It's the lack of imagination & courage that will push India out of the World T20

A loss to Australia followed by a loss to West Indies in the pre-semi-final stage has led India to a curious situation. All but out, and praying for a miracle.

Theoretically, India can still make it to the next stage. What they have to do is win against SL either with a margin of 20 runs if India bats first, or with 14 balls to spare if they chase. And then, pray and pray and pray that Australia win their match against Windies.

The second task is much easier, and something that I am sure everyone in India is already doing. For once, every Indian is praying for an Aussie victory.

It is the first task that makes me worried; the task is not just difficult, it also needs Dhoni to really start rethinking about the team needs. So far, at least in this World Cup, he’s lacked imagination & courage, and has to an extent tried to be defensive rather than attacking. None of these have ever been his hallmarks, and therefore it surprises me. If you want to win, you can’t just try and build a cocoon around yourself and hope to win. You have to get out of your safe zone and try to shake things up a bit, so that you can then take strides towards success. Sadly, Dhoni was too concerned about preventing the team from losing, and therefore couldn’t win.

There are many examples of this. Take for instance the fact that R Vinay Kumar is cooling his heels, when he should have been firing down a few in conditions that favour pace bowling. Take for example the fact that yesterday Windies bowled just 3 overs of spin vis-à-vis India which bowled 12 on a bouncy wicket. Another thing to ponder over this is the fact that given that both Vijay & Gambhir are not clicking (especially Murali), it might be a good idea to bring in Dinesh Karthik, who’s equally good at opening the innings, and pairing him with Gambhir, since both play together in domestic cricket as well. And what about playing either himself or Pathan so low down the order at times, that by the time they try to do something, the task is well beyond them.

What a batsman, sirji!

200 runs in an ODI match - that's what teams used to score... and not just in a 50-over match, in the earlier avatar of the ODI, which was 60 overs long. And at times it was good enough to win the match. Why, India won the 1983 World Cup Final against West Indies scoring just 183, before being all out in 54.4 overs (of the allotted 60 overs), and just when everyone and their mother believed that the Windies were going to do a hattrick of world cup victories, bowled them out for 140 in 52 overs.

So, when a batsman scores 200* in a 50-overs a side match, it is a moment to stand up and applaud. Sachin Ramesh Tendulkar, and as only he could, becomes the first man in the history of the game to score a double hundred in an ODI match. This man has so many records to his name that he possibly also holds the record for holding maximum records, and he still has the hunger in him to keep going on and on and on. And when other around his age (and even much younger than him) are hanging their boots, this man keeps mellowing with every passing day. At almost 37 years, he has today achieved what 17 or 27 year olds have not been able to ever.

I am one big critic of the man, and was specially harsh towards him in the past couple of years, when I thought that his body was tiring and he was no more capable of leading India to victory. My criticism of Sachin became even more sharp after Sourav Ganguly (in my opinion the world's second best ODI player after Sachin) was forced to announce his retirement, despite being in a decent form (and not in any way worse than Sachin) at that juncture. I genuinely believed that having achieved so much, he should have gracefully made way for the others in the team (after all, who can dare tell Sachin to retire).

My friend and co-blogger, Varun, always felt that I was far too impatient with Sachin and a disbeliever (atheist would probably be his chosen word, for the God Sachin is), who did not understand the greatness of the man.

Today, I partly agree with Varun (I still believe that even Sourav should be playing for the team, which he does not), and humbly bow my head to Sachin.

Afghanistan - the new cricketing force of Asia!

The highest 4th innings total by a team winning a test match is 418/7 by West Indies against Australia at Saint John’s in 2003. There are only 3 more instances of teams scoring 400 plus runs in the 4th innings to win the match. South Africa’s 414/4 against Australia at Perth in 2008, India’s 406/4 against West Indies at Port of Spain in 1976, and Australia’s 404/3 against England at Leeds in 1948.

I checked up the record books for all kinds of International matches, where 2 nations played in a two-innings-a-side game, and found not a single team raking up over 500 to win in the 4th innings. Afghanistan – yes, Afghanistan – did that yesterday, when they chased 494 against much more fancied (at least against them) Canada, to hit 494/4, after trailing by over 300 runs in the first innings, and after Canada declared their second innings at 191/4, setting Afghanistan an almost unachievable target of around 500 runs.

All I can say is that it is extremely heartening to notice such big scores being chased down. But I’d also like to add that probably Canada played it too safe by not enforcing a follow-on and resultantly lost the game that they should’ve won.

For Afghanistan, this is a day of reckoning where everyone stands up and applauds them for their heroics. For a country tormented by war and terrorists, this is a shining example of the glory the youth can achieve for their nation by treading the right path.

400-plus scores - what do they foretell about the 2011 World Cup

The 2011 Cricket World Cup, scheduled to start in February, is just about an year away. The cup is going to be played in the subcontinent on pitches in Sri Lanka, Bangladesh & India. Spread over 6 weeks, this is going to be a long & tough tournament, where defending team Australia would be trying to go beyond their hattrick of wins against others. They have defeated 3 subcontinent teams in 3 World Cup Finals – Pakistan in 1999, India in 2003 & Sri Lanka in 2007 – and the fact that this tournament is going to be held in the subcontinent is going to be worrisome for the defending champs.

I think the task is pretty difficult, given that Australia is going to be without some of their biggest heroes of their past wins. But even more so, given the emergence of the Pakistan, Sri Lanka & India teams as extremely strong contenders. A view of what is going to be on offer were visible yesterday in the First ODI between India & Sri Lanka at Rajkot. I’d love to use the phrase “what a match”, except that I am speechless!

Only the second instance of a 400-plus score in both innings in the history of one day cricket. Reminded me, and I am sure everyone else, of the first such match, played between Australia & South Africa, where Australia scored 434/4 to set a world record, and found them on the losing side and robbed of their record 3½ hours later when South Africa pulled out a hare from the hat to score 438/9 with a ball to spare, at Johannesburg on 12th March, 2006. And much like that match, it seemed that the maximum runs record that India had created on Indian soil would be erased effortlessly by Sri Lanka. In fact, they were on the chase till the 48th over, at the end of which they required 15 runs with 5 wickets to spare. Having scored at over 8 runs for the first 48 over, and being ahead of the asking rate, how they could not get 7.5 runs/over in the last 2 overs, and how they lost from there foxes me. Despite being an Indian fan who was cheering all the way for India, I feel for the Sri Lankans and my heart goes out to them. At the end, the only consolation is in saying, “Very well played guys; with 400-plus to chase, you made a match out of what appeared to be a hopeless situation even before you started your batting innings.”

400-plus – what does it mean really, and how often has it happened? Incidentally, all 400-plus scores have come in the 21st century. The first instance being Australia in the match mentioned earlier, and the second instance being South Africa in the very same match. A few months later, the third instance was on 4th July, 2006, Sri Lanka broke the world record by scoring 443/9 against Netherlands at Amstelveen. That is the standing record till now. Other than that, both Sri Lanka & South Africa have one more 400-plus, India have 2, and New Zealand has one. So, in all, there are 8 occasions of such instances – all within the last 4 years. some of them have been hit against minnows, but half of them are against extremely strong oppositions – 1 against South Africa, Australia, Sri Lanka & India. Is this where ODI cricket is headed, where even 400-plus may be a par score? One doesn’t know, but numbers do have a story to tell.

If one looks at the highest 25 innings in ODIs ever, 19 of them are in 2000s, and incidentally, every single one of them from 2005 onwards. If one expands this to look at innings of 350 and more, we get 44 such innings. Incidentally, every single of those 19 additional innings were in the 2000s! Does this tell us a story? Sure, it does, and you don’t need to be a rocket scientist to work out that team aggression (or batting aggression, if one may say so more correctly) has really peaked in the 21st century. At the top of this order now are India with 13, followed by South Africa with 9, Australia with 7, New Zealand & Sri Lanka with 4 each, Pakistan with 3, England with 2 and West Indies & Zimbabwe with 1 each.

So, I guess that the next world cup is going to be a very exciting one for everyone, and one-day cricket, if it keeps going vertical, has its place despite T20s. For it offers the thrill of the unknown like never before. Because if a team has scored 200-plus in T20s, we still believe it is chaseable. But a 400-plus in 50 overs? I’d still like to believe that there is a huge element of doubt there. And that element of doubt along with the subcontinental teams’ abilities to knock up huge scores, coupled with the batting-feast supporting wickets are going to make it some task for Australia to retain the crown.

Let umpires & referees not become the hand of God!

Two incidents happened yesterday, across two continents and across the world’s two most followed sports – football & cricket – that made me wonder what the role of the referee or the umpire really is. How important are they really in determining the course of a match, and how important is it for them to have the final say.

