The year-end essay January 2, 2009

All hail the new boys

The rookies of the year, Pakistan's predicament, an idea that may have served its purpose, and one that has a way to go yet
  shares 17

Read part one of the year-end essay here


Mendis: Young and devious © AFP
 

Statsguru will tell you that it was the year of the bat. Twelve batsmen scored more than 1000 runs, notching up 45 centuries between them. Virender Sehwag, the second-most prolific scorer, with 1462, got his runs at a strike-rate of 85.84, faster than Sachin Tendulkar gets his runs in one-day cricket. The top scorer, Graeme Smith, got his runs at 65.81.

That these two men open the innings made a huge difference. Sehwag saved a Test in Adelaide, breathtakingly charged to a better-than-a-run-a-ball 319 in Chennai in response to a first-innings total of 540, won the Galle Test almost single-handed, set up the declaration against Australia in Mohali and made the Chennai victory possible. Three of Smith's hundreds came in the last innings of the match -- two were in successful chases and one saved a match -- and five of his six hundreds of the year were in match-winning causes. That they were the most decisive batsmen of the year brooks no argument.

The same can be said about Dale Steyn, who headed the bowling chart, with 74 wickets. He bowled with pace and control, and was quite unplayable when he got the outswinger going. Steyn more than made up for a disappointing beginning in Perth with a series-winning second-innings spell at the MCG. Unsurprisingly, among bowlers who took more than 30 wickets, he is on top in terms of strike-rate, and average too.

That was not the case with the next two on list: Mitchell Johnson and Harbhajan Singh, who took 63 wickets each but were way below on strike-rate and average. Steyn took a wicket every 36 balls, at 20, whereas Johnson took a wicket every 55 balls at 29, and Harbhajan a wicket every 67 balls at 31.60. For Johnson, apart from one spell in Perth, it was more a case of being the best bowler in a struggling bowling unit. He was strong and spirited but one-dimensional, and rarely looked a match-winner. Harbhajan helped India win a Test in Galle, but was otherwise disappointing. He continued to bowl to contain rather than to take wickets, and was unable to deliver on wearing last-day pitches at home.

Ishant and Mendis: it's not wickets alone
The sensational bowlers of the year were both rookies. Ajantha Mendis and Ishant Sharma didn't have lots of wickets to show but what an impact they made. It wasn't Mendis' fault he played only three Tests, but those three were against India, who have made meals of the best spinners. Mendis first jolted India's one-day batsmen in the Asia Cup final with 6 for 13, and arguably bowled the ball of the year to claim Rahul Dravid as his first Test victim. He would keep his hold over Dravid for the rest of the series, during which he also bamboozled VVS Laxman; claimed Gautam Gambhir, India's best batsman in the series, three times; and polished off the tail in a trice. Never have Indian batsmen been made to look so clueless against a spinner. In time, batsmen might be able to read his variations - he bowls offspin, floaters, googlies, and a flicked legcutter that has come to be described as the "carrom ball", but his real strength is accuracy. Indian batsmen claimed that they could read him, but he still finished with 26 wickets at 18.

Ishant's figures (38 wickets at 31.60 with a strike rate of 61) belie the manner in which bowled and the impact he made. That he took only one wicket in the second innings in Perth was a travesty. But not only was that one wicket the one that mattered, Ishant made Ricky Ponting the world's best batsman (certainly at that point) look like a novice for over an hour. On a slow and low pitch in Galle, he made a ball zip and curve. He remained a menace for Ponting and Australia throughout on dull pitches in the home series. In him, India have found their first genuine quick bowler.

South Africa: an end to quotas?
It was Desmond Tutu, the archbishop of Cape Town, who first used the term "Rainbow Nation" to describe post-apartheid South Africa, and South African cricket authorities have done their damnedest to get their cricket team to live up to that ideal - with mixed results. Only the naïve will argue that quotas have no place in sport: For a nation with South Africa's past, the healing power of symbolism cannot be overstated, and the system did yield, in Makhaya Nitni, the nation's first genuine black cricket hero.

 
 
South African cricket has developed enough to be able to limit affirmative action to the lower levels, which means equipping cricketers of all races with an equal opportunity to compete for a spot in the national side, and not handing out places on a platter
 

But in real terms, quotas should translate to equal opportunity, and South African cricket has developed enough to be able to limit affirmative action to the lower levels, which means equipping cricketers of all races with an equal opportunity to compete for a spot in the national side, and not handing out places on a platter.

