a total waste but his bowling is a little improved then before

  • POSTED BY RSK30 on | April 24, 2011, 8:24 GMT

    I don't think having both the hard hitters of the ball in a team is a BAD choice. Of course, they cost big too. However, with a batsman like "Sachin" in the top order of the batting line-up who is expected to slowly build-up his innings would leave work of accelerating the score board on the middle order batsmen. And, that's where the duo of Symonds and Pollard can play a big role. It is true that these both the hard-hitters may not come good against quality spinners and that's exactly where the other Indian players in the line-up such as Rohit Sharma and Ambati Rayadu would show their talent.

  • POSTED BY courierpost on | April 24, 2011, 8:21 GMT

    mumbai will be in the bottom of the table by mid season and Ian is spot on.

  • POSTED BY on | April 24, 2011, 8:19 GMT

    It should be easy for Duckworth and Lewis to calculate the value of a player

  • POSTED BY PradeepR on | April 24, 2011, 8:12 GMT

    Ian, they might not use them, but at least they made the other teams weaker for these two. If they didn't buy them and some other team bought them the other team would be a tough competitor. You're forgetting that angle. Wait and see what kind of a difference a player like Gayle is going to make to the Bangalore side. If I could afford to buy him, I would rather have him on my side and not play than play for some other team and win a match for them over me.

  • POSTED BY Ozcricketwriter on | April 24, 2011, 8:01 GMT

    There are a few things to consider. Firstly, Indians are far more valued in the IPL than non-Indians, simply for the fact that you can have as many Indians as you like but can only play 7 non-Indians. As such, comparing two equally good players, if one is Indian then he warrants a bigger price tag. With this in mind, you need to think of your 4 best non-Indian players. Can they play the full season? If so, then stop there, perhaps with 1 or 2 reserves for injury or loss of form. If not, then pick enough to have 4 good non-Indian players at any point in the season. While Symonds is getting a bit older, Pollard is one of the best T20 players around and Symonds on his day was too. There is nothing wrong with having both in the same team! It is a luxury but so long as both make the top 4 overseas players, why not? The luxury would be having 5 quality ones when one doesn't even play. In some ways it is simple but in other ways less so. Ian Chappell, it seems, doesn't get it.

  • POSTED BY loung_singh on | April 24, 2011, 7:58 GMT

    u r right mate, mumbai is wasting players of such quality as symonds and pollard. why dont they open wid rayudu and sachin bcoz every opener dey tried has failed..open wid rayudu and sachin followed by rohit, symonds,pollard ..mumbai are winning currently bcoz of their bowling and fielding and it s fortunate 4 dem dat malinga has retired 4m tests....

  • POSTED BY on | April 24, 2011, 7:56 GMT

    David Hussey 1.4m Ian chapel why u don't talk about DAVID HUSSY

    Andrew Symonds 0.85m Kieron Pollard 0.9m

  • POSTED BY Lamewolf on | April 24, 2011, 7:49 GMT

    Oh dear Ian, just because you cannot make the kind of money these guys are making is no reason to put them down! You are commenting on a handful of games. they might come good!

  • POSTED BY ambsmams on | April 24, 2011, 7:48 GMT

    Good article, Ian. I see you among a very rare breed of writers who mentions statistics among many who voice opinions without any statistical analysis. I do hope that ex-cricketers refrain from using phrases like "valuable player", "excellent buy", etc. without going into the "Cost-Benefit" analysis.

    We need more people like you to bring in some sense in this din of commercialism.

  • POSTED BY on | April 24, 2011, 7:30 GMT

    I feel the IPL is not just about the value of the player is is about to determine the best team, i believe Individuals salaries will drop in the future but teams in general will get paid more, maybe a bonus for winning play offs etc.

  • POSTED BY rockers_pRaf on | April 24, 2011, 7:25 GMT

    m surprised ..this article is written by cricketing brain ..........how come he assumed that the same situation will go on and on in rest of the tournament............pollard and symonds are definitely gud buy for MI.

  • POSTED BY nzcricket174 on | April 24, 2011, 7:21 GMT

    Irfan Pathan and Dan Christian were two big wastes to me. Irfan is useless in everything he tries these days and Dan Christian is just not good enough to be worth $900k. Also what bothers me is how the Indian players get so much more, well this is not exactly what bothers me. Some of the talentless Indian players get a lot more than others, while R Ashwin gets piddles compared to what the others are getting.

