Cover Points : BCCI

Testing selections

dcsiva — Thu, 02 Oct 2008 12:49:00 GMT

Kartikeya argues, reasonably enough in my opinion, that the Indian squad for the first two Tests is a very conservative selection:

India have announced their squad for the first two Tests against Australia. There are no real surprises, something which has become a feature of Indian selections in recent. The only mild surprises are that Sourav Ganguly has not been dropped from the Test team, and possibly also that RP Singh also remains in the squad. Munaf Patel's inclusion may indicate that RP is now the fourth choice fast man for India.

Dileep Premachandran says that Ganguly has become the selectors' beach ball. Soulberry welcomes Amit Mishra into the squad:

That man can turn a game on its head wih his ripping leg-spinners. It does look like the shani hovering on his head has evaporated with the change in selection commitee. It is now up to Misraji to make the most of the opportunity as and when it comes. He may not play immediately but who knows. For the record, TCWJ has been calling for Misraji's inclusion in a sustained, apolitical, merit-promoting manner. Naturally, we're happy here :)

And then looks back at Ishant Sharma's role in the last tour to Australia (there's a video clip, too):

Can Ishant Sharma repeat the influence he had over the Australian batsmen a year ago? The teenaged Indian beanpole, who had the tough-as-nails Australian captain and all-time great batsman, Ricky Ponting, hopping unexpectedly - like Mendis did unto the Indian Fab-ric recently?

Finally, Will says provides, as evidence for Indian fanaticism, journalists' coverage of an Indian training session.

Durham are Kings and Srikkanth's the Chief

dcsiva — Mon, 29 Sep 2008 12:51:00 GMT

Durham are county champions! Not just that, but the manner in which they won is compelling:

Durham's route to the title has been due to their excellent team spirit, with various people stepping forward to take responsibility and few stand-out performers. Only Michael di Venuto, and he only just, passed 1,000 runs in the Championship and only three batsmen who played more than half the fixtures finished with an average above 22. In bowling, they relied on Mark Davies, Callum Thorp and especially Stephen Harmison for most of their wickets but their rotation system brought forth other wicket-takers. They claimed fewer batting points than four of the eight teams below them and fewer bowling points than five others. But most importantly they won more games than anyone else.

Tooting Trumpet has the individuals' review run down for the division one county season as a whole.

And, of course, Kris Srikkanth is now the chief selector. Sandeep Patil reckons changes are afoot. Straight Point kicks off the analysis of his chiefness' intentions. Finally, Mohan gives us the new look BCCI, complete with a review of the official BCCI website.

Edit: More on the BCCI's website.

Team ESPN takes on ICC/BCCI?

dcsiva — Fri, 22 Aug 2008 12:48:00 GMT

Even before this Sunday's ICC teleconference decision day, South Africa have backed out of the Champions Trophy:

CSA studied security in Pakistan and plans for the event, along with reports from the South African government.
South African Cricketers’ Association CEO Tony Irish said: "This was a difficult decision but the right one."
...
The ICC task force has travelled to Australia, New Zealand and England in recent weeks to discuss security issues with the national cricketing bodies.
And those countries could now follow South Africa's example by withdrawing from the tournament.

As India and Pakistan have hardened their position on having to have the Champions Trophy in Pakistan, and they're bound to have at least Bangladesh and Sri Lanka on their sides, the stage is now set for ESPN-Star to sue the ICC!

If the board, the ICC's ultimate and often incompetent decision-making body, does not decide to move the tournament, broadcaster ESPN-Star is likely to sue the ICC for tens of millions of dollars in compensation.

Countries which refuse to compete may then in turn be sued by the ICC, which is why player associations in Australia, England, New Zealand and South Africa have all been far more vocal than their boards.

Will the money-men of the BCCI now finally realise that they're playing with fire here? ESPN won't like losing millions of dollars on broadcasting an event that none of the big nations are playing in, that's for sure.

Champions, but not in Pakistan

dcsiva — Thu, 21 Aug 2008 12:45:00 GMT

Much electronic ink has been refreshed on the topic of the Champions Trophy and playing in Pakistan. Here's Amit Bajaj's take on the contrast between the BCCI and ACA:

The ACA has given more weightage to the report given by Reg Dickason, based on his short stay in Karachi. You can't blame the PCB for being unhappy as the ACA has largely ignored the more comprehensive report provided by Nicholls Steyn, the security experts hired by the ICC.