International cricket is unforgiving. It has no place for the callow and the underdone, nor for self-doubt. In 2002 the South African selectors destroyed two careers by pushing Justin Ontong ahead of his friend, the more deserving Jacques Rudolph, and they did the same again in 2008 by promoting Charl Langeveldt ahead of Andre Nel. In what must count among the most significant events in South African cricket, Langveldt sent them a message by making himself unavailable. Pride is an essential part of sport, and international players must feel that they belong.

In that light, the success of Jean-Paul Duminy, a cape-coloured cricketer like Herschelle Gibbs, is heart-warming and inspirational. Duminy is nearly 25; he has done his time on A tours and on the sidelines of the national team. When a place opened up, it was his by right.

A rainbow is one of the most magnificent sights in the world, but it can't be painted. The South African selectors must now let the natural process take over.

Cricket telecasts in India: the horror, the horror
India's television-watching millions have made the Indian cricket board the game's undisputed, lone superpower, but the experience of watching Indian cricket on television has grown proportionately worse with the BCCI's revenues. Even by its own abominable standards, the coverage of cricket on Indian soil was shabbier than ever in a year in which the Indian board registered record earnings.

All the usual irritants made their presence felt - if anything, more frequently: balls went missing, commentators were cut off mid-sentence, advertising got more intrusive, and you had to endure a million commercials before you could watch the replay of a dismissal.

Indian broadcasters have often had to fork out huge sums, banking on speculative earnings down the road. Nimbus, which bid US$612 million in 2006 for four years' rights and has struggled to pay its instalments since, has been forced to squeeze every second of commercial time out of telecasts. This has meant depriving the end consumer anything beyond the actual delivery: the captain and bowler setting the field, any banter between overs, the expressions of joy and disappointment after a dismissal, and everything else that makes cricket a game beyond just bat and ball. The least the viewer can expect is for the basics to be covered in a manner that befits the world¹s richest cricket nation. Instead, the coverage remains decidedly third-world.

When Ricky Ponting edged Paul Harris onto his front pad and was caught at forward short-leg at the MCG, Channel 9 produced an instant replay that captured a close-up of the deviation. Indian viewers have long been condemned to not being able to watch a replay of a dismissal until the next batsman has played a ball or two. And then the replays are often of such poor quality that the viewer is left none the wiser in case of bat-pad catches. Mercifully, there has been no referral system on trial in India: given the quality of replays available, it would be an even greater waste of time.

NeoCricket has brought no innovations apart from new forms of advertising; no new technology -- no HotSpot, no Ultra Motion cameras. It has reneged on its commitment to broadcast 72 days of domestic cricket. The concern for the bottom line is understandable, but in which other business does the consumer get such a bad deal?


Waiting for the hammer to fall: New Zealand and India had reason to feel they got the rough end of the review stick © Getty Images
 

Pakistan: cut off and hung out to dry
In the Chennai Test, which England gallantly returned to play after the Mumbai terror attacks, I asked an English journalist why Western players and boards should not be accused of double standards in dealing with security situations in India and Pakistan. His reply was simple, but chilling. It took the terrorists months of preparations to do what they did in Mumbai, he reckoned, but in Pakistan there lurks the danger of someone merely driving in with a van laden with explosives at an hour's notice. It was simplistic, and perhaps exaggerated, but it's a perception the Pakistan Cricket Board can neither fight nor ignore.

Last year was tragic for Pakistan cricket. It went by without their team playing a single Test; the Champions Trophy was cancelled; and at the end of the year India, among the few teams who would otherwise have travelled to Pakistan, called off their tour. Sri Lanka will go in their place, but they will generate nowhere near the amount of money India would have.

Cricket cannot afford to let Pakistan fall off its map, or to let the PCB go bankrupt. Cricket needs variety, and at their best, Pakistani cricketers bring a vim and edge those from few other teams can match. At the moment they are running dangerously low on supply after losing a number of players to the ICL, and prolonged international isolation will only exacerbate the problem.

Part of solution must come from the PCB itself. Of course it should not give up persuading the Western countries to tour, but it should be prepared to be flexible. It should also be pragmatic and realistic enough to accept that a difference does and will exist in the way countries view the security situation in India and Pakistan.

The facilities at the Abu Dhabi cricket stadium are world-class, and Test cricket has been played in Sharjah: Pakistan must be prepared to adopt these as their home grounds. The conditions there are decidedly subcontinental, and perhaps the PCB and the ICC can persuade the local authorities to hand over the pitch preparation to Pakistan to grant them home advantage. Attendance shouldn't be a concern for Test matches, not least because Tests are often played to empty grounds in Pakistan, especially in the bigger cities. Anything is better than a drought.

