Ed Smith
Ed Smith Ed SmithRSS FeedFeeds  | Archives
Former England, Kent and Middlesex batsman; writer for the New Statesman

India: cricket's Brazil

It's difficult to beat a huge talent base exposed to good facilities, and possessed of a long history of competing as a nation

Ed Smith

April 14, 2014

Comments: 139 | Text size: A | A

Is India's recent dominance of international competitions just the beginning of a long-lasting dynastic supremacy? © AFP

As losing finalists, India had a bad World T20. That is a compliment, not a criticism. Under MS Dhoni, India completed a kind of limited-overs grand slam: the World T20 (2007), the World Cup (2011), and the Champions Trophy (2013). If an international tournament is played with a white ball, India are about as likely to win as everyone else put together. India are now as good at cricket as Brazil are at football - and they are likely to become much better than that.

Fourteen years ago, researching my book Playing Hard Ball about cricket and baseball, I had a debate with an American executive from Major League Baseball. Naturally, we both argued that ours was the better sport. One of my arguments was that cricket was more genuinely a world game, whereas baseball was skewed towards the US. I've never forgotten his reply: "You estimate how many people in the world play cricket, I'll do the same for baseball. Then we will each subtract from that total the biggest single national population - so I get baseball minus America, and you get cricket minus India. How's your world game looking now, Ed?" His point was that cricket is wildly skewed towards India, in terms of both participants and fans. I went quiet. Over the last decade and a half, India's weight within world cricket has only become more marked.

This raises an interesting point about performance in international competition. We - as professional players, pundits and supporters - seldom take into account how our team "ought" to perform given its population, wealth, talent base and resources. We find it difficult to adjust expectations to fit reality.

In their excellent book Soccernomics, Simon Kuper and Stefan Szymanski try to do just that. First, they ask which underlying conditions determine why teams win and lose; secondly, the authors ask which countries "overperform" given the resources at their disposal.

The authors analysed all international matches, then used the mathematical technique of regression analysis to determine which factors influence the performance of national teams.

First, international experience - simply chalking up the games played as a nation - is an excellent head start. Having twice as much international experience as your rival is worth just over half a goal per match. Secondly, sheer weight of numbers has an effect. Having twice your opponent's population is worth about a tenth of a goal. Thirdly, money talks. Having twice the GDP of your rival is also worth about a tenth of a goal. All taken together, it makes perfect sense: a huge talent base exposed to good facilities that has a long history of competing as a nation - that is pretty difficult to beat.

India's economy has been growing fast, it is now the fulcrum of well-paid cricket (the IPL), and for that reason boasts the strongest concentration of cricketing intelligence and knowledge

Of course, these three factors - experience, population size and national wealth - are pretty much outside the control of sports coaches, selectors and administrators. But Kuper and Szymanski explore a further influence: knowledge networks. Mainland European nations, they found, have punched above their weight because so much elite club football happens in Europe. They benefit by always being close to the game's tactical and strategic cutting edge.

Between 1968 and 2006, Germany, France, Holland, Italy and Belgium shared 12 World Cups and European Cups. Spain's more recent success further demonstrates the power of connectedness. It was Johan Cruyff, who imported the Dutch idea of "total football" while coach of Barcelona, who led first Barcelona then the Spanish national team to become world-beaters. In contrast, the performance of Brazil - the greatest of all footballing powers - has slipped in the 2000s as the Champions League has changed the way the game is played.

So how does this matrix - population, wealth, experience and knowledge networks - apply to cricket? India has always benefited from a huge talent base (though it has got even greater as a new generation has been turned on to cricket since the arrival of T20 on TV). But for much of the 20th century, India was held back by the comparative wealth and knowledge networks of old powers such as England and Australia. That advantage has gradually crumbled and, looking forward, the picture is even rosier for India. Its economy has been growing fast, it is now the fulcrum of well-paid cricket (the IPL), and for that reason boasts the strongest concentration of cricketing intelligence and knowledge. (For proof of this last fact, try to persuade a top international coach to leave the IPL and coach England - a role that demands being away from home for 280 days a year.) It is very likely that India's recent dominance of international competitions is just the beginning of a long-lasting dynastic supremacy. India, in fact, has all the advantages of Brazil and a few more.