  • POSTED BY on | April 24, 2011, 7:13 GMT

    another way to look at it is if we do not buy the big players someone else might which increases the competition, and hence our chances of losing... jus' kidding... on a serious note, given the money cap available to spend and a fixed number of players to be bought, such deals may not be out of place... on the flip side, because of the duration of a t20 game, the top order would seem to be more valuable than a middle-lower middle order, in terms of hedging bets. but when you are in trouble, thats when the value of the middle order comes to fore. it was seen in this world cup. duration could be the argument for it, but how long does it take for a team to be in the doldrums even in a t20 game waiting for a solid middle order to bail them out?

  • POSTED BY on | April 24, 2011, 7:07 GMT

    Pollard comes in Tendulkar, Dhoni, Warne, KP categoryand is a crowd puller. Where will you find a guy who hits 150kph ball out of the ground and then dances.

  • POSTED BY on | April 24, 2011, 7:03 GMT

    Andrew symonds could open the batting for a change

  • POSTED BY CricFan78 on | April 24, 2011, 7:03 GMT

    Ian needs to focus on something else, IPL is not his cup of tea :-)

  • POSTED BY Sameer-hbk on | April 24, 2011, 6:53 GMT

    Hindsight makes everyone wise Mr. Chappell. What if Rayudu and Sharma had failed in the first few matches? And you really thought Paul Valthaty was a great buy when it took place? He just has hit a purple patch and something i do not believe anyone could have predicted. These things happen.

    And since when has KP joined Sachin, Warne and Dhoni? Whether it is consistency or even marketability in India. The guy can barely stay fit long enough and anyway most English players seem to be more fond of "sleeping in their own beds' than being on tours... BTW, Pollard won a match for MI with fielding alone. Poor write-up... Good central idea but the rest seems like something written to meet deadlline and wordcount so that u get your pay... Hopefully even sports magazine editors will understand "true value of so-called-experts" soon :)

  • POSTED BY CricEshwar on | April 24, 2011, 6:50 GMT

    Its early in the tournament to say they haven't got a chance and their inclusion may not be worth it. Just having them in the order will implement defensive strategies from the opposition. Look at MI's position in the tournament so far. Symonds was able to finish a match, Pollard;s contribution on the field was invaluable in Chennai;s match. You can say anybody else could ve done the same job, as long as the job is getting done, money is well spent.

  • POSTED BY on | April 24, 2011, 6:47 GMT

    Well, Mumbai don't need both Pollard and Symmo, but then, it ensures the other teams don't get them! That's the plan.

  • POSTED BY Rahul_78 on | April 24, 2011, 6:45 GMT

    Ian chappell is the best cricket analyst of contemporary cricket. Always balanced and unbiased in his views. I am surprised none of IPL teams decided to get him on their side when auctions were on. Always look forward to listen and read Ian on cricinfo.

  • POSTED BY buddy200 on | April 24, 2011, 6:42 GMT

    They just wanted to make sure that none of them become part of any other squad. xD

  • POSTED BY oweniit on | April 24, 2011, 6:40 GMT

    I think both Pollard and Symond are great for Mumbai team. Dont forget their fielding. They cutting 10-20 runs in the field also. That can be count lot in T20. Who knows what will happen they can score 75-100 in 5 overs. I don`t think it is waste of money. Look at prices of other player.

  • POSTED BY prus26 on | April 24, 2011, 6:22 GMT

    I believe its a great deal.... Its just that mumbai have batted exceptionally well in games so far...but sachin and raydu arent going to score everday for you... Mumbai have surely learnt from their mistakes in the last seasons....when saurabh tiwari and abishek nayar, thou hard hitters, coudnt get them across the line many a times....so they have the dependable options in rohit, symo and pollard this time....and if applying business sense..not picking a symo or pollard would mean someone else picking them....why not weaken the opposition even thou it doesnt add to ur strength....in this case it does both

  • POSTED BY on | April 24, 2011, 6:09 GMT

    we all saw what Pollard did in IPL 3 and champions trophy. I think the reason why MI wanted Symo was primary due to his availibility and his all round skills. We all know what he did in IPL 3. If Saurav Tiwary can go for 1.5 Mi and above, then Symmo and Pollard are all round players...

  • POSTED BY on | April 24, 2011, 6:06 GMT

    With Pollard saving runs and creating wickets out of midair as he did last match for MI, I'd call him quite good value, considering he's going to get a chance to belt some sixes at some point during the tournament.