The review system: work in progress
A decision will have to be taken this year on the umpire review system, which was tried with mixed results in two series in 2008. The teams that gained from it - Sri Lanka and West Indies - loved it, while India and New Zealand were understandably not so enthusiastic. The findings so far point to one thing: The system was trialled to get rid of obvious umpiring mistakes, but ended up delivering verdicts in marginal ones.

If carried forward, it could change the nature of the game profoundly. As evident from the India-Sri Lanka series, bowlers are likely to earn many more leg-before decisions. Dravid was given out sweeping Muttiah Muralitharan on a full-forward stretch, and the impact was only marginally inside the line.

But the bigger problem is that the technology is nowhere near good enough. Thin edges still cannot be picked -- the camera can lie, Snicko isn't reliable, and HotSpot isn't used. Brendon McCullum was furious that Mark Benson didn't reverse Rudi Koertzen's decision to give him out caught behind in Napier; but you couldn't blame the third umpire. While the replay didn't establish a nick, it didn't prove that McCullum didn't nick it either, so the original decision stood.

And then there is the issue of technology malfunctioning, and of human error in applying technology. Sehwag, the first man to be given out under the system in the first Test against Sri Lanka in Colombo, suffered on both counts. Koertzen, the third umpire, didn't spot an obvious deflection off the front pad onto the back one; and Virtual Eye showed the impact to be in front of middle stump, but outside the crease. Sehwag was indeed hit outside the crease - on the front pad, which was in line with leg stump. The second impact was in front of middle stump, but the back foot was within the crease.

 
 
Dhoni has shades of Sourav Ganguly's leadership qualities, and on the evidence of his few matches in charge, greater tactical nous. Most of all, he seems immune to the media
 

If the intention is to eliminate the kind of mistakes that nearly created a diplomatic crisis in Sydney last year, there could be a simpler, common-sense solution. Allow the third umpire to be pro-active. If he spots an obvious error, let him tell the man in the middle immediately. It might lead to batsmen who know they are not out lingering on a bit longer, but more or less everyone will accept the marginal ones, and the game will move on.

Dhoni: India's man of the hour
Midway through India's one-day series against England, a story appeared in a Bengali paper that Mahendra Singh Dhoni had threatened to quit over a difference with selectors over RP Singh being replaced by Irfan Pathan in the side. It was instantly picked up and played out ad nauseam by the electronic media. Expectedly Dhoni was asked about it at a pre-match conference. He didn't duck or obfuscate. He said it was "disgusting and disrespectful" that a matter discussed in the selection meeting should be leaked to the media.

Many Indian captains have been frustrated and embarrassed by such leaks, but Dhoni wasn't prepared to suffer in silence. He has many distinguishing qualities: the most remarkable among them are his self-assuredness and forthrightness. He finished off by saying that he was confident the issue wouldn't create a problem within the team because he enjoyed the trust of both Irfan and RP. Add to that affection and admiration.

India are lucky to have found Dhoni to take them through a crucial hour of transition. He has shades of Sourav Ganguly's leadership qualities, and on the evidence of his few matches in charge, greater tactical nous. Most of all, he seems immune to the media, which as Rahul Dravid and Anil Kumble found, often poses a much greater challenge to Indian captains than opponents on the field. So far, admittedly, he is yet to taste the kind of press that drove Dravid and Kumble to distraction, and he has maintained an aloof, and in fact slightly amused, air about media criticism.

As captain he doesn't seem burdened by precedents or shackled by the fear of consequences. There is a method to his tactics, but he has allowed himself to be guided by his instincts. In some ways he is an old-school captain, not given to over-theorising or over-reliance on the laptop, and guided instead by a cricketer's reading of situations. As a result, his decision-making has come across as uncomplicated and uncluttered. He also seems to possess that intangible thing that all successful captains need: luck.

There will be days when his plans misfire and luck deserts him. That will be his true test. Last year was one in which he could do no wrong. Still, all signs suggest he will be all right.

Read part one of the year-end essay here

Sambit Bal is the editor of Cricinfo

Comments have now been closed for this article

  • POSTED BY VivaVizag on | January 2, 2009, 21:14 GMT

    Sambit,

    Thank Lord, you did not blame India for Pakistan's predicament as you did in your other piece - I would have suggested you to apply for that coveted Pakistani citizenship! Pakistan's position is NOT a predicament as you mentioned here, it IS an indictment by the civilized, peace-loving nations.