There is a political dimension to India's rise as cricket's superpower. The last few years have been dominated by a long-running series of rows and negotiations about the power of India within world cricket. I'm not interested here in the particular rights and wrongs of each instalment of that dispute. Instead, I make a much more general point. In a game that is dominated so completely by one marketplace, one fan base and one national board, it is very likely that the power of that country will be a source of perpetual anxiety and resentment among the other nations. I continue to hope, of course, that cricket's governance improves. But I am realistic enough to accept that the best guarantor of democratic fairness is not appealing to good intentions but widening the vote. If cricket had more countries with a huge fan base, there would be a greater democratic equipoise at the game's high table.

That is easier said than done, of course. But one way to protect the interests of cricket's smaller powers is to encourage new, expanding markets in wealthy, populous countries. Cricket needs to find new Indias. Time to take cricket to America and China.

Ed Smith's latest book is Luck - A Fresh Look at Fortune. He tweets here

RSS Feeds: Ed Smith

© ESPN Sports Media Ltd.

Posted by jay57870 on (April 18, 2014, 0:28 GMT)

Seriously Ed's "Soccernomics" logic is irrelevant in the world of "Realpolitik": He who has the gold, makes the rules! Like the old ICC (Imperial) duopoly of Eng & OZ. And the present ICC (International) troika of Ind, Eng & OZ - with Ind the "superpower". But if Ed thinks its "superpower" clout can be broken by a democratic "widening the vote", he's sadly mistaken. Take cricket to USA & China? Really? Has Ed ever observed the (veto-crazy) UN Security Council? Namely its (gridlocked) 5 permanent members: China, USA, UK, France & Russia? No seat at the high table for India - world's largest democracy, 2nd most populous nation & 4th largest economy! So where's the "greater democratic equipoise"? As it is, all USA wants to do is promote its own home-grown sports - baseball & basketball - overseas. That's why MLB's promotion of the 2014 season opener last month at SCG. As for China, all they're interested in is to totally dominate the Olympics. For cricket's sake, just leave it alone, Ed!

Posted by jay57870 on (April 18, 2014, 0:24 GMT)

Ed - It's futile to compare cricket & football, India & Brazil. They're like apples & oranges. If Ed thinks the Champions League has "changed the way the game is played", then so too has IPL-T20. It's a great leveler. IPL has had 5 different winners in 6 years. Furthermore, WCT20 has been hosted by 5 nations so far, producing 5 different winners at each venue, never the home side - Ind, Pak, Eng, WI & SL. Look how Ed misfires: "If any international tournament is played with a white ball, India are about likely to win as everyone else put together"! LOL! Check the facts: Nothing could be further from the truth! No. India is not a limited-overs grand-slammer. Even the Test crown has changed heads over recent years: SA, Eng, Ind, OZ. As The Bard says: "Uneasy lies the head that wears a crown"! So how in the world is India as good at cricket as Brazil at football? And likely to become "much better than that"? OMG! The evidence just isn't there to support "India: cricket's Brazil", Ed!

Posted by   on (April 17, 2014, 16:21 GMT)

Ed, the title led me to think that you think of Brazil as a superpower in soccer. In the text however, you paint Brazil as the aging superpower whose dominance is 'slipping' for whatsoever reason. India in cricket, is the other part of the day when the sun is just about climbing, or so is what you say in the later part of your article. Then, how is India cricket's Brazil? As for that last statement of yours: since you care for being realistic... Cricket does not need USA and China where it has been sowed unsuccessfully several times now. Try bringing baseball to India: get the point? Instead, if you want the power to decentralize, think of empowering promising and passionate cricketing nations like Ireland and Afghanistan.

Posted by ashok16 on (April 16, 2014, 20:00 GMT)

It is an interesting comparison but conclusion is not correct. Brazil in Soccer is a far more dominant power than India in cricket, purely on sporting terms. India's few brief years as World No. 1 in tests (70s and recently), two 50 over world cup wins and 1 T20 cup win pales in comparison to what other countries have achieved in cricket (West Indies, Australia) and Brazil has in football. All the more remarkable considering that the West Indian countries are significantly poorer than Aus/England and that Brazil was similarly poor as India for most part of the 20th century. The reasons for India's mediocrity may not be easily statistickable and may force us to delve into the nether regions of polticial incorrectness- socio-cultural and genetic.