In the first incident, Thierry Henry, the captain of France, in a play-off between France & Ireland for a place in the 2010 FIFA Cup Finals, handled the ball before passing it to William Gallas to head in a crucial 103-minute goal, scored in extra time, that helped them level scores & grab a final spot in the cup, robbing Ireland of a well-deserved win. Henry knew that he had handled the ball, and in a post match interview said, “Yes, there was a hand, but I’m not the referee.” He further added, “Of course, I kept playing. The referee didn’t whistle for hand-ball. I was behind two Irish players, the ball bounced and it hit my hand.” The evidence was there for all to see in television replays, but the referee missed seeing it. There have been protests by Ireland, including even their prime minister throwing his weight behind this and asking for a rematch. However, FAI has refused to let a rematch happen, citing rules that say that a referee’s decision is final, despite their statement earlier in the day: “The blatantly incorrect decision by the referee to award the goal has damaged the integrity of the sport.” It is, after all, a judgment error by the person in-charge of judgments, and more than anything, it is the governing body’s unwillingness to correct the error citing outdated rules, that is causing more heartburn than Henry’s non-sporting spirit.

In the second incident, Rahul Dravid was adjudged LBW in the ongoing cricket test match between Sri Lanka & India, whereas television replays showed that the ball would have missed the leg-stump. With India fighting with their backs to the wall, the last thing they needed was a wrong decision going against them, and that too against a batsman of the caliber of Dravid, who India desperately needed at the crease. However, nobody is a culprit here (unlike Henry in the first incident), and it is truly a case of judgmental error on the part of umpire Daryl Harper, who declared Dravid out. One does not know as yet what the outcome of the match will finally be, and whether even Dravid could have made a difference had he not been sent back to the pavilion, but clearly India have suffered.

In the context of the above two, let us examine the role that referees & umpires are supposed to play.

First, they are supposed to be guardians of the game, and ensure fair-play between the two teams playing the match.

Second, they are supposed to be disciplinarians, given absolute authority, who ensure that each member of both teams follows the rules of the game at all times.

Third, they are supposed to be unbiased in their approach irrespective of which side their loyalties may lie with as a fan/countryman.

So, let us examine what went wrong. In both the instances, I think the referee and the umpire followed all three true to their heart & their profession. Still, wrong decisions happened. Human error, surely, that could be taken as just a human error, and we get on with the game. However, such errors were acceptable in the good, old days, when there were no means to check if there was any error, and you had to accept the referee’s/umpire’s verdict, come what may. Today, with technology like instant television replays, hawk-eye, snick-o-meter, etc. available, which help in minimizing human error, why should human error be acceptable at all? After all, the ultimate objective of refereeing or umpiring is to give fair decisions in case of dispute or doubt. And in the interest of that, if technology can aid, why should we shy away from that?

Cricket has evolved to a certain extent with third-umpire referrals, and the world’s most famous, loved & record-holding cricketer, Sachin Tendulkar, became the first player to be declared out by a third umpire. Howsoever the Indians may have rued that incident, it was a step in the right direction. It does away with ambiguity and it does away with cheating. After all, Henry is the captain of his national side, as was Diego Maradona of Argentina, when he became the ‘Hand of God’ in the 1986 FIFA World Cup. So, we know, that even the best are prone to a little cheating to win a match.

Cricket, has its own instance of infamy with batsmen refusing to walk, especially in caught behind decisions, unless given out by the umpire. However, Adam Gilchrist of Australia always went against his team’s policy of remaining standing at the crease unless given out (as per the game’s rules), and always walked magnanimously whenever he thought he was out, without waiting for the umpire’s decision. More recently, there have been very sporting gestures by captains that are unprecedented, and show that cricket still has some gentlemen left. In a recent match between England & Sri Lanka, England’s captain Andrew Strauss recalled Angelo Mathews of Sri Lanka, who had been stranded after a mid-pitch collision with Graham Onions and run out, and asked him to bat on despite being declared out. Even more significant was a decision by New Zealand’s captain Daniel Vettori this year, when he spared Paul Collingwood of England, after he strayed out of his crease before the over was called and was run out by the wicket-keeper McCullum. According to the rules of the game, Collingwood was out. But Vettori went with the spirit of the game, and allowed him to bat on. This despite a similar incident happening a year ago at The Oval, when Collingwood himself, as captain of England, had disallowed New Zealand's Grant Elliott a reprieve, after he had been run out after a mid-pitch collision with England’s Ryan Sidebottom. The umpires were obliged to rule him out, and Collingwood's refusal to withdraw the appeal had infuriated Vettori.

Next week, cricket takes a giant leap in ensuring correctness of decision making and therefore, in fair-play & results. In the three test series between New Zealand & Pakistan, ICC will introduce a new system to review umpire’s decisions, the Umpire Decision Review System (UDRS), using ball tracking technology. This is indeed the right and a very welcome step towards making the sport error-free, and I guess football can also take some lessons from cricket. Otherwise, the umpires & the referees may continue to become the hand of God, and continue to deal cruel blows.

The Wall grows taller

Rahul Sharad Dravid was born on 11th January, 1973 at Indore in Madhya Pradesh, 103 days before Sachin Tendulkar was born. However, he made his debut 6½ years later than Sachin in Singapore against Sri Lanka in April, 1996. His initiation into test cricket happened at the Mecca of cricket, Lord’s in June, 2006 against England, during the second test of the series. In his debut innings, he came out to bat at number 7 and scored 95 runs in India’s total of 429, second only to Sourav Ganguly, who scored 131, and incidentally was also a debutante on the test. It was the 2 young men, brought into the team after the first match loss, who kept India’s hopes alive by playing majestically and drawing the match, when all others around them failed. Interestingly, Sachin was the third highest scorer for India with 31 to his credit. Despite playing just 2 of the 3 tests, and despite batting in only 3 innings, Dravid scored a total of 187 runs (including two 50s) and was the 6th highest scorer in the series, and the 3rd highest for India, after Sachin & Sourav. With 62.33 runs from the 3 innings, he was the No. 5 on averages for both teams combined.

Thus began the journey of a man, who is arguably the most technically-correct batsman in world cricket, and who is a heady mixture of substance & style. A classical stroke-player, with a quiver full of delectable shots, Dravid is always a delight to watch. He has that amazing ability to play with a calm head, and play himself slowly in, even on extremely testing wickets and in very difficult situations, and carve a brilliant innings and suddenly take command without anybody noticing. Over the years, Dravid has withstood every single challenge thrown at him, and has always stood tall, even if there are ruins all around him, earning an early nickname, ‘The Wall’. And like a man who is true to anything associated with him, he has, on countless occasions, proven that he is indeed the Great Wall of India, who none can breach.

Yesterday, Rahul Wall Dravid, scaled new heights and reached 11,000 runs in test cricket, becoming only the 5th cricketer in the world to reach this summit. Forever living under the shadow of the more celebrated, loved & revered Sachin Tendulkar, Dravid has still managed to stand tall and earn millions of diehard fans. With 27 centuries to his credit, he shares the 9th slot of all-time century records with Allan Border, the man who is next in his sight, being the 4th highest run-getter of all time. Though, Border has played 31 more innings more than Dravid’s 234 to get those records.

With 5 double hundreds, 4 of which he scored in a space of 15 tests, he is the 7th in the world, and holds the Indian record jointly with Virender Sehwag. With 4 consecutive centuries, including one double century, Dravid is 2nd in the world, and the only one, amongst those who’ve got 4 or more consecutively, with a double. with 84 50-plus scores, he is the 4th most successful batsman after Sachin, Ponting & Border to reach 50s maximum number of times. With 78 century partnerships, he also holds that world record, ahead of Ricky Ponting with 75. Incidentally, Rahul & Sachin also hold the world record for most century partnerships, with 16 such partnerships, alongside Hayden & Ponting (Australia) and Greenidge & Haynes (West Indies). He & Sachin have together scored 5,511 runs in partnership, the world’s 3rd highest runs as a pair. All these are demonstrations of how solid ‘The Wall’ really is. With all these good records, however, he also has a blemish – with 10 dismissals in the 90s, he holds the world record for most nervous 90s, alongside Steve Waugh.

As the number 3 batsman in world cricket, he is par excellence, and has proven his value at the position so many times, much to the agony of opposing teams. Dravid averages around 55 at his favourite position, more than any regular No.3 batsman in the game’s history, barring the one & only Don Bradman. Needless to say, he is second only to the greatest.

Since his debut, Dravid’s genius blossomed over the years, and finally came into his own probably in Kolkata in 2001, when he played a sheet-anchor role to score 180 in supplementing VVS Laxman’s classic 281 against Australia. As a batsman who knows his craft all too well, Dravid has always raised his hand to be counted every time his team & country needed him. Even donning wicket-keeping gloves in one-dayers, where he again has 10,765 runs with 12 centuries and 82 half-centuries, he has proven that the wall is impregnable in more ways than one.

With each outing, Rahul continues to enthrall and grow taller & stronger. One wonders, how he managed those 11,000 runs in just 13 years, as compared to Sachin’s 12,773 scored in 20. And one also wonders, where he would be today had he made his debut at the same time as Tendulkar? Surely, history has done injustice to Dravid by making him play in the same era as Sachin. Otherwise, who knows, he might have been the most loved son of India!