  • POSTED BY India_will_win on | January 2, 2009, 18:44 GMT

    Thank you for your nice piece of article Mr. Bal. I would just like to comment on of your observations that India has found there first genuine fast baller. Well this is may not be true as India did have genuine fast bowlers in Nissar and Amar Singh (recognised by greats like Wally Hammond). Javagal Srinath of early 90s was genuinely quick. Zaheer Khan in his early years was quick. Ishaant is genuine quick bowler it's true but he is not the first from India.

  • POSTED BY Dogevpr2 on | January 2, 2009, 18:31 GMT

    Good summary.A couple of points: 1.All the protective gear has reduced the exciting fear factor for fast bowlers( & may be partially responsible for the success of the opening batsmen you mention,we have to be careful not to make this a batsman's game.2.I agree that efforts must be made to keep Pakistan Cricket a vital part of the cricket world.3. Most importantly no mention was made of the the London Assembly and the London MAyor supporting Cricket2012Games.com's position on having cricket be a part of the 2012 Olympics.Such an event would have the greatest impact on cricket's future,hence their support is among the most significant events of the year in cricket.

  • POSTED BY nelrod03 on | January 2, 2009, 14:08 GMT

    NeoCricket's telecast is just simply basic & it has a long way to go to achieve standards set by Channel 9/ESS/SKYsports.

    The claritly of the telecast of the Aus. summer of cricket is awesome. Even the SKY telecast from New Zealand is good.

    Though, I feel some of the Aussie commentators are biased. They should have had at least 1 South African commentator i.e. Barry Richards. The new set of commentators, Brendon Julian need to step up & get into the commentators box

  • POSTED BY Sjsharma on | January 2, 2009, 13:37 GMT

    I'm an Indian. The part of Sambit's article that will defintely affect most of the Pakistanis, should be the void left in our lives by the isolation of Pakistan in world cricket. I dont know much about crowds or mass movements, but I want to voice my opinion that Pakistani cricketers are missed by plenty of Indians that I know. We all cheer for India, but feel very sad for the talented Pakistani cricketers who deserve participation and reciprocation. Gosh, it's very disheartening to not to see Suhail Tanvir bowling to Ponting in Rawalpindi, it's a shame that we cant watch Salman Butt clobbering Steve Harmison at Faislabad, it's worse for the sport if people are deprived to watch Internationl cricket staged at Lahore's Gaddaafi stadium. Someone please fix this, I promise to behave as a good boy, but please dont deprive me from my heroes...

  • POSTED BY KingOwl on | January 2, 2009, 13:22 GMT

    I think the referral system needs to be persisted with. It is the only thing that smaller, less powerful (not in terms of skills, but economic and socio-cultural terms) countries have against umpires favouring the 'bigger' nations. If we analyse the decisions that go against the 'smaller' countries, we will find that they have a significant impact on the results of games. The way things are now, in general, smaller countries are better than their rankings indicate, and larger countries are not as good as their ranking.

  • POSTED BY vermiciousknid on | January 2, 2009, 11:55 GMT

    Lovely considered article Sambit, but not sure I agree with you about the UAE as a venue for test cricket. After all, the tests there in 2002 were hardly packed to the rafters, and test cricket needs a crowd to get it going.

    The best solution is for Pakistan to experiment with some 'home' tests in England: they would be guaranteed big crowds at Edgbaston, Headingley or The Oval, for instance. I'm sure there are scheduling difficulties, but these can no doubt be overcome if the will is there. The English public fell for Pakistani cricket in Imran Khan's day - we'd love a chance to cheer them on as our home team! :-)

  • POSTED BY Amila on | January 2, 2009, 10:15 GMT

    Very nice artical from Mr.Sambit. I believe that Ishant and Mendis were the two finds of the year 2008. I would like to point out something that wasn't mentioned in your article. I am a Sri Lankan Cricket fan, and I wonder why a major cricketing nation like Sri Lanka has been given only five test matches in year 2008. The story is very much the same in next year too. Even teams like Bangladesh are getting at least ten matches per year. Sri Lanka got some world class performers and it's really a shame to see them not playing enough cricket. I must say the Pakistan too having the same problem. My question is how can somebody say which team is no1, when one team gets twelve matches per year and the other gets just five?

  • POSTED BY Nevie-E on | January 2, 2009, 10:02 GMT

    Part 2

    If it was not for the quota system, we would have seen Makhaya Ntini, Hershelle Gibbs, Hashim Amla, JP Duminy and Ashwell Prince ever play for South Africa. the reality is that previously advantaged cricket officials will only select non white players on "MERIT" if he is at least three times as good as his nearest white opponent. Even then he is only good enough to make the squad and be twelth man.