The BCCI's stand is not any show of bravado - it just shows a more intelligent understanding of the situation in Pakistan. Imran Khan does have a point when he points out that no cricket team or player has been the target of any terrorist activity ever. With the Australian players, it looks like their wives, girlfriends and the ACA have a bigger influence on their decision than an official ICC report. What remains to be seen now is how Cricket Australia reacts. Or will it be ICC that comes to its rescue?!

Here's Ottayan on the relationship between the ACA and the Players' Association in Australia:

However, yesterday’s statement from the Player’s Association that they will not play in Pakistan has added a new twist to the story. ICC feels that Cricket Australia is using the Players Association to escape making a decision.

In fact, an ICC source, who refused to be named, questioned whether the governing boards were hiding behind their "players" so as not to further antagonise India and the powerful Asian bloc which effectively rules the game.

This seems disingenuous to me at best. What on earth is wrong with having a Players' Association that wants to look after its members? There argument is wrong-headed, but they should have some input into the process surely?

Ottayan also links to an article by Mukul Kesavan on Indian batsmen and Ajantha Mendis. And, finally, Kartikeya also on the Fab Four as media project.

Dalmiya back as President

dcsiva — Wed, 30 Jul 2008 12:57:00 GMT

He's back! Watch out everyone, Dalmiya has won the election for President of the Cricket Association of Bengal. And he's said that the IPL has been an amazing success story. Lalit Modi has better watch himself. The Times of India has been quoting insiders (read losers in the election, I guess):

After the five-hour wait, when the decisions finally came out, huge celebrations started at the CAB. But some of the wiser heads in the association were prompt to point out that "one shouldn't expect too much development in Bengal cricket" in the coming days.
"The choice was between the devil and the deep sea. Probably we went for the known devil," a member, who voted for the Dalmiya panel, quipped before leaving the CAB. With the BCCI dangling the suspension sword on Dalmiya, one can be rest assured that it won't be all rosy for the CAB in the near future.

Saurav Ganguly had better watch out too.

Banning playing with ICL players

dcsiva — Fri, 18 Jul 2008 14:43:00 GMT

It's a convoluted piece of logic, to be sure. Apparently the BCCI has seen fit to tell Indian players not to play for any teams that have ICL players in them:

"The BCCI has advised its players to stay away from counties that have ICL players," board secretary Niranjan Shah told Mumbai's Mid Day tabloid on Friday.

"We are not saying that no player can play county cricket in the future. The England and Wales Cricket Board is coming out with a policy regarding ICL within a year. So, we will see how it goes," Shah added.

There's the restraint of trade angle to all of this, of course, but most of all the degrees of separation aspect is extraordinary:

So you play for the ICL, then travel to England and play for Notts, then VVS Laxman can’t sign up for Notts. You go to Aberdeen for a vacation, and Rahul Dravid can’t vacation in Scotland for the rest of his life. You book in to a British Airways flight to go to England to watch the British Grand Prix at Silverstone, and you’ve denied Sachin Tendulkar the opportunity to meet Lewis Hamilton.

As Geetha Krishnan suggests, there's more than a hint of the contamination logic of caste here. The ICL's route forward is obvious: get their players into as many different teams around the world as they possibly can and make it impossible for a BCCI-sanctioned player to play anywhere at all... Hah!

Sleepy Indian venues and doping Asif

dcsiva — Tue, 15 Jul 2008 12:53:00 GMT

The English media and the ECB, on behalf of English touring fans, have been complaining about the tour itinerary in India later this year:

The England and Wales Cricket Board announced on Monday it was upset that India's regular Test venues like Chennai, Kolkata, Mumbai and Mohali were not given matches during the six-week tour.
India want the two Tests in December to be played in Ahmedabad and Mumbai, while the seven preceding one-dayers were spread across various centres like Rajkot, Guwahati, Cuttack and Jamshedpur.
"We would like to remind the ECB that our venues are always decided on the basis of a rotation policy," Indian cricket board secretary Niranjan Shah was quoted as saying on the cricketnirvana.com website.
"The itinerary for the England tour has been finalised on the basis of this rotation policy."
...
An ECB statement issued on Monday said: "ECB are disappointed that, despite their representations, the itinerary doesn't offer the thousands of supporters who follow the England team abroad the opportunity to experience more of the great cricket grounds of India.