Sachin, the Superman

Today, it’s 20 years to the day the man we all adore wore the India colours for the first time. Playing his first test match against arch-enemy, Pakistan, in the 1st test match starting on 15th November, 1989, the man who will eventually hold almost all batting records, actually had his first initiation as an Indian player as a bowler – bowling a solitary over in Pakistan’s first inning for 10 runs at National Stadium, Karachi. He got to bat in only the first innings, coming in at no. 6, lower than Manoj Prabhakar!

Blooded into his first match in the august company of past, present & future captains like Kapil Dev, Krishnamachari Srikkanth, Mohammed Azharuddin & Ravi Shastri, he managed just 15 runs in India’s first inning before being bowled by Waqar Younis. He bowled another 4 overs for 15 runs in the second innings, and didn’t get a chance to bat again, in a drawn match. With those humble beginnings began the birth of a cricketer, who has not looked back since. Sachin Ramesh Tendulkar, as his parents named him; Genius, as he’s fondly referred to by the other biggies of the game who know their cricket all too well; and God, for the millions of adulating fans across the world; did not take the world by storm on his arrival. But over the years, he’s marvelously demonstrated what a whirlwind he is.

Boring as it may sound, two decades of being at the top does merit a look at the man’s (or more appropriately, the Superman’s) achievements & records till date.

The man has 12,773 runs in test cricket from 261 innings in 152 tests, with 42 centuries to his credit. The most runs and the most centuries. The nearest, Lara with 11,953 runs & 34 centuries has retired. And the only one who can probably stake a claim to at least the test records is Aussie captain, Ricky Ponting, who has 11,345 runs from 229 innings in 136 tests with 38 centuries and has at least 1-2 years’ age benefit over Tendulkar, being younger to him by 1½ years. At 95 fifties, Sachin is also way ahead of Ponting, who’s at 86. But theoretically speaking, at the rate he is scoring, and if he keeps going on for those 2 extra years (even though he made his test debut exactly 6 years later than Sachin), Ponting should overtake Sachin. But whether he is mentally & physically as tough to keep playing till the age of 36 and beyond (or even 38, if Sachin continues to play till 2011, as is popularly believed), needs to be seen.

When it comes to ODIs too, Tendulkar is unparalleled. Though he began with a golden duck in his very first ODI, he now has 17,178 runs to his credit, and is almost 4,000 ahead of his nearest competitor, Sanath Jayasuriya, who has actually played 4 matches more than Sachin’s 436. And he is 5,000 ahead of the next man, Ricky Ponting, though Ponting has played only 330. Compare his 45 centuries to the second best 28 by both Jayasuriya & Ponting, and you know how far ahead Sachin is of those two, who can only marvel how he has managed so much. Most would not know, but Sachin has scored 9 ODI centuries against Australia, which is the highest for any player against a single team. He also occupies the second place with 8 hundreds against Sri Lanka. Sanath Jayasuriya, with 7 against India, and Saeed Anwar, with 7 against Sri Lanka, come in next. And, Sachin’s the only cricketer in the world to have scored over 3,000 runs against a single country, with Australia being his favourite punching bag, and also is the only player to have scored over 2,000 against 3 nations – Australia, Sri Lanka & Pakistan.

Huge as they without a doubt are, Sachin has never let any of those achievements go to his head. The man, who has enthralled millions for the past 2 decades, not just with his batting & bowling, but also with his well-behaved, gentlemanly manners on & off the field, is truly a statesman of cricket, even at a time when most would not call it a gentleman’s sport any more. With his mild manners, and his not so mild batting, this 5’5” tiny giant has proven that the best way to earn respect is by commanding it with his bat, not demanding it because of what his status as the world’s top batsman is.

With 2 decades of cricket behind him, there have been times when he’s not been at his very best, and age obviously has played its role. There have been those occasions when many have dared to clamour for his head when he’s failed to live up to the expectations of his fans, citing age, lack of performance, young blood needed, etc. However, every time there is a call for his head, he comes back stronger, proving to all his critics (including me) that form is only temporary, class is permanent.

With the likes of Geoffrey Boycott, Graham Gooch & Clive Lloyd playing well into their early 40s before finally going into retirement, Sachin would appear to be a good 4-6 years away from retirement. If he does play on till that age, he should have scored at least 15,000 test and 20,000 ODI runs, benchmarks which may remain unbroken forever. Who knows, maybe we will see that day. Till then, we can continue being amazed every time he steps out to bat, and wonder – “Is it a bird? Is it a plane? No, it’s Superman.” Sachin, the Superman.

Two decades of being at the top of world cricket - what it means

In the last one month, and much more in the past one week, there has been a huge wave of euphoria in India. And, while the character & origin of the wave is pretty much Indian in all aspects, it touches not just India, but goes well beyond its shores to every single continent – Asia, Europe, Africa, Australia, America.

What’s this huge euphoria all about? Don’t ask as if you didn’t know and didn’t experience it firsthand. It’s about an achievement by probably the most celebrated & loved son of the soil, Sachin Ramesh Tendulkar, completing two decades of domineering batsmanship – a definitely giant landmark, which he reaches tomorrow, on November 15, 2009. A giant effort, by all means, and something that is extremely rare – after all, how many cricketers last that long at the top level? Made even more special by the fact that Sachin is already 36 years of age, an age by when most other top league cricketers have already retired, and are doing other not-so-demanding-duties, either as a cricket administrator, or as a commentator for a TV channel, or as a cricket celebrity with his own television show, or as a sports writer for print media, or as a guest cricketer on a cricket show, or, most arduously, as an umpire in the middle of the field. Isn’t it incredible that Tendulkar has lasted 2 decades at the top, despite an ageing physique? Of course, it is humongous & worthy of all the accolades, and even more. Made me wonder if there were any others who were even half as close, and the researcher in me decided to go to work. Here’s what I learnt.

15, yes, 15 players have played for 20 years or more at the international level, before Sachin. However, none of them is an Indian. So, Sachin has created a record – but, it’s not a world record; it is an Indian record. The earlier record was held by the celebrated Lala Amarnath, who played for exactly 19 years; not a day less, not a day more. The list of 15 contains a few players who we’ve seen playing & probably loved/idolized in our own times. Traicos, who played for Zimbabwe & South Africa; Imran Khan of Pakistan, first of the two Asians in the list; Bob Simpson of Australia; Cowdrey for England; Sir Garfield Sobers of West Indies, and last but not the least Mushtaq Mohammad for Pakistan. Great names, as we all know, who’ve done so much for cricket & became legends in their time. By joining the 20 years’ league, Mr. Tendulkar surely is in august company. The legendary batsman who Sachin is often compared to, Don Bradman, himself lasted 19 years and 262 days, and if we were to include 19 years’ cricketers to this list, it suddenly jumps to 26 including Tendulkar. Other noteworthy players who we’ve seen playing, who join in now are Graham Gooch & Sachin.

Incidentally, at the top of this list sits a certain Wilfred Rhodes of England, who played for 30 years and 315 days, appearing in 58 tests for his country. He started playing at the turn of the 19th century in 1899 and continued till 1930. Not many international matches were played at that time, and just his stamina to last so long, shows his class. Rhodes' achievements can be gleaned from the fact that he was an all-rounder, who made 2,325 test runs with 2 centuries and scalped 127 test wickets during his career. As one looks at his first class record, this becomes even more phenomenal – 39,969 runs and hold your breath, 4,204 wickets! He was, without a doubt, probably the best all-rounder born in the 19th century! Or, is he probably the best cricketer ever in the history of the game?

As I was looking at statistics, my eyes fell on the man at the top of the table of those who completed 18 years, but didn’t reach 19 – W.G. Grace of England. I was immediately reminded of two things I knew about him. He was the first man to scalp 10 wickets in a single innings. But wait, that’s not all. I also knew that he had also hit two triple centuries before donning the whites for England. That much I knew about him, and with that I went to work. The man played for 18 years and 270 days, and what I discovered was mind-boggling.

Grace played 22 tests in the almost 19 years long period. He made 1,098 runs with 2 centuries to his credit, and took 9 wickets. Not mean, you must be wondering. Wait, this is where the fun begins. What do you think he did during those 19 years when tests were not being played? He played first class, of course, scoring a staggering 54,211 runs with 124 centuries, and scalping 2,809 wickets! Whoa. If he had lasted those 30 years that Rhodes did, statistically he would have gone beyond the 4,204 wickets mark, and his runs would have been over 80,000!!! Now, I am seriously beginning to wonder if Rhodes was the best cricketer born ever. Coincidentally, Grace’s last match was Rhodes’ first. So, from where he hung his boots, Rhodes took over.