    I would be the first to welcome the abolishment of the quota system when the previously advantage cricketing community, which still runs cricket to a large degree in SA, stops picking young players in age group representative teams because their fathers make sizeable donations to schools cricket, or when the best players are allowed to play in representative teams regardless of the colour of their skin or their ethnic background.

    Neil McKenzie played 40 tests as a specialist batsmen and scored 2 hundreds before being dropped. H.H.Gibbs fails in 3 and is dropped.

    EO Part 2

  • POSTED BY arya_underfoot on | January 2, 2009, 9:53 GMT

    i've had enough of people claiming that dhoni is a lucky captain. that's complete rubbish. dhoni is an intelligent, intuitive captain who coaxes the best out of his players. his results are based on substance, not luck.

  • POSTED BY VivaVizag on | January 2, 2009, 21:14 GMT

    Sambit,

    Thank Lord, you did not blame India for Pakistan's predicament as you did in your other piece - I would have suggested you to apply for that coveted Pakistani citizenship! Pakistan's position is NOT a predicament as you mentioned here, it IS an indictment by the civilized, peace-loving nations.

  • POSTED BY India_will_win on | January 2, 2009, 18:44 GMT

    Thank you for your nice piece of article Mr. Bal. I would just like to comment on of your observations that India has found there first genuine fast baller. Well this is may not be true as India did have genuine fast bowlers in Nissar and Amar Singh (recognised by greats like Wally Hammond). Javagal Srinath of early 90s was genuinely quick. Zaheer Khan in his early years was quick. Ishaant is genuine quick bowler it's true but he is not the first from India.

  • POSTED BY Dogevpr2 on | January 2, 2009, 18:31 GMT

    Good summary.A couple of points: 1.All the protective gear has reduced the exciting fear factor for fast bowlers( & may be partially responsible for the success of the opening batsmen you mention,we have to be careful not to make this a batsman's game.2.I agree that efforts must be made to keep Pakistan Cricket a vital part of the cricket world.3. Most importantly no mention was made of the the London Assembly and the London MAyor supporting Cricket2012Games.com's position on having cricket be a part of the 2012 Olympics.Such an event would have the greatest impact on cricket's future,hence their support is among the most significant events of the year in cricket.

  • POSTED BY nelrod03 on | January 2, 2009, 14:08 GMT

    NeoCricket's telecast is just simply basic & it has a long way to go to achieve standards set by Channel 9/ESS/SKYsports.

    The claritly of the telecast of the Aus. summer of cricket is awesome. Even the SKY telecast from New Zealand is good.

    Though, I feel some of the Aussie commentators are biased. They should have had at least 1 South African commentator i.e. Barry Richards. The new set of commentators, Brendon Julian need to step up & get into the commentators box

  • POSTED BY Sjsharma on | January 2, 2009, 13:37 GMT

    I'm an Indian. The part of Sambit's article that will defintely affect most of the Pakistanis, should be the void left in our lives by the isolation of Pakistan in world cricket. I dont know much about crowds or mass movements, but I want to voice my opinion that Pakistani cricketers are missed by plenty of Indians that I know. We all cheer for India, but feel very sad for the talented Pakistani cricketers who deserve participation and reciprocation. Gosh, it's very disheartening to not to see Suhail Tanvir bowling to Ponting in Rawalpindi, it's a shame that we cant watch Salman Butt clobbering Steve Harmison at Faislabad, it's worse for the sport if people are deprived to watch Internationl cricket staged at Lahore's Gaddaafi stadium. Someone please fix this, I promise to behave as a good boy, but please dont deprive me from my heroes...

  • POSTED BY KingOwl on | January 2, 2009, 13:22 GMT

    I think the referral system needs to be persisted with. It is the only thing that smaller, less powerful (not in terms of skills, but economic and socio-cultural terms) countries have against umpires favouring the 'bigger' nations. If we analyse the decisions that go against the 'smaller' countries, we will find that they have a significant impact on the results of games. The way things are now, in general, smaller countries are better than their rankings indicate, and larger countries are not as good as their ranking.

  • POSTED BY vermiciousknid on | January 2, 2009, 11:55 GMT

    Lovely considered article Sambit, but not sure I agree with you about the UAE as a venue for test cricket. After all, the tests there in 2002 were hardly packed to the rafters, and test cricket needs a crowd to get it going.