Here's King Cricket's personal take on some of the venues. Note the acerbic but exactly detailed first comment to King's entry. But for some real action, see the Guardian's David Hopp's entry and the ensuing commentary that even manages to discuss the 1857 mutiny and the current war in Iraq (see spoonman5150's comment, and humptydumpty's response.)

Mohammad Asif has been caught again in a dope scandal:

Pakistan paceman Mohammad Asif will seek a "B sample" test after testing positive for a banned substance during play in the Indian Premier League (IPL), his lawyer said Tuesday.
The IPL announced on Monday that the 25-year-old fast bowler had failed a drugs test at the lucrative Twenty20 tournament held from April to June.

But looks like he's going to get away with it. Again. This time because some idiot (or clever agent?) managed to announce his name before a testing of his 'B' sample. This is against WADA rules, apparently. Here's Ratnakar Shetty's nonsensical explanation:

The procedure is that once the report of dope test was received, the player has to be identified and can be asked whether he will exercise the choice for his 'B' sample test and can be asked to be physically present when the sample was tested, he said.

"However, if the player is not named, how do we ask the player to be present to give an option along with the representative" during the test?" Shetty said.

Apparently it's impossible for the chief administrator for the BCCI to do anything except via the media. And, finally, there was a Test match on. A tame draw between England and South Africa that might have been a fighting draw at one point. Will asks if we should be complaining about such cricket or not.

ICC finds some soap

dcsiva — Sun, 06 Jul 2008 14:12:00 GMT

The ICC has compromised again on the Zimbabwe question. In terms of the internal voting bloc logic the decision certainly makes sense. From the BCCI's point of view, that is. Here's Kevin Mitchell for the Guardian on the moral argument:

While cricket was never going to solve the political problems of Zimbabwe, nor were the International Cricket Council going to have the courage to take a wider moral stance, even in the face of atrocities, starvation and the daily spectacle of a nation cowed by a dictator. As an ICC spokesman said: 'We are not mandated to talk about politics.' Or death, it seems.

What matters to the ICC is they have been saved from making a judgment call (which they would have fudged by suspending Zimbabwe temporarily because 'they are not good enough'), and England don't lose their big-money gig. While England and South Africa suspended cricket relations with Zimbabwe last week, the ICC, their strings pulled by the Asian bloc, are adamant Zimbabwe will keep full membership and funding. All that has been saved is a tournament. Nothing else changes.

A Cricketing View attempts to separate out the moral and the sporting issues at stake:

If the ICC's consideration of the matter can be criticized, it is because they did Cricket a disservice in the arguments that they considered. In my view, Robert Mugabe's methods ought not to be discussed at an ICC meeting, any more than the issue of Kashmir should be discussed there. It is none of the ICC's business. If at all Zimbabwe was to be stripped of full member nation status, it should have been because they have a very weak cricket team which is clearly not good enough to be a Test team (much like Bangladesh). This would have been a discussion of cricketing interest.

Q has a blow by blow fly-on-the-wall account of the meeting. Meanwhile Michael Holding quits from the ICC's Cricket Committee because of their other big decision: making the England Pakistan game at the Oval into a draw. And lastly, but by no means least, Cricket Australia's James Sutherland fires off a shot at the whole idea of private ownership of cricket teams (but, then, what is the BCCI or the MCC anyway if not private?).

Gamesmanship and luncheon

dcsiva — Fri, 20 Jun 2008 11:25:00 GMT

Clearly New Zealand were robbed of a victory against England in the recent ODI:

The New Zealanders were desperate to complete the 20th over, which would have allowed them to win under the Duckworth/Lewis regulations if they had scored seven further runs without losing a wicket.
But to the agony of Brendon McCullum, who was unbeaten on 60, the umpires decided that the conditions had deteriorated too severely and the game had to come to an end.

But was it because of the rain, the fixed length break between innings, or simply because England bowled at an astonishing rate of 13 overs an hour? The latter, surely? But the fix is in for the fixed length break only:

Umpires will now have the option of reducing it to a minimum of 10 minutes to try and ensure a result. ICC regulation 15.1 now reads: "The duration of the interval shall be agreed mutually by the umpires and both captains subject to no interval being of more than 30 minutes' duration or less than 10 minutes' duration.

Meanwhile, the BCCI is being generous enough to discuss the possibility of a Test Championship with the ICC, whilst also warning the English counties of the consequences of picking ICL players in the English Twenty20 league. And, on another note entirely, here's Q's great post on switch hitting.