Posted by t20cric on (April 16, 2014, 16:30 GMT)

@Adnan Younis Lodhi: Ending up as finalists so consistently doesn't mean SL is the best Asian team. In terms of actual world cup (t20 & ODI) wins SL has 2, Pak has 2 & India has 3. Also in terms of W/L ratio in tests Pakistan(1.10) is 3rd, SL(0.83) is 6th, India(0.80) is 7th. In ODIs the W/L ratio is (disregarding Asia XI but non-test nations included): Pakistan(1.23) is 3rd, India(1.10) is 6th, SL(0.99) is 8th. In T20Is the W/L ratio is (disregarding teams who played less then 10 T20Is): SL(1.78) is 1st, Pakistan(1.58) is 2nd, India(1.50) is 4th. So yes, SL is the best T20I side but Pakistan is best Asian team in terms of W/L ratio in test & ODI & India has the most world cup wins among Asian teams. So its hard to say who is the best Asian team & it all depends on what measure do you use to figure out the best Asian team.

Posted by   on (April 16, 2014, 4:01 GMT)

This is a really bad article Ed. You premise that India is cricket's Brazil is faulty in the fact that Brazil does not dominate the club football leagues, and is a mass exporter of players. In addition, India does not have the history of Brazil with their 5 world championships, nor do they play the free flowing Brazilian football style.

West Indies is a much better comparison to Brazil. West Indies, with the Brazilian free flowing style, grace and power combined with their history and their exporting players to the English county system. Whereas Europe is a far better comparison to India, recently winning championships, playing very formulaic football, and having all the money and club leagues.

Very poor article, as you did not even mention the similarities between Brazil and India.

You didn't even mention Test cricket. England, South Africa and Australia, the 3 best teams in the world clearly rate limited overs cricket as a distant 2nd which gives a false rise to indian cricket

Posted by   on (April 16, 2014, 2:03 GMT)

SL played WC final in 1996,2007 and 2011. T20 Final in 2009, 2012 & 2014. CT Final in 2002. They have reached Finals of ICC events more than India, Pakistan and BD. They have won Asia cup five times not less than India. Let us be honest, they are the best performing South Asian team at ICC events in history. Moreover, they are the best T20I team since the inception of the game.

Posted by cheapskate on (April 16, 2014, 0:28 GMT)

At least Brazil's soccer team can win abroad. When was the last time India won a test series in Australia or South Africa. Also India might have a limetless talent base and financial clout yet havent had a decent fast bowler since Javagal Srinath. Even their spinners aint that great overseas but look at Bedi and co they could suceed overseas but this current lot are overpaid pampered little wimps who dont want to do the hard yards.

Posted by krik8crazy on (April 15, 2014, 18:07 GMT)

No, India is NOT cricket's Brazil. WI is the only team which comes close to that description. And one or two Aussies aside, most cricket fans feel happy when WI wins.

Comments have now been closed for this article

Email Feedback Print
Related Links

    Ronchi's blitz, and remarkable ODI recoveries

Ask Steven: Also, the fastest ODI 150s, and the highest Test totals without a half-century

    Penalty runs the best punishment for slow over rates

Ashley Mallett: Fines and suspensions have had no effect. Awarding the opposition runs for every over a team falls short in a Test innings will definitely bite harder

    Pietersen stars in his own muppet show

David Hopps: KP's rubbishing of many aspiring English county professionals brings to mind the belief of Miss Piggy that "there is no one in the world to compare with moi"

    How to construct an ODI chase

Michael Bevan: Focus on targets smaller than winning the match, and back your tailenders to deliver for you

The many crickets of an Indian boyhood

Sankaran Krishna: Growing up in India, you play a number of varieties of the game, each developing a certain skill

News | Features Last 7 days

Kohli at No. 4 - defensive or practical?

It seems Virat Kohli is to not bat before the 12th or 13th over to strengthen the middle and the lower middle order. It suggests a lack of confidence in what was supposed to be India's strength in their title defence: their batting

Open with Rohit and Binny, with Kohli at No. 3

India's batting is going the way of their bowling in Australia, and they need get their order sorted before the World Cup

Off-stump blues leave Dhawan flailing

The out-of-form Shikhar Dhawan still has the backing of his captain, but there's no denying his slump has arrived at an inconvenient time for India and his technical issues have to be sorted out before they attempt to defend the World Cup

On TV it looks uglier than it actually is

Often reasonable arguments on the field look nasty beyond the boundary and on camera

'Teams can't have set formula' - Dravid

In the first episode of Contenders, a special ten-part buildup to the 2015 World Cup, Rahul Dravid and Graeme Smith discuss the impact of local conditions on team compositions and the issues surrounding the format of the tournament

News | Features Last 7 days