    The best solution is for Pakistan to experiment with some 'home' tests in England: they would be guaranteed big crowds at Edgbaston, Headingley or The Oval, for instance. I'm sure there are scheduling difficulties, but these can no doubt be overcome if the will is there. The English public fell for Pakistani cricket in Imran Khan's day - we'd love a chance to cheer them on as our home team! :-)

  • POSTED BY Amila on | January 2, 2009, 10:15 GMT

    Very nice artical from Mr.Sambit. I believe that Ishant and Mendis were the two finds of the year 2008. I would like to point out something that wasn't mentioned in your article. I am a Sri Lankan Cricket fan, and I wonder why a major cricketing nation like Sri Lanka has been given only five test matches in year 2008. The story is very much the same in next year too. Even teams like Bangladesh are getting at least ten matches per year. Sri Lanka got some world class performers and it's really a shame to see them not playing enough cricket. I must say the Pakistan too having the same problem. My question is how can somebody say which team is no1, when one team gets twelve matches per year and the other gets just five?

  • POSTED BY Nevie-E on | January 2, 2009, 10:02 GMT

    Part 2

    If it was not for the quota system, we would have seen Makhaya Ntini, Hershelle Gibbs, Hashim Amla, JP Duminy and Ashwell Prince ever play for South Africa. the reality is that previously advantaged cricket officials will only select non white players on "MERIT" if he is at least three times as good as his nearest white opponent. Even then he is only good enough to make the squad and be twelth man.

    I would be the first to welcome the abolishment of the quota system when the previously advantage cricketing community, which still runs cricket to a large degree in SA, stops picking young players in age group representative teams because their fathers make sizeable donations to schools cricket, or when the best players are allowed to play in representative teams regardless of the colour of their skin or their ethnic background.

    Neil McKenzie played 40 tests as a specialist batsmen and scored 2 hundreds before being dropped. H.H.Gibbs fails in 3 and is dropped.

    EO Part 2

  • POSTED BY arya_underfoot on | January 2, 2009, 9:53 GMT

    i've had enough of people claiming that dhoni is a lucky captain. that's complete rubbish. dhoni is an intelligent, intuitive captain who coaxes the best out of his players. his results are based on substance, not luck.

  • POSTED BY Nevie-E on | January 2, 2009, 9:25 GMT

    Good day all

    I would like to comment on a few inaccurracies in Mr Bal's artical above regarding the application of the "Quota system" in South African cricket. The system is similar to Affirmative action in the workplace and states that if selection is to be made between two players of equal ability and experience, the non white player will get the nod.

    Charl Langeveldt was selected for the tour the tour to India in 2008 because he was the form bowler along with Dale Steyn whebn the side was selected. The SA team was in Bangladesh at that stage and Andre Nel was strugling for both form and fitness. Speaking go one of the SA national selectors after the fact, he stated catogorically that race or quotas had no bearing on the Langeveldts selection, he was selected becuase of his superior skill and the selectors was of the oppinion that he would be a greater asset in Indian conditions then Andre Nel.

    End of Part 1

  • POSTED BY frozeninusa on | January 2, 2009, 8:40 GMT

    Well written. I agree with most of it. But I think the review system has to be persisted with. I like the idea of granting challenges to each team. Agreed the technology is not perfect. But how can the third umpire be trusted to pro-actively make the correct calls when he doesn't have the time to watch the replays. If we are saying that he should be allowed to stop the game to watch the replays, then why not let the teams make the challenges too. At least the teams won't complain that a certain decision was not reviewed. Otherwise we will have a scenario where a team will complain that the close decisions that went against them were not reviewed while the umpires reviewed all the close decisions that were originally given in their favor. Obviously there is no guarantee that the right decision will be made even after a review. But at least we can try to remove the obvious mistakes. If that is not happening today, we need to work on it. Technology will improve and the process will too.

  • POSTED BY souravrox on | January 2, 2009, 6:55 GMT

    Good Article , sambit! i did disagree wid u on sum of the points u mentioned , but the best and most well described point was the quality of cricket broadcasting in india. the only thing gud about neo cricket (nc) broadcasting is a very gud review and preview show presenter.the ind v Sa was still better , but the last 2 series , against eng and aus was very foolish on nc's part to say the least.assoon as the fielder caught the ball at long on , i was forced 2 see a pepsi or Lic insurance ad.and sumtimes after a between overs break,the cricket resumed after the first ball was bowled and i had see that ball on replay! I can easily say that ESS is the best broadcaster of cricket, after Channel 9 and Sky.ESS has the best commentators though.9's all commentators only think 4m the Aussie point of view and sumtimes Sky sports' commentary goes boring

  • POSTED BY alcan on | January 2, 2009, 6:03 GMT

    Dear sir,as an Australian cricket supporter,may I say that I always enjoy your comments/articles/blogs etc. I do notice a slight bit of bias towards your native country but that is also something we both have in common.I must add that the above was an excellent article and I enjoyed it very much. Kind regards Allan Pinchen

  • POSTED BY JKSFB on | January 2, 2009, 5:56 GMT

    Excellent summary but I think the writer is being very uncharitable to Javagal Srinath when he says that Ishant is India's first genuine quick bowler. Ishant may have had a better start to his career, relatively speaking, but Srinath was a fine quick bowler. On his day, among the 3 fastest in the world....