If one has to look at age-related capability, any comparison with Grace pales. He opened for England at the age of 50! But, let’s leave his cricketing achievements aside, and look at some others things. At the age of 18, he scored 224 not out in a match, and then left halfway through, in order to participate in a 400 meters hurdles championship, which he won! He was a fully qualified, practicing doctor by profession, and a cricketer just for the joy of being one. Though, he was also the most handsomely (and obscenely handsomely) paid cricketer. During his first tour of Australia in 1873-74, he took home 1,500 U.K. pounds as fee, an amount that far exceeds 100,000 U.K. pounds at present value. In Indian Rupee value, he got almost Rs. 1 crore for a single season tour of test cricket, at a time when cricket was in its infancy and definitely not even one-tenth as monetarily rewarding as today. He was, by far, the highest paid cricketer even on his very first tour itself. His career earnings are considered to be over a million U.K. pounds at present value – that’s Indian Rupees 10 crores. Whew, what a man!

When I realized that Grace had played till the age of almost 51, I decided to look up cricketers who played beyond 40. The list is huge, and features 102 cricketers. Grace is 3rd oldest on the list, and surprise, surprise, the top slot goes to by now familiar, Mr. Wilfred Rhodes, who played on till the age of 52 years and 165 days. Old men, should I say? Maybe yes, but old men with awesome abilities. In comparison, Sachin is just 36½, and a kid by that comparison, who’s still got 16 years to go if he wants a shot at that record. In any case, just to reach the top 100 (and be at the bottom of that list at position 100) of oldest players, Sachin will have to play till he is 40 years and 13 days old – into the first week of May, 2013 (another 3½ years from now). Will he last that long? One doesn’t know. He has already done enough and reached more milestones than any single man can dream of holding. However suddenly, in comparison, the 20 years looks like it’s too early to celebrate.

The God is human after all...

Sachin Tendulkar became the first man in the history of cricket to hit 45 ODI centuries. And, in the process, also became the first man to hit 17,000 runs. And, as if that was not sufficient, he also became the first man to hit almost 3,000 runs (he’s just 5 short) against a single nation. Surely, signs of greatness that is unparalleled. As one of his greatest fans, I am elated. However, as one of India’s supporters I am hugely disappointed with what happened at the end of that marvelous innings of 175 runs.

Sachin did all the hard work single handedly, taking India to the brink of victory in a match that seemed a hopeless cause even before the Indian batting innings began. After all, when a team scores 350 runs, and that team happens to be Australia, you’ve already lost the match before you step out to chase. And if all your batsmen, barring a couple, fail, then you can say goodbye to any high hopes of an upset win. However, one man and his determination stood between Australia and a sure win – Sachin Tendulkar. A man who’s without a doubt a worry for any side till he’s on the crease.

In India, the most dangerous thing is not the Bengal Tiger or the Gir Lion; it is a marauding Sachin Tendulkar. And when he’s on the prowl, you don’t know where to hide. And he showed more than his fangs yesterday, despite his age, and waged almost a solitary battle to try & win the match. Sadly, he failed to finish the task, and just when it seemed that India had got the better of Australia in an epic battle, his wicket changed the game totally.

As a Sachin fan, I am delighted by his innings under such tremendous pressure. With most of his team members failing, it was all left to Sachin to chase down the target, and he single-handedly almost carried India home with an authoritative 141-ball 175. However, he fell at a crucial juncture, with India needing 19 runs off the last 18 balls. What more can you ask of the man, many ask? I humbly would like to answer by saying, nothing more than victory for my nation. After all, personal magnificence can never be greater than national glory, and no personal achievement is bigger than national triumph.

I am reminded of what Sachin so often says himself, “No record is good enough, if we can’t win the match”. Either I, as his fan, go by what he’s been saying for so many years, or I assume that those are just good sounding statements that don’t mean anything, and laud Sachin for a great innings and his records, forgetting that he did not finish the task and win the match, and virtually threw his wicket away when there was no need to play adventurously. What saddens me the most is not the loss; it is the manner in which Sachin fell. When there was no need to press the panic button, he decided to play an unnecessary cheeky shot and, in the process, lost his wicket and cost India the match that he almost made us win.

What I say is a resonation of what MS Dhoni also said – “India lost the mental battle, falling at the last hurdle. You work so hard to get to a well, but then you have to drink the water yourself.” To further quote Dhoni, “I think it was the mental part, where you know you can play a big shot and you back yourself to do that. At times you just go through the motions, you don't know if such a shot is needed or not.” That, to me, is what happened to Sachin, and that is where he failed to be the God that all of us make of him, and showed that like us, he too is human, and prone to ill-judgements & wrong-doings.

Aussies claim the Champion's Trophy... but others also demonstrated their might

Aussies are the world champions, and there's no denying that fact. New Zealand would have loved playing against their frenemy in the finals, but they were clearly outclassed in the game. Sure, they would have missed Vettori and many others who could have contributed, but for their injuries. But that does not take anything away from the victory that Australia etched out.

Teams like South Africa, India and Sri Lanka didn't make to the semis despite being great on paper and being in form. The 'play a game, win you're in, lose you're out' format didn't do them any good, but the same held true for other teams as well.

Pakistan - the pariahs of cricket - played well as a unit and demonstrated their capabilities to the hilt, but coulddn't make it to the last stage. A lot has been written & discussed about umpiring decisions that probably cost them the right to play the finals, and a chance at winning the trophy. Right or wrong umpiring decisions are a part & parcel of the game and there shouldn't be any bad blood over that. You win some, you lose some.

For me, the two teams of the tournament have to be England and West Indies.

England surprised one and all to set up a semi-final clash with the Aussies, which was great on their part. Coming from a horrible 6-1 beating in ODIs at the hands of Australia, they really regrouped well to play a great tournament, without betraying any lack of confidence.

The West Indies, the second rung team that was hastily put together by their board, came into the tournament as babes in the woods, but held their heads high all through. They fought bravely, ignoring the pressure of many giants of cricket who they were up against, and gave their fans a lot to cheer about.

Other than the Aussies, who finally won the trophy, the tournament has thrown up many likely champions (teams as well as individuals) that cricket fans the world over will look out for in the future. All in all, it was good cricket and a great tournament.

WADA... let some good sense prevail!

Sachin Tendulkar is arguably the most popular cricketer in the world. He also is the most threatened. He enjoys ‘Z-class’ security, provided by the Indian government to leading politicians, a chosen few business leaders and a very few select others, who are considered extremely valuable for the nation and are also on the target list of terrorist groups. M.S. Dhoni is another cricketer accorded such a status. But that should not flatter Dhoni… the fact that this security cover was given since he was threatened by terrorists should not make him a happy man. It is evident that terrorist organizations would like to plan an attack on both Sachin & Dhoni (both national heroes and India’s pride), and deal a severe blow to India. Providing them Z-cover security is just one way of ensuring enough protection is available to the two to negate any nefarious plans that the terrorists may hatch. This also means that it is absolutely critical to ensure that their whereabouts are not easily known, and most definitely not much in advance, making them vulnerable to terrorists who can have the luxury of time & knowledge to plan & carry out an ambitious attack. And should such big national heroes with a fan-following that is unparalleled be subjected to such ‘audits’? Is this not atrocious?

I am referring to the new clause by WADA (World Anti-Doping Agency) that requires all sportsmen globally to declare their whereabouts at least 3 months in advance to the anti-doping authority. The ‘whereabouts’ clause makes it necessary for the players to give details about their availability for one hour every day between 6 am and 11 pm for random ‘out-of-competition’ testing by WADA officials. This is to check & ensure that sportspersons are not planning & doping during non-competition days to gain an edge during competitions, without the fear of detection.

What the clause proposes as penalties is that if the sportsmen are not found at the place on the first occasion and the test can’t be carried out, a warning is served. A second occasion means that they can be severely reprimanded. And, according to WADA rules, any sportsperson who misses 3 tests in 18 months faces a two-year sanction. Now, isn’t that harsh? How could anybody – you, me, anybody – know exactly where they will be over the next 90 days during a particular hour, each day of the 90 days? And then ensure that nothing, absolutely nothing, comes in the way of their being present at that location at that precise hour. Everyone has several family, social and work commitments that can create emergencies warranting the change. Don’t we all take vacations on a spur, without any planning and suddenly embark on a journey to a location which was not even in our remotest thoughts 24 hours ago? Cricketers are no different, and have various personal & commercials commitments off the field that can’t be finely planned or revealed 90 days in advance, and should be allowed their privacy. The clause is too invasive & restrictive, to say the least. Surely, our cricketers, our national heroes must be spared of the abuse through such draconian laws!

Now, I am not a supporter of drugs – in sports or otherwise – and I would definitely want that they be banned from international competitions, and those breaking the rules be severely punished. Three sportsmen who I really admired were Ben Johnson of Canada, the sprinter who broke Carl Lewis’ record & monopoly in the 100-200-400 meter events and created a new world record in 1988; Florence Griffith Joyner, the US sprinter and new world record holder for 100m & 200m in the 1988 Olympics; and Marion Jones, another American sprinter who won five medals (an astonishing feat which had never been achieved by a female athlete before) at the 2000 Sydney Olympics.