A billion here, a billion there

dcsiva — Fri, 13 Jun 2008 12:57:00 GMT

Andy Bull interviewed Allen Stanford and lived to tell a tale about intimidation and money...40 odd billion of it:

With money and power come natural charisma. Stanford commands through more than just his cash. He has presence, the kind that stops the pianist on a heavy chord when he comes into the room. He is, for one thing, big. Bigger than Viv. His handshake crushes rocks and his voice makes your guts tremble. Interviewing him, I didn't so much ask him questions as simply listen to him speak. He was intimidating and evangelical, a mix I've since seen in Nigel Benn after he took up preaching. Stanford isn't just buying people, he's selling to them. The man has serious plans and, after an hour in his company, I was sold.

Stanford Financial is worth around $43bn (£21bn). "The key players, Giles Clarke and David Collier, waited at the foot of the steps in obeisance, their hair buffeted by the helicopter's blades," wrote Atherton of Stanford's arrival at Lord's. It's a cute turn of phrase, but what else was he expecting? Something like that scene in 300 where King Leonidas shouts "This is Sparta!" and pushes the messenger into the bottomless pit?

Looks like Peter Moores and the selectors are beginning to feel the pressure of all that money:

Competition for places is expected to be intense, along with the pressure on the selectors who will decide the final squad.
But Moores said only merit will guarantee a player their flight to Antigua.
"The fact that it's worth more money doesn't matter, you still use the same judgement to pick the side," said Moores.

Meanwhile, here's a wonderfully thoughtful piece by Mukul Kesavan on the BCCI's Stalinist tendencies regarding ICL players and officials.

Accounting money; and an unhappy 25th anniversary?

dcsiva — Fri, 23 May 2008 16:31:00 GMT

Amit Varma pursues a favourite theme on the IPL. That big money brings accountability:

What the IPL setup guarantees is that it isn't just Vijay Mallya's players who are accountable to him - Mallya himself is accountable to the market. If Mallya manages his team badly, it will perform badly, and his franchise's bottomline will take a hit. Had Charu Sharma been in the wrong, he would have been held accountable by Mallya, point proved. But if the poor man was blameless, then Mallya will be held accountable by market forces.

The IPL is not just a competition between cricketers. It is also a competition between management styles. Contrast Bangalore and Mumbai, for example. Both had a similarly bad start to the tournament - if anything, Mumbai's was worse, what with their acting captain, Harbhajan Singh, involved in Slapgate. But the management of both teams handled it differently.

The disparity between the owners' wealth and the players' lack of bargaining power suggests that other players will flock to him if he simply spends yet more money next year (when the caps are removed). That sort of accountability at least won't work at all.

In a great post on the upcoming 25th anniversary of India winning the World Cup, Dileep Premachandran in effect talks of another kind of accountability. What responsibility does the BCCI owe to that great team? Can they wash their hands of the celebrations just because of the "rebel" ICL angle?

Strange indeed are the ways of Indian cricket. A nation's real cricket culture can be gauged from the way it treats its heroes. The respect with which Australia and its cricket officials treated the late Bill Brown was a great lesson for everyone connected with the game in India. Each time I saw the reverence with which he was welcomed at the Gabba, I'd remember sitting with BS Chandrasekhar, architect of India's first great overseas win (The Oval, 1971) in a run-down club in a far-from-posh suburb of Bangalore, eating a greasy omelette from a plate that hadn't been washed properly.

It shouldn't be that way. But BCCI eyes that have been blinded by the colour of money don't see that. Not that it matters. The likes of Sunny and Kapil don't need validation from some petty, no-name officials. Those whose lives they changed forever a quarter of a century ago will honour them in their own way. And it'll probably mean a whole lot more than an open-top bus ride down to board HQ.

Finally, Jrod argues convincingly that Ramprakash making it to a hundred first class hundreds should be seen as a mark of failure. If he had played Test cricket regularly, he wouldn't have had the time to make so many hundreds. And the Economic Times has a graph of support across the metros for different IPL teams.

Indian labour laws and cricket accountability

dcsiva — Tue, 13 May 2008 09:43:00 GMT

Tarun writes about Vijay Mallya's sacking of Charu Sharma from a labour law perspective:

But the point is that corporatization is rearing its very ugly head in cricket and an out of form player is now under the same kind of threat as any other employee in India - the very real threat of being fired and losing out on 'maximizing' income during playing days. As a lawyer, it irks me that the same kind of labour legislations that protect each of us employed in India from complete arbitrariness and high handedness does not appear to protect the sons of Indian cricket.