  • POSTED BY IPLFan on | January 2, 2009, 5:44 GMT

    Here is hoping that the 50-over and 5-day format too moves to the club structure. Here is one way to get it started. Since Zimbabwe is already out and BD is still struggling, ICC can kick those two teams out of FTP and in their place introduce two private franchise teams. The private franchise teams can pick players from anywhere in the world, however the existing national boards will have the first right over players from their country. So the national teams will continue to be as they are currently, whereas the franchise teams will end up consisting mostly of second tier players from these countries. The Rohit Sharma's, Badrinath's, Raina's, RP Singh, Sreesanth, Murali Karthik et al. Whoever cannot make their national teams. I am sure that these teams will be straightaway better than some of the lower ranked Test teams like NZ and WI. Over time their quality will improve, as players all over the world realize that they have an alternate avenue to play at the highest level.

  • POSTED BY IPLFan on | January 2, 2009, 5:40 GMT

    Most momentous development of the year was easily the IPL. It proved that "nation vs nation" is not the only form of cricket that can have a fan following and club cricket too can be popular if presented well. In fact, among the Top 20 most watched cricket matches this year in India (by TRP), as many as 16 were from IPL. Even though IPL lasted a mere six weeks, it grossed more TRP-hours (average TRP of matches multiplied by their duration) than either one-day international cricket or Test cricket. IPL - 980 TRP-hours (60 matches, avg TRP 4.7, duration 3.5 hours), ODIs - 870 TRP-hours (29 matches, avg TRP 3.9, duration 7.5 hours), Test cricket - <300 (15 Tests, avg TRP - not available as most sessions were not among the Top 100 programs for the week for which TRP ratings are publicly available, but less than 0.7)

  • No featured comments at the moment.

  • POSTED BY IPLFan on | January 2, 2009, 5:40 GMT

    Most momentous development of the year was easily the IPL. It proved that "nation vs nation" is not the only form of cricket that can have a fan following and club cricket too can be popular if presented well. In fact, among the Top 20 most watched cricket matches this year in India (by TRP), as many as 16 were from IPL. Even though IPL lasted a mere six weeks, it grossed more TRP-hours (average TRP of matches multiplied by their duration) than either one-day international cricket or Test cricket. IPL - 980 TRP-hours (60 matches, avg TRP 4.7, duration 3.5 hours), ODIs - 870 TRP-hours (29 matches, avg TRP 3.9, duration 7.5 hours), Test cricket - <300 (15 Tests, avg TRP - not available as most sessions were not among the Top 100 programs for the week for which TRP ratings are publicly available, but less than 0.7)

  • POSTED BY IPLFan on | January 2, 2009, 5:44 GMT

    Here is hoping that the 50-over and 5-day format too moves to the club structure. Here is one way to get it started. Since Zimbabwe is already out and BD is still struggling, ICC can kick those two teams out of FTP and in their place introduce two private franchise teams. The private franchise teams can pick players from anywhere in the world, however the existing national boards will have the first right over players from their country. So the national teams will continue to be as they are currently, whereas the franchise teams will end up consisting mostly of second tier players from these countries. The Rohit Sharma's, Badrinath's, Raina's, RP Singh, Sreesanth, Murali Karthik et al. Whoever cannot make their national teams. I am sure that these teams will be straightaway better than some of the lower ranked Test teams like NZ and WI. Over time their quality will improve, as players all over the world realize that they have an alternate avenue to play at the highest level.

  • POSTED BY JKSFB on | January 2, 2009, 5:56 GMT

    Excellent summary but I think the writer is being very uncharitable to Javagal Srinath when he says that Ishant is India's first genuine quick bowler. Ishant may have had a better start to his career, relatively speaking, but Srinath was a fine quick bowler. On his day, among the 3 fastest in the world....