  • POSTED BY on | April 24, 2011, 6:05 GMT

    one way of looking at is how successful have the mumbai indians been in utilizing such big hitters.. other way around is how successful they have been by having looting the big hitters from the players pool and not allowing opposition to build on them... its basically resource management in a competitive market..

  • POSTED BY on | April 24, 2011, 6:01 GMT

    @bismoy

    Delhi needs Sehwag for maintaining a sense of "Delhiness" to their side. With him gone, they would also lose a lot of support in their home city. He is, after all, the biggest name in Delhi cricket. So even if he underperforms, he is vital to their marketing needs.

    Irfan Pathan, of course, has been a dud for the past 1-2 years now. I suspect that after this IPL, he will have a hard time finding a buyer. Sad to say this, but his career looks over.

  • POSTED BY kurups on | April 24, 2011, 5:57 GMT

    Fine analysis....and a fine article.. as always. this article I hope will urge the players to put on a good show sooner rather than later....for you know not when the "value for money" equation will hit them!!!

  • POSTED BY on | April 24, 2011, 5:53 GMT

    ya bt when u are in a acution price...go higher than u expect...its..nothing like player transfer like in football league,...and it comes down to prestige...as well for the business men

  • POSTED BY chandau on | April 24, 2011, 5:48 GMT

    To compare these franchises with football clubs in Europa league may be apt. If one looks at the top performers year in year out like Man U Barca, Real Madrid, Bayern Munich Inter Milan Chelsea et al, its the player depth that keeps them at the top. It is called the BENCH STRENGTH. while in cricket subs are not allowed but, ability to select a competitive XI on a given day will tell if u win or lose.

  • POSTED BY SunilPotnis on | April 24, 2011, 5:43 GMT

    Completely agree with Ian Chappell. Some clubs have highly over spend to get the talent which may not be even utilized to the optimum

  • POSTED BY on | April 24, 2011, 5:41 GMT

    Ian just wants to write 'something'.

  • POSTED BY AjaySridharan on | April 24, 2011, 5:37 GMT

    A really sensible piece of article from Ian's stable after a long time! For a 20 over slog-fest, there are only so many non-marketable stars you need in a team. With everyone trying to impress their boss, they are going to pull through even with niggling injuries (Malinga case in point). Btw, Moneyball is a fantastic book

  • POSTED BY Indian_fan777 on | April 24, 2011, 5:32 GMT

    From a businessman's point of view, it is a worthy buy. MI wants both Pollard & Symmo, not jus becuz they want them in their team, but they dont want them in any other team!! ;) MI are rich enuf to afford that!

  • POSTED BY vishwanath.sreeraman on | April 24, 2011, 5:30 GMT

    is it fair to value the presence of players in a lineup purely based on their contributions each game (runs or wickets)... their (pollard, symonds) mere presence is what gives the MI top order batsmen the license to flex their wares without worry. and the fact that u deny their services to another team, thereby weakening ur opposition in a sense.

  • POSTED BY donda on | April 24, 2011, 5:13 GMT

    I don't believe in Ian Chappel concept. IPL is not cricket, its entertainment and win or lose no franchise cares because its all in india and for india. Its not rival country matches. Millioniares spend their money to buy IPL teams to entertain people like movies, may be they get hit or not but people will always be entertained. Value of a player will come in 15 to 20 years of understanding IPL. Not today, even in NBA , franchise pay huge money on wrong players, NBA is 70 years old.

    I think we should all take IPL as great entertainment and enjoy it while not criticizing who is earning what because its luck. Irfan pathan is not worth 2 million today but he is damn lucky and i am happy for him. Just stay happy mr. chappel.

  • POSTED BY gummadv on | April 24, 2011, 4:57 GMT

    Pollard, Symonds and Rohit can win matches on their own. Very good insurance for Sachin's failure in some games. Value of a win for the owners is much bigger than the value of the franchise.

    Big business big egos few million can be thrown just like small change. IPL is not business for some franchises it's show of success and satisfaction of ego's for some franchises.

    If you remove the cap at auction marquee players like Sachin Tendulkar, MS Dhoni, Shane Warne, etc. will get ten times more easily.

  • POSTED BY on | April 24, 2011, 4:54 GMT

    Ian u r wrong this time..they both r playing thr role..as for last match symond batted well and pollard bowled well as well as he was too good on field n had dismissed hussey with brilliant catch...