Before Ben Johnson, Carl Lewis was the king of track and his supremacy was unchallenged. Johnson arrived on the scene, and quickly started pipping Lewis at various track & field meets, finally beating him in the 1988 Olympics 100m dash, creating a new world record of 9.79 seconds. However, Ben’s sample tested positive for banned substances and he was stripped of his gold medal 2 days after creating history, his record was rescinded, he was banned from international competition, and Lewis proclaimed the winner. A shameful end to the career of a hero, who set many a pulse racing.

Florence Griffith Joyner was a triple gold medalist at the 1988 Seoul Olympics, where she set the 100 & 200 meter world records and also helped the US team win the 4x100m relay. Lovingly known the world over as Flo-Jo, she captivated the world with her phenomenal speed and flamboyant style. However, her near-masculine physique & vast improvement over a very short time fuelled rumours about performance-enhancing drugs. These became even more vociferous after the 1988 Games, and she announced her retirement immediately thereafter. Doubters said that she announced her retirement to beat the drug testers, specially after the Ben Johnson episode during the same Olympics. Again, a shockingly early end to what seemed a very promising career.

Marion Jones passed 160 doping tests before finally admitting in a U.S. court in 2007 that she had taken the banned substance Tetrahydrogestrinone (THG) before the 2000 Olympics. The admission, after years of denial, came as part of a plea bargain agreement with prosecutors, who charged her with lying about her steroid use. She was then stripped of her 5 Sydney Olympics medals, all her competitive results since September 2000 were annulled, and she was banned from the sport for two years. She retired from athletics immediately thereafter. On January 11, 2008, Jones was also sentenced to 6 months in jail. A huge disgrace for a person who was a national treasure till then.

Cricket has its own shameful stories, and Pakistan’s Shoaib Akhtar & Mohammed Asif have been accused of taking drugs and PCB awarded punishment to both and kept them out of the sport. A cricketer of the stature of Shane Warne, who was a world record holder, a global idol & a role-model for millions of budding cricketers, was dropped from the Australian cricket team and sent back from the 2003 ICC World Cup because of a banned drug being found in his sample, despite his unsurpassable importance to the Australian campaign in winning the champion’s crown.

Nobody can deny that doping is present at various levels in sports, and specially at the top it becomes a huge problem that needs to be tackled with a firm hand. Not just because it means that sportsmen playing by the book are robbed of their rightful status by cheats, but also because these cheats become heroes & role models for youngsters the world over, who follow & copy them. The fact that world record holders have tested positive and finally admitted to their guilt is something of great concern.

All these examples, where leading, reputed sportspersons were found guilty & punished severely, have proven to be huge deterrents for other sportsmen harbouring hopes of going scot free. Clearly, there is a need to regulate, check & punish the guilty ones, and create an example for others, so that nobody ever tries to cheat. So, this hue & cry that the Indian cricketers are raising about privacy concerns is so very narrow-minded that it is hard to digest.

World over, many champions, bigger names than the biggest cricketers, have gone ahead and agreed to co-operate. Rafael Nadal, Serena Williams and Andy Murray have marked their protest, yet signed on the clause. Champions like Roger Federer & Lance Armstrong have welcomed it, knowing that it is not a witch-hunt and it will help weed out such practices & make sports clean. Ricky Ponting & Andrew Flintoff are also signatories. Don’t they all have security concerns, or do they not lead a life that is not 100% regimented and 100% pre-determined? So, what is so special about our cricketers and BCCI? FIFA, which has more muscle than any other sports body in the world, has also refused to sign the clause in its entirety. They have also expressed concerns of their players, but unlike the BCCI, they have not rejected it altogether. Instead, they have proposed to WADA that only players they deem high-risk should be part of the ‘whereabouts’ clause. Obviously, they understand & agree with the greater objective & its merit, and treat the proposal as a necessary evil on the path to glory.

The public at large wants to see their heroes perform wonders every time they step on the field. But more importantly, they want clean sports and clean heroes. If our cricketers think they are holier than thou and above reproach, incidents that I pointed out earlier are testimonies that this may not be absolutely true, and in any case needs to be thoroughly guarded against. If Indians are not ready to adapt themselves to global norms, they cannot hope to be seen as a part of the global sports world. Being a top athlete has its joys, but it also has certain responsibilities, which by their very nature of being responsibilities are not all that easy to live up to. Our cricketers and our board will have to learn to abide with them and live as one with the world. Their current stance has put the Indian cricketers’, the BCCI’s & the ICC’s reputation, and even cricket’s future, at stake. Howsoever much may I admire them, I cannot help but find fault with Indian cricketers’ stance on this issue. With their current decision, they will only end up alienating themselves, and doing great injustice to those who like to play the game fairly. Hope some good sense will prevail over the men in blue, and they will finally emerge from this crisis as real heroes.

Gambhir tops test ranking… is there a captain in the making?

Gautam Gambhir topped the ICC test ranking two days ago, becoming the first India batsman in over four years to head the batting rankings. In an era where T20 & ODIs are ruling the roost, this comes as the most beautiful feather in cap of this Delhi batsman, who has till now lived in the shadow of another Delhi bat who is most feared the world over – Virender Sehwag. This is the coming of age of sorts of the shy, yet determined cricketer, who has withstood the test of time and proven how valuable he is not just to Indian cricket, but to world cricket. And even though he has been off-colour in the shorter version of the game for some time now, nobody can take away from his capability to win a match on his own on his given day.

He is one of the cleanest strikers of the ball, and like Sehwag, when he hits them, they stay hit. Having Sehwag for company at the other end, while playing for Delhi in Ranji, or while playing for Delhi Daredevils, or while playing for India, would surely have impacted & influenced him. And to prove himself in such circumstances, when his partner is probably the most feared batsman in the world, who is so very popular and has such a huge fan following, can be difficult. But Gambhir has proven, if you keep working hard, nothing is impossible.

The other Indian batsmen who have reached this pinnacle are Rahul Dravid, Sachin Tendulkar, Dilip Vengsarkar, Sunil Gavaskar & Gundappa Vishwanath. To be in the such august company is in itself a huge honour, and this just goes on to show the class of Gambhir. All the batsmen here have two things in common. They were all batsmen in a class of their own, each one having an enviable repertoire of clean cricketing shots, and a certain individual flair which separated them from the herd. And, each one of them has been bestowed with the responsibility & pride of leading the Indian cricket team. So, do we have another captain in the making?

Pakistan rise like a Phoenix from the ashes to emerge champions

So, Pakistan are the new world champions of T20.

Did they deserve to win? I think they did, despite my being an Indian who would be the most unlikely supporter of anything Pakistani. Though I can also have a last laugh by saying in the same breath that India beat Pakistan in this very World Cup even before the first official ball was bowled in the championship. So, we’ve vanquished the eventual victors, and by that very logic are better than them. However, I do not wish to steal their thunder, and for once I will applaud them for their achievement.

The pre-tournament favourites for me were South Africa, Sri Lanka and India (not necessarily in the same order). However, there were other teams who gave two hoots to what I thought and came to the party. Both West Indies & Pakistan showed that they were hungry and ready to play big daddy. Amongst the early favourites, the South Africans did reach the semis but choked at that stage as they so often do (maybe they should get an automatic bypass to the finals the next time they qualify for finals in a championship, and then maybe they can lift a cup). Both Australia (who weren’t in anybody’s reckoning despite being the best team otherwise – I know I am playing with peril by saying this, but no arguments please) & India (the defending champs) withered away in the early stages to set up the final clash between Sri Lanka & Pakistan. Finally, the champion is a country that didn’t just deserve to win; it ‘needed’ to win badly.

The two finalists were nations whose cricketing destiny seems to be intertwined ever since the terrorist attack on Sri Lankan cricketers in Lahore on 4th of March, 2009. Pakistan has been the pariah of cricket ever since. That they have been reduced to becoming touring cricketers, who are now forced to embark on a journey every time they want to play international cricket, since no nation wants to tour the terror-ridden Pakistan, has meant that they’ve not had too much going for them for some time now. They did need something to revive them, and for sure this victory is going to do wonders to the sport and the general feel-good factor in the country.

Sports has a way of creating a mood across any nation, and it finally reflects in the economy & general behavior of people. Is it because the people are generally happy after the victory, prone to partying & spending on self, family & friends? Or is it merely coincidental? Historic evidence suggests that every time Brazil has won the football world cup, their economy has received a huge boost. Indian cricket (and Indian confidence) really started looking up post the 1983 world cup win. When Italy won the FIFA Cup in 2006, for months it seemed that the nation was forever in a celebratory mood, and the economy went into 5th gear. Since it has happened so many times to so many nations, it can’t just be written off as a coincident. And I do hope this victory does something similar to Pakistan – they really need to have something to rejoice about. They need to come out of their closet and become a part of the developing world where terrorism has no place. They need to bask in the glory of what they have achieved, and not bicker over what was never theirs. They need to shun violence & hatred, and embrace friendship & goodwill towards others. They need to be seen as people who one can be friends with. History has given Pakistan an opportunity, and as a neighbour I do hope they grab this one.