  • POSTED BY alcan on | January 2, 2009, 6:03 GMT

    Dear sir,as an Australian cricket supporter,may I say that I always enjoy your comments/articles/blogs etc. I do notice a slight bit of bias towards your native country but that is also something we both have in common.I must add that the above was an excellent article and I enjoyed it very much. Kind regards Allan Pinchen

  • POSTED BY souravrox on | January 2, 2009, 6:55 GMT

    Good Article , sambit! i did disagree wid u on sum of the points u mentioned , but the best and most well described point was the quality of cricket broadcasting in india. the only thing gud about neo cricket (nc) broadcasting is a very gud review and preview show presenter.the ind v Sa was still better , but the last 2 series , against eng and aus was very foolish on nc's part to say the least.assoon as the fielder caught the ball at long on , i was forced 2 see a pepsi or Lic insurance ad.and sumtimes after a between overs break,the cricket resumed after the first ball was bowled and i had see that ball on replay! I can easily say that ESS is the best broadcaster of cricket, after Channel 9 and Sky.ESS has the best commentators though.9's all commentators only think 4m the Aussie point of view and sumtimes Sky sports' commentary goes boring

  • POSTED BY frozeninusa on | January 2, 2009, 8:40 GMT

    Well written. I agree with most of it. But I think the review system has to be persisted with. I like the idea of granting challenges to each team. Agreed the technology is not perfect. But how can the third umpire be trusted to pro-actively make the correct calls when he doesn't have the time to watch the replays. If we are saying that he should be allowed to stop the game to watch the replays, then why not let the teams make the challenges too. At least the teams won't complain that a certain decision was not reviewed. Otherwise we will have a scenario where a team will complain that the close decisions that went against them were not reviewed while the umpires reviewed all the close decisions that were originally given in their favor. Obviously there is no guarantee that the right decision will be made even after a review. But at least we can try to remove the obvious mistakes. If that is not happening today, we need to work on it. Technology will improve and the process will too.

  • POSTED BY Nevie-E on | January 2, 2009, 9:25 GMT

    Good day all

    I would like to comment on a few inaccurracies in Mr Bal's artical above regarding the application of the "Quota system" in South African cricket. The system is similar to Affirmative action in the workplace and states that if selection is to be made between two players of equal ability and experience, the non white player will get the nod.

    Charl Langeveldt was selected for the tour the tour to India in 2008 because he was the form bowler along with Dale Steyn whebn the side was selected. The SA team was in Bangladesh at that stage and Andre Nel was strugling for both form and fitness. Speaking go one of the SA national selectors after the fact, he stated catogorically that race or quotas had no bearing on the Langeveldts selection, he was selected becuase of his superior skill and the selectors was of the oppinion that he would be a greater asset in Indian conditions then Andre Nel.

    End of Part 1

  • POSTED BY arya_underfoot on | January 2, 2009, 9:53 GMT

    i've had enough of people claiming that dhoni is a lucky captain. that's complete rubbish. dhoni is an intelligent, intuitive captain who coaxes the best out of his players. his results are based on substance, not luck.

  • POSTED BY Nevie-E on | January 2, 2009, 10:02 GMT

    Part 2

    If it was not for the quota system, we would have seen Makhaya Ntini, Hershelle Gibbs, Hashim Amla, JP Duminy and Ashwell Prince ever play for South Africa. the reality is that previously advantaged cricket officials will only select non white players on "MERIT" if he is at least three times as good as his nearest white opponent. Even then he is only good enough to make the squad and be twelth man.

    I would be the first to welcome the abolishment of the quota system when the previously advantage cricketing community, which still runs cricket to a large degree in SA, stops picking young players in age group representative teams because their fathers make sizeable donations to schools cricket, or when the best players are allowed to play in representative teams regardless of the colour of their skin or their ethnic background.

    Neil McKenzie played 40 tests as a specialist batsmen and scored 2 hundreds before being dropped. H.H.Gibbs fails in 3 and is dropped.

    EO Part 2

  • POSTED BY Amila on | January 2, 2009, 10:15 GMT

    Very nice artical from Mr.Sambit. I believe that Ishant and Mendis were the two finds of the year 2008. I would like to point out something that wasn't mentioned in your article. I am a Sri Lankan Cricket fan, and I wonder why a major cricketing nation like Sri Lanka has been given only five test matches in year 2008. The story is very much the same in next year too. Even teams like Bangladesh are getting at least ten matches per year. Sri Lanka got some world class performers and it's really a shame to see them not playing enough cricket. I must say the Pakistan too having the same problem. My question is how can somebody say which team is no1, when one team gets twelve matches per year and the other gets just five?