  • POSTED BY skepticaloptimist on | April 24, 2011, 4:51 GMT

    Oh c'mon Ian, Mumbai bought them because they can afford the big men. It's not that hard to understand. A simple $1 pen has more value for money than a Mont Blanc, but if one has the money, he or she would go for the latter. Mumbai want to win, and want to ensure that they have the top quality resources to do so.

  • POSTED BY here2rock on | April 24, 2011, 4:47 GMT

    Great artible by Ian again. Some of the buys don't make business sense at all, most baffling are Yusuf Pathan& Irfan Pathan. Are they really worth more than $2m? What were the bidders thinking?

  • POSTED BY bismoy on | April 24, 2011, 4:27 GMT

    I believe having symond and pollard is really good deal,Ian must know MI is leading the entire ipl4 as of now.delhi has worse deal with irfan pathan doing nothing or shewag also not justifying his high salary until yesterday match.

  • POSTED BY shaileshacharya123 on | April 24, 2011, 4:16 GMT

    no i dont think that pollard and symonds seems not nice attacking combo but its gud for mumbai

  • No featured comments at the moment.

  • POSTED BY shaileshacharya123 on | April 24, 2011, 4:16 GMT

    no i dont think that pollard and symonds seems not nice attacking combo but its gud for mumbai

  • POSTED BY bismoy on | April 24, 2011, 4:27 GMT

    I believe having symond and pollard is really good deal,Ian must know MI is leading the entire ipl4 as of now.delhi has worse deal with irfan pathan doing nothing or shewag also not justifying his high salary until yesterday match.

  • POSTED BY here2rock on | April 24, 2011, 4:47 GMT

    Great artible by Ian again. Some of the buys don't make business sense at all, most baffling are Yusuf Pathan& Irfan Pathan. Are they really worth more than $2m? What were the bidders thinking?

  • POSTED BY skepticaloptimist on | April 24, 2011, 4:51 GMT

    Oh c'mon Ian, Mumbai bought them because they can afford the big men. It's not that hard to understand. A simple $1 pen has more value for money than a Mont Blanc, but if one has the money, he or she would go for the latter. Mumbai want to win, and want to ensure that they have the top quality resources to do so.

  • POSTED BY on | April 24, 2011, 4:54 GMT

    Ian u r wrong this time..they both r playing thr role..as for last match symond batted well and pollard bowled well as well as he was too good on field n had dismissed hussey with brilliant catch...

  • POSTED BY gummadv on | April 24, 2011, 4:57 GMT

    Pollard, Symonds and Rohit can win matches on their own. Very good insurance for Sachin's failure in some games. Value of a win for the owners is much bigger than the value of the franchise.

    Big business big egos few million can be thrown just like small change. IPL is not business for some franchises it's show of success and satisfaction of ego's for some franchises.

    If you remove the cap at auction marquee players like Sachin Tendulkar, MS Dhoni, Shane Warne, etc. will get ten times more easily.

  • POSTED BY donda on | April 24, 2011, 5:13 GMT

    I don't believe in Ian Chappel concept. IPL is not cricket, its entertainment and win or lose no franchise cares because its all in india and for india. Its not rival country matches. Millioniares spend their money to buy IPL teams to entertain people like movies, may be they get hit or not but people will always be entertained. Value of a player will come in 15 to 20 years of understanding IPL. Not today, even in NBA , franchise pay huge money on wrong players, NBA is 70 years old.

    I think we should all take IPL as great entertainment and enjoy it while not criticizing who is earning what because its luck. Irfan pathan is not worth 2 million today but he is damn lucky and i am happy for him. Just stay happy mr. chappel.

  • POSTED BY vishwanath.sreeraman on | April 24, 2011, 5:30 GMT

    is it fair to value the presence of players in a lineup purely based on their contributions each game (runs or wickets)... their (pollard, symonds) mere presence is what gives the MI top order batsmen the license to flex their wares without worry. and the fact that u deny their services to another team, thereby weakening ur opposition in a sense.

  • POSTED BY Indian_fan777 on | April 24, 2011, 5:32 GMT

    From a businessman's point of view, it is a worthy buy. MI wants both Pollard & Symmo, not jus becuz they want them in their team, but they dont want them in any other team!! ;) MI are rich enuf to afford that!

  • POSTED BY AjaySridharan on | April 24, 2011, 5:37 GMT

    A really sensible piece of article from Ian's stable after a long time! For a 20 over slog-fest, there are only so many non-marketable stars you need in a team. With everyone trying to impress their boss, they are going to pull through even with niggling injuries (Malinga case in point). Btw, Moneyball is a fantastic book