Cricket’s glorious 5 centuries!

There are billions of followers of cricket the world over, many of them self-confessed fanatics. Yet, very few know about the origin & evolution of cricket. In this article, I try to put forth what I learned based on my own knowledge & some research over the Internet.

While a lot has been done to trace cricket’s origins, there is no final conclusion. It is commonly believed that the game was invented by English shepherds to while away their time while grazing the sheep. They used to use farm equipment & wooden sticks to hit a round-shaped object made of wood or stone… winner being the one who hit it farthest.

The first written evidence of a game known as ‘creag’ played by Prince Edward at Kent is in 1301, which could place cricket’s history back to 7 centuries. However, it is merely speculated that this was cricket and there is no concrete evidence of the same. For all purposes of reported history, cricket originated as a sport in England in the early 16th century, way back in the Tudor era, sometime earlier than the beginning of Queen Elizabeth I’s reign (1558 – 1603).

The earliest definite reference to the term ‘cricket’ is in 1598, when it was called ‘creckett’. The reference is in a court case about a sport played by the students of the Royal Grammar School, Guildford around 1550 (whew, that is over 450 years ago). The word is assumed to have been derived from the Old English word ‘cryce’ meaning a stick/staff. Way back then, the cricket (or cryce) bats were shaped liked bent staffs (like hockey sticks), and the ball used to be rolled on the ground for the batsman to hit. The bats continued in this form until they evolved over 2 centuries (!!!) later in 1760, when bowlers started pitching the ball instead of rolling it towards the batsmen. This meant that the ball came bouncing towards the batsmen, and this necessitated the introduction of a straighter bat, the kind that is used today.

By the early 17th century, around 1610, the sport had evolved to the level of a contest, where inter-parish matches were being held. The game’s popularity kept growing through the 17th century; however, it was popular mostly in southern England and it still remained a villagers’ game. But, by the end of the century, things changed. The rich started patronizing the sport and forming their own ‘Select XIs’, on whom they placed bets (who says ‘Super Selector’ is new?), and this helped it become an organized sport played for high stakes all across England.

The first proof of cricket’s popularity comes from a newspaper report about an 11-players-a-side match that was played in Sussex in 1697. The fact that a newspaper found this worthy-enough of being written about in ‘holier-than-thou journalism days’ also suggests that the sport had assumed a fairly important status. As early as 1707, cricket had become prominent in London, with teams coming to play from afar, which attracted huge crowds & betters.

The Marylebone Cricket Club (MCC) was founded in 1787, when the Lord’s Cricket Ground (named after Thomas Lord, a professional bowler who was encouraged by his club-mates to find & run a private cricketing venue within easy distance of London), the mecca of cricket, was formally opened. However, the first ground was not in the same place as the current ground and Lord’s has been moved twice till it reached its current home. Though it was not the first cricket club in England, MCC quickly assumed the position of the most premier club and the custodian of the Laws of Cricket.

By the end of the 18th century, cricket had become so popular that it was accorded the status of the national sport of England, and the expansion of the British Empire led to cricket being played by the Englishmen in other countries. The game became well established in Australia, New Zealand, the Caribbean Islands, India, South Africa and North America (yes, North America – even though it is not a very popular sport in that continent anymore). In fact, you’d be surprised to learn that the first ever international cricket match was played in 1844, between the United States of America & Canada (although neither has been accorded a Test-playing nation status ever)!!!

By the mid-19th century, international matches begun to gain importance. In 1859, the English Team went on their first overseas tour to North America (see picture below). In 1862, the English made their first tour of Australia, and in 1876-77, played the first Test Match at Melbourne Cricket Ground, Australia. The term ‘Ashes’ came into existence shortly, due to the cricketing rivalry between the English & the Australians in 1882, when at The Oval, Australia beat England on an English ground for the first time, and a newspaper wrote that English cricket had died, and “the body will be cremated and the ashes taken to Australia”. Within the same decade, international cricket expanded further when South Africa became the 3rd nation to play international cricket, when they played England in 1888-89.

The English Cricket Team aboard their ship on the tour to USA & Canada, 1859

With cricket’s growing footprint, a global governing body was needed, and the International Cricket Council (ICC) was formed. Originally founded as the Imperial Cricket Conference by England, Australia & South Africa, it came into existence exactly a century ago on 15th June, 1909. It was renamed the International Cricket Conference in 1965, and took up its current name in 1989.

The game has gained huge popularity over these 100 years, and today ICC’s headquarters have moved away from England to Dubai, highlighting the widespread impact that other nations have had on cricket. Today, over a 100 nations (that’s half the world by nation-count, and probably half the world even by population count) play the sport, and the popularity is growing. That’s cricket’s impact for you – 5 great centuries, and getting better!

Dutch courage humbles the English in their own backyard

Dutch courage – what is it exactly? The term has its origins in naval warfare. In the old days, the Dutch navy was feared by all other navies because of the courage it demonstrated in fighting a sea battle. This was especially true during the Anglo-Dutch wars of the 17th & 18th centuries, when Netherlands & Britain were bitter rivals, and the Dutch were particularly dreaded by the British navy, and the Dutch East India Company was forever taking on the British East India Company in atrociously daring attacks. It was rationalized that such an attack could only be undertaken by a drunk man, who was not scared of anything at all. And thus, the phrase Dutch courage came into existence as a slang for courage gained from alcoholic intoxication.

Well yesterday, the Dutch proved once again that they have absolutely no fear of how strong the opposition may be, and especially Britain needs to be extremely wary when facing them. Were the Dutch cricketers drunk before the match or not, I do not know. What I can safely say is that they would definitely by drunk on the success of beating England, and Pakistan, who are next in their line, must be a worried lot.

Predicting a winner in Twenty20 match is not an easy task. It is akin to predicting the future. There is only one problem though… the difficult aspect about predicting the future is that… uhm, it’s pretty difficult to predict. And as was demonstrated yesterday, this holds equally true for cricket. Or, at least, Twenty20 cricket.

Well, the tournament has begun with a huge upset, and that is the beauty of this game. One can never say who will win on a given day. Though, I also notice a trend thus far – most winners in practice matches and in the opener too are teams batting second. So, maybe, just after the toss, we can predict a winner most of the times. Hope Dhoni notices this too, and wins all tosses for India… starting with the one today, or we might witness yet another upset.

India demolish Pakistan in a World Cup yet again

Yawn! Yawn!

So, what’s new guys? History repeats itself, and every single time, whenever India & Pakistan clash in a world cup cricket tournament. For the past 34 years, ever since the very first World Cup, Pakistan has never been able to beat us, and I am sure they will not be terribly happy about this at all. Pakistanis would wonder, who says cricket is a great leveler? As for us Indians, it is just a great reveler.

Even though this was a warm-up match, nothing associated with this game would suggest so. The tickets for the entire stadium were sold out 2 days in advance. The crowds donning their country colours, cheering and jeering with mad frenzy on every boundary & wicket, made it seem like the final before even the first ball is bowled in the actual tournament. And the intensity with which Pakistan batted in the first inning, surpassed by India in the second inning, hinted that this was not just a friendly warm-up match, but a battle which both sides wanted to win under any circumstances. So much so that when Harbhajan dropped a catch early on, there was genuine sorrow being seen on his face and his compatriots, and the Indians amongst the crowds were groaning and the Pakistanis celebrating. The whole atmosphere was electric to an extent that even the final would be proud of.

With the kind of response this match generated, guess England would want to become the neutral venue for all Indo-Pak matches – it’ll ensure capacity crowds and great television earnings in a country which fathered this great game, but where football is pushing this into the background. But then which country won’t like to play host to an Indo-Pak game? The rivalry has become bigger than the Ashes, and I think it is time that this also is given a commemorative name – how about “Clashes”? (…No pun intended).

158/6 that Pakistan scored, after winning the toss and electing to bat first, was by all means a decent score, and one that should not have been too difficult to defend. At least, one would have assumed that the match would have been a cliff-hanger, going to the last over if not the last ball, before either side emerged victorious. The bowlers were not entirely effective, and India had to employ 7 of them. The fact that 5 of them did snare a wicket each and kept giving crucial breaks meant that India were able to stop Pakistan at a chase-able, under 8 target. And with 158 on the board, even Pakistan would not have been too unhappy going in to bowl in the 2nd innings.

When Gautam Gambhir & Rohit Sharma walked out to open the Indian innings, many would have felt Sehwag’s absence, who is out because of injury. However, the two openers were out on a mission and ensured that there were no twists in the tale, and went on to score at will, marauding the Pakistanis. Incidentally, Pakistan too employed 7 bowlers, but only 1 of them could get the sole wicket to fall – Rohit Sharma who scored a brilliant 80 off 53 balls. When he departed, the score stood at 140/1 with 4 overs still to go to chase the balance 18 runs. Undoubtedly, Pakistan’s fate was already sealed. Gambir & Dhoni completed the formalities of hammering in the last nail in Pakistan’s coffin in the very next over, and India romped home in front of a 23,000-capacity crowd in style, with 9 wickets to spare.