Sanjay has an entirely different take on the same subject, highlighting the money and accountability link:

But these stories highlight the thing that BCCI never did. How many times have the BCCI pulled up its players for non performance? How many times have team selection blunders been ignored? How many times have prejudices and biases dominated team selection without anyone questioning or raising the issue?

If a team can send players home because they may never get a piece of the action, why can’t the BCCI stop sending huge contingents of officials on paid holidays?

Meanwhile, Fershad insists that he hasn't checked personally but breaks the news that Sachin's groin is ready for the rigours of the IPL. And Q appears to be quite anxious about whether the IPL is "reliant on Aussie Power? Or rather are the Aussies the backbone of the IPL?" Finally, Nestaquin previews the upcoming Test series between England and New Zealand.

Slaps and tearaway tears

dcsiva — Sat, 26 Apr 2008 11:57:00 GMT

Harbhajan Singh slaps Sreesanth after an IPL game. Or did he? Ducking Beamers has the story about hierarchy just right:

...More than one observer has noted the strict hierarchy that exists in South Asian teams, with junior players required to slavishly do the seniors’ bidding. I think John Wright wrote about how amazed he was to find players scurrying around carrying tea and biscuits as the legends lazed about during team meetings.
There’s something about that here: Sreesanth, who is still in his early 20s, just got chided in public, and rather than being outright angry about it, he falls into himself, distraught and emotional. It reminds me of my days in all-boy Catholic schools in Bombay, when just a hint of reproach from older students would do enough to ruin your week...

Homer has a less than sympathetic take on Sreesanth. As far as Harbhajan goes, this is not just an IPL matter but also directly a BCCI problem, hence the show cause notice.

And see this article for a history of his on-field misbehaviour, which ends:

Symonds accused Harbhajan of racially abusing him during the infamous Sydney Test but an ICC investigation conducted after the BCCI threatened to pullout from the tour found him not guilty.

The Australian team did not take too kindly to the verdict and opener Matthew Hayden even went on to describe Harbhajan an "obnoxious little weed", a comment for which he later apologised.

The whole nation rallied behind Harbbhajan during the furore and the same man now finds himself at the centre of yet another ugly episode but this time against a teammate.

Boycotts and sixes

dcsiva — Sat, 19 Apr 2008 12:34:00 GMT

Press agencies are trying to put pressure on the BCCI by refusing to cover the IPL. No regular bloggers are covering this. Why? Is it okay to go ahead and talk about the IPL games? What happened to the whole idea of new media?

On the other hand, Brendon McCullum's innings was rather astonishing. A veritable blog roll:

Brian Carpenter, D.S. Henry, King Cricket, Jrod, dailycric, Soulberry, Mahesh, and Will.

Kunal Nanda with highlights.

Shouldn't there be some discussion about this?

Media restrictions and more on the West Indies

dcsiva — Tue, 08 Apr 2008 14:20:00 GMT

BCCI relaxes some of the media restrictions for the IPL. Livemint frames the money issue at the heart of this:

Essentially, the underlying principle in both instances is the same. Seeking to maximize their revenues, the cricket authorities in both countries want to monetize every aspect of the game. On the face of it, say legal observers, this argument cannot be faulted. Especially since it is a privately organized event, for which entry is based only on tickets.

Yet, going down this path is questionable. For those unable to witness the event, especially those who cannot afford to pay for entry, the media, including print publications, is the only alternative. In other words, the public would lose out if the face-off is not resolved amicably. This would be a disaster given the cult following of cricket in the subcontinent in general and India in particular.

Ian Bishop suggests a possible turning point for the West Indies. And Sime looks forward to the Australia series:

Sarwan may be on the cusp of delivering on the potential, he has displayed glimpses of for so long......with the Aussies on the horizon.

Island Express highlights a lesson for India in a gritty Gayle performance:

Gayle is *** against Vaas and he knew it. But 1-0 down, he knuckled down, and did not give Vaas his wicket, and made a valuable 45 in the first innings, on what looked like a lively wicket, inspiring debutant and opening partner Chattegoon to do the same along the way.

And Mark covers the face off between Pietersen and Clarke. Jrod is more than a little sceptical of Pietersen.