For us Indians, the final has been played, even before the first ball being bowled in the actual tournament, and India has once again crushed Pakistan on the world stage to emerge victorious. Whatever happens hereon in the tournament is not so very relevant.

As I finish writing this, a thought has just drifted into my mind - why can’t we settle all disputes between India and Pakistan peacefully through a cricket match once and for all? Condition being, it is played at a world cup tournament.

Sri Lankan cricketers are safe; sadly, we can't say the same for the state of Pakistan

Yesterday, in Lahore, The Sri Lankan cricket team was attacked by gun-yielding, and even rocket-launcher equipped terrorists, and many players were injured in the attack. That they are all out of danger and safely back in their own country is a relief, to say the very least.

This attack once again reminded me of precisely what I, and many others, have been saying for the past so many years. Pakistan is a safe haven for terrorists, and they have produced a Frankenstein that they no longer control. Without an argument, the terrorists are a creation of the state and have always been given all the monetary, military and political support they needed to create mayhem in India. Now, as was witnessed very recently through the large celebrations & public display of arms by the Taliban in the Swat Valley post Sharia law being allowed there, the radicals want much more power and wish to control everything in Pakistan, much on the same lines as they did in Afghanistan till a few years ago.

The tentacles of terror have truly gone beyond their maker's control (the Pakistani politicians, army and ISI) and are now deliberately attacking civilians, and even foreigners and teams on a goodwill mission to Pakistan, to spread their awe & fear. The September 2008 Marriott attack in Islamabad was a grim example of the same, and even yesterday’s attack was aimed at bringing their power & capabilities to international notice – much like the US 9/11 and the Mumbai attacks.

There were many knee-jerk reactions in Pakistan to these attacks to absolve themselves of the blame. These ranged from – this is a work of RAW; after all Sonia Gandhi promised retribution for 26/11. Another being – this is the LTTE striking with vengeance as a last hurrah in their fight against the Sri Lankan army. I, for one, do not believe this at all. And there are many reasons for the same.

12 heavily armed terrorists attacked the team bus, being escorted by 6 policemen. All the policemen were killed and all the terrorists got away unharmed and escaped being captured. Wow!

How could the terrorists manage this feat, especially given the fact that the bus route to the stadium was changed at the last minute due to security concerns, and nobody but the police were supposed to know the route. The only sound logical reason that comes to my mind is that the terrorists were Pakistani insiders, possibly policemen/ISI men themselves rather than radical terrorists, who staged this to create an impression that Pakistan is itself a victim, and not a perpetrator, of such attacks. If the RAW or the LTTE did it, they would surely not know of the last minute change in route, and would not have been able to strike. Even if they managed to do so somehow, they would certainly have been captured or killed by the Pakistani forces – goddamn, at least 1 out of the 12 could have met that fate. That this did not happen, is proof enough of the complicity of the authorities running the show there.

Anyhow, the purpose of this piece is not to defend our nation or the LTTE against the blame, or to fault Pakistan. I write this as a grim reminder of what is our fate, if such terrorists were allowed to take center-stage in Pakistan. They have no love for our nation, and I dread the day the nuclear option against India will cease to be an “option” and will become an “opportunity” in Pakistan. For that very reason, we have to continue applying international pressure on Pakistan to fight this menace. And yet, howsoever much we may not want to do so, somehow help them combat this terror. It might be their creation which is hurting them now, but it is our neighbour’s house collapsing that will take our own home with it as it falls. Difficult thought to digest, but a bitter pill that I fear we will have to swallow.

Mumbai Terror Attack...will we ever be rid of terror?

The Mumbai Terror Attack on the 26th of November was a hugely poignant moment for all Indians. As a person who has spent over 2 years as a denizen of that city before returning to Delhi last year, I was stung with the pain, fear and anger my fellow-countrymen in that city would have felt. But this is not just about Mumbai. It was an attack on the fabric of the nation itself. Our house was impregnated, our brethren (Hindus, Muslims, Sikhs, Christians, Jews… everyone) were killed, our pride was dented, and our confidence in our national security system & Indian polity was shattered. It is time indeed to rethink what we, as a nation, want to become – a mourning victim of such perpetual attacks, or a steadfast voice that not just condemns such barbaric acts, but is ready to fight them.

Enough has already been said in news channels, newspapers, blogs, and there are many initiatives – from candlelight vigils to angry protest marches – undertaken by various organizations & groups that have just been formed out of common bonding arising as an after-taste of these attacks and the political response that we’ve witnessed from all parties. At least one thing binds all our political parties finally – they’re all alike in inaction, cowardice, opportunism, one-upmanship and contempt of the people who vote them to power. We, the ordinary citizen, are scum of the earth for them.

If a lipstick-powder wearing woman is not the voice of this nation, then why do they seek them out when it is time to ask for votes? If the family of a martyred soldier is not worthy of a visit by a dog, why should people at such or even lower levels (and I consider myself of a lower level than a martyred soldier) be called for election meetings and told why they are so loved by a politician seeking their mandate? And why should the widow of an officer, who was tormented & condemned for his investigating the role of a particular community in spreading terror, be offered more money than most of us can earn in a lifetime? Just so she keeps quiet at the horrible attitude and apathy of the political masters, and the same politicians who were baying for the officer’s (her husband’s) blood even on the day he was killed by the terrorists, masquerade as caring humans who stand by this nation’s martyrs, and reap political gains on his bloodied, bullet-ridden, dead body. And why should the Chief Minister of the state under the bloodiest attack, organize terror-tourism-treks for his kith & kin, rather than work aggressively towards ensuring that our police & forces are armed to the teeth to not just counter such attacks, but to stop them in their infancy.

I could have used euphemism instead of the strong words that I just used for describing the deeds of our politicians, but while they may sound good, they would be unjust and hollow. The anger in the common man this time is too deep and too unforgiving. And our politicians must awake, arise, and act. Finally, as people who are our representatives and not our masters. For they come from us, the common people. Otherwise, the government of the people, by the people, for the people, will just become a phrase that sounds good, but means nothing. The politicians have to finally put aside their differences and do something positive – not for their sake… but for our sake, our nation’s sake.

Will that happen; I do not know. Will this fizzle out as the candle-light finally fades out; I hope not. But I guess the patience of the people has been tested enough, and maybe this is the catalyst that is going to change things forever.

As I end this note, I am reminded of some lines that I had written in 1984 after the assassination of Indira Gandhi. I reproduce them below.

"Give me a home where no terrorists roam"

Give me a home
Where no terrorists roam
And the kids can play
On the streets all day

No firing, no gun shots
No killing of tiny tots
No fear in the air
No mothers in despair

No murders in religion’s name
Let’s not make life easy game
Guns are not anyone’s toy
Funerals don’t bring anyone joy

Does it matter which God I pray
Does your God hate mine, I say
Is your blood’s colour different than mine
Is your prayer and temple more divine

So, why are we all fighting each other
And killing one another’s son and brother
Is this what you really call freedom of choice
Where only one religion can have a voice

Let’s make our country, our home a beautiful place
Where peacefully can reside human race
And all of us can live together in peace
May I have my paradise back, please

Give me a home
Where no terrorists roam
And the kids can play
On the streets all day

Oh! Give me a home
Where no terrorists roam
And the kids can play
On the streets all day

Nuclear Deal - What it means for India and why the political parties are divided over it

The nuclear deal has created much debate inside and outside political circles for the past one year. Not many of us understand it well. Not that we were intended to too – by either the Congress (which is propagating it as being for the national good), or the Left Block (which is demanding the Congress Government’s head for it pursuing the deal), or the BJP (which can’t really decide which side to take; after all they started this, but they don’t want to lose out on the opportunity of toppling the Congress at the center). The general belief is that it is necessary for the country. But the general belief also is that it comes at a cost of compromising our position vis-à-vis the US, and hence we must not agree. Two sides of the same coin, you might say. No sir. These are not two sides of the same coin at all; the coin always has a third side – the circular edge – which due to its very nature of conjoining the two other sides, holds the real truth. And that is the truth that most political parties are not willing to let get revealed. But this article is not about my view of the political compulsions of various parties; this is about the merits and demerits of the deal itself.

So, what is the deal all about?

The nuclear deal is an agreement between India and the US, opening the gates for the US government to supply nuclear fuel and reactors to India, which will also enable the world to collaborate with India in civil nuclear usage, thereby helping our energy needs of the future, apart from various other gains. All the nuclear deal does is to grant a ‘waiver’ from the laws of the NPT, which India has vehemently refused to sign, so that American companies can now pursue nuclear trade with India. From an Indian perspective, the deal itself needs to be seen as what it is primarily – an agreement to shore up India’s energy security and gain access to nuclear and high technology, with transformative effects on foreign policy.

The Deal: Some basic compulsions

As per the agreement, the following must be adhered to for the deal to go through:
• Identifying and separating civil and nuclear facilities and programs in a phased manner by India
• Filing a declaration regarding India’s civilian facilities with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA)
• Taking a decision to voluntarily place India’s civil nuclear facilities under IAEA safeguards
• Continuing India’s unilateral moratorium on nuclear testing

Arguments Against

• First and foremost, the proposed separation of nuclear facilities into civil and military is costly & difficult or rather impractical. It would also mean that we allow external agencies to come and examine our facilities, thereby exposing our capabilities to the world, and finally limiting them. The deal will impact India’s ability to produce requisite fissile material, as all new nuclear facilities will be civilian in nature and under the supervision of IAEA.
• Second, nuclear power is costly in nature and an emerging country like India can ill afford it. It is a luxury that only the developed world can enjoy and India should not count on it in its energy security calculus. In any case, the benefits are not going to be immediate, and hence there is no need to rush into signing this deal. We must look at other, more viable energy means in the meantime.
• Third, the deal is all about American promises and Indian commitments, and we just cannot trust US to keep its word. If it fails to do so, India will have traded in its independent nuclear program, without having received anything in the bargain.
• Finally, the deal does not remove the discriminatory nature of the present nuclear regime which India has been fighting all along. Why should India place all its existing and future civilian nuclear facilities under IAEA supervision when other nuclear powers are not compelled to do so? In terms of statistics, out of the 915 facilities under IAEA safeguards worldwide, only 11 are in the 5 NPT nuclear power states.

Arguments For

• First, India is a fast growing economy that is looking for all the energy resources that it can get hold of, howsoever costly they may be. The denial of nuclear fuel due to provisions of the NPT regime has been precisely the reason behind the Indian nuclear establishment’s dismal performance. History has given us the chance and we must seize it. If international nuclear fuel is available, the cost of producing electricity will also come down and will be within the affordable range. The benefits that the future generations are going to reap are far too many to negate with a veto against the deal.
• Second, there is no provision in the deal that asks India to place its indigenously developed nuclear reactors under IAEA supervision. The deal is applicable only in the case of existing and future nuclear reactors that will be using international nuclear fuel. Technically, India can build up as many indigenous nuclear reactors as it wants for its security purposes.
• Third, to answer the proliferation charge, the present deal is a win-win situation for the non-proliferation regime since it brings India into the nuclear mainstream. India has consistently put its foot down to join the NPT regime, and has also not given any commitment to sign the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT). So, thus far, it has been denied the nuclear status (and benefits that follow) that it truly deserves. Nonetheless, India, despite being a declared nuclear power, has an impeccable non-proliferation record that needs to be trusted & rewarded rather than questioned & punished. That we have got the US to finally grant us what we deserve (and that too on our terms, without us signing the NPT or CTBT) is not just commendable, but laudable.
• Finally, India has still not signed the NPT treaty. But it will enjoy all the privileges available to declared nuclear powers under the NPT regime. In fact, in the eyes of the American non-proliferation lobby, the nuclear deal is an American sellout to India. They feel that the deal is likely to abet the nuclear weapon capabilities of India. For, by the very act of separating the civil & military facilities, without NPT being signed by India, the supply of international nuclear fuel will free its existing non-civil facilities, designated as military facilities, to produce plutonium and enriched plutonium exclusively for weapons’ purpose.

My Take

India is a developing economy and to maintain its current growth it needs power to run its industries. In a country like Germany, 60% of the power comes from nuclear power plants. To grow into a super power we need nuclear energy to keep the wheels of the industry, and thereby the economy, moving at a rapid pace. The deal’s biggest positive impact will be on the country’s energy needs, which becomes a critical consideration given the high oil prices touching $140 and more a barrel, and the imperative of maintaining high growth rates into the future. The second advantage is that it will gain India access to high technology – to larger capacity reactors, for instance, and to monitoring and safety technology. India’s nuclear establishment will be able to participate in international collaborative research on thermonuclear reactors, that could offer significant advantages in the future.

In the face of these advantages, some of the objections raised by critics seem quite peripheral and even trivial. There is, for instance, the criticism that technological cooperation will remain less than full unless the U.S. were to amend its laws to permit export of enrichment, reprocessing and heavy water technology. Or that arrangements for reprocessing the spent fuel imported from the U.S. have still to be negotiated, without which we do not know where we stand. The more substantive objections, however, are basically two.

The first is the Left’s view that the deal will take India into a closer strategic partnership with the U.S., which would mark a departure from the independent foreign policy line agreed to in the national common minimum program. It is a pretty well known fact that closer relations with the U.S. are essential for any progressive nation in a globalised world, because it controls the levers of economic and technological power. Nobody can really object to better relations as such but the Left, as always, is opposed to any relations with the U.S., whether they are beneficial or otherwise.

The second objection is from the BJP – that the deal will compromise India’s strategic autonomy and it will become virtually impossible to carry out another nuclear explosion. That, immediately after the Pokhran 2 blasts, the then Indian Prime Minister, Mr. Atal Behari Vajpayee of BJP himself, and thereafter many leading scientists have already said that India has no further need for any more tests, is being conveniently forgotten by them, on the belief that public memory is short and nobody will remember what they said years ago. So, basically, the objection has nothing to do with the deal or its contents per se; it has more to do with the political needs of the BJP at present.

As I see it, the India-US nuclear deal is the much-needed fuel to regenerate our nuclear establishment that is stifling under present international regulations. If the status quo is allowed to prevail, our ambitious plan to be counted as a globally recognized nuclear power, and to derive benefits from the same, will only remain a pipedream. Of course, there are a few conditions, which may be strict in nature, that have to be adhered to. But despite all of those, it is clear that the advantages of the deal overwhelmingly outweigh any threat or flaw, and this is as good a deal as any government can negotiate for us. Were the country to miss this opportunity, it will be an uphill task for any future government to resurrect the deal with a new administration in Washington.

P.S. Almost the entire text of this message has been researched through various articles – both Indian and International. I cannot take any credit for the factual inputs into this; however, any analysis thereof and flaws in the same are solely mine, and I stand guilty should you find fault with my comments. I deliberately refrain from commenting on the political scenario which is likely to be revealed later today post the vote in the parliament. But I guess you can make out who I am backing – no, not the UPA, but the deal.

Goodbye Gilchrist!

India won a historic one-day series down under yesterday, finally getting the monkey off their back by beating Australia 2-nil in a best of 3 finals. That there was no need for the third match to played, demonstrates how India dominated the Aussies in the finals totally. But the world is talking a lot about that already, and I shall refrain from doing so this one time.

Instead, I am going to write about the one man I have always admired as a cricketer, who hung his boots yesterday. The man, as is no secret, is none other than the Australian, Adam Gilchrist. Wicket-keeper par excellence, batsman most dreaded, and a sportsman who stands out like an angel amongst his other team members who wouldn’t miss any trick in the world (character assassination included) to get the better of their opponents. He was one man who never waited for the umpire’s decision, but always walked, if he thought he had edged the ball and had been caught behind. A true gentleman cricketer, I must say, in this day of blatant, low-stooping techniques to stay at the crease by so many others in Australian cricket that it has almost become their charter – “do not walk unless the umpire says you’re out”. Even in his last inning, he walked even before the umpire had time to react to the appeal, on a very faint edge, decision on which could have gone either way.

Gilchrist scored just 2 runs in his final essay before edging Praveen Kumar to Dhoni. The fact that he finally finished with 9,619 runs in 287 one-day internationals shows that this was uncharacteristic of his otherwise extremely high standards. Why, on his batting abilities alone, he would be the pride of any cricketing team in the world. And the pace at which he scored runs was always something that gave ulcers to every opposing team captain, and put him consistently on his toes to somehow try & control the run flow.

As a wicket-keeper, he was again unparalleled and contributed to 472 dismissals in his career. And to be keeping wickets to champion bowlers like McGrath and Warne is no mean task, and his contribution to their tally of wickets is immense. He definitely changed the basic qualification required from a wicket-keeper to a wicket-keeper/batsman/all-rounder, and Kumar Sangakkara & M.S. Dhoni would be immensely proud to be from his herd of cricketers.

Statistically speaking, the man averages 33.52 runs per match (I am not calculating averages the traditional way, wherein you look at averages based on no. of innings that a batsman has been out on). In terms of dismissals, he averages 1.64 per match. If he just stayed on to play another 13 matches to reach 300 one-day internationals, he would have scored an additional 436 runs, and crossed the 10,000-runs mark. To get 28 dismissals to reach the 500 mark, he would need 17 matches. So, if he lingered on for some more time only for this very year (nobody wanted him out of the team at all, as his contribution is immense even now, and there are no serious contenders knocking on the Aussie team door yet), he would have surely got both the 10,000 run mark & the 500 dismissal mark, in addition to an amazing 300 ODI appearances. That he had the courage to go into retirement with such huge milestones within his grasp, shows the man’s mettle and resolve.

If only the world (and specially Australia) had more such cricketers, the gentleman’s game would still be extremely competitive, without being combative. I will surely miss him.