Whipped!

After the heady tour to Australia, followed by the equally heady first test, this crash was not expected. Given India's success at Perth and Johannesburg, a "green top" was not supposed to lie India low. But South Africa exposed India. India missed Tendulkar. Despite his failings in such encounters, I believe his presence in the side is inspiring to the rest of the side.

I didn't watch the game, so I'm not privy to the actual behavior of the batsmen. However, accounts that I have read and heard mentioned complacency and lack of commitment. It is hard to believe that completely, but knowing India, its not hard to rule out some level of idiocy in approach.

Having said that, being shot out for 76 was not on the cards following a terrific performance in Chennai. Two of the batsmen got centuries on the featherbed and the bowlers didn't do too bad. This match would probably go down as an anomaly, rather than the start of a decline. India as a test side does not have bench strength and it was clear in this game. Obviously, Kumble was hoping that his bowlers would come through on the greentop and get South Africa. It was just not to be. The fast bowlers were simply ineffective.

The batsmen, needless to say, were terrible. I thought bringing Kaif into the side was a good move, despite my original view that Badri, Cheteshwar, Tiwary or Raina should get a chance. Kaif is a leader in many respects and is another potential future captain. His test record, although sketchy does include a few gritty knocks in tough games. Unfortunately, the combination didn't permit him coming into the side rightaway. Even if a batsmen were to replace Tendulkar, it would have been Yuvraj and not Kaif.

Jaffer continues to make it clear that he is not cut out for fast pitches or tough situations. However, he is a fair weather bully that deserves to stay in the side in the absence of other opening options. Hopefully, Sehwag will never be dropped again. He has that Viv Richards-like quality where the situation does not matter at all. He can turn the game on his day. If those days are frequent, then India benefits. India does have the luxury of playing Sehwag.

The real disappointments were the "big three". Despite Ganguly's second innings rearguard action, its hard to stomach such an abject failure of all three in one innings. I believe changing the batting order and having Laxman bat at an unfamiliar position was a mistake. I thought, Ganguly was hungrier than Laxman and would have done a better job. Its silly to nit-pick that part, but I suppose I'm only clutching at straws at this point. I certainly don't believe that this change would have reversed the outcome.

India have to find an answer to Dale Steyn. Just like they tamed Stuart Clark and Mitchell Johnson, down under, they have to find a way against Steyn. This doesn't mean I'm ruling out Ntini and Morkel, but Steyn is the real threat.

RP Singh seems to have lost his touch a tad. I'm sure he'll find his way back, but right now its probably not a bad idea to rest him a little and bring in someone like Praveen Kumar into the side, who is perhaps more fresh. But this too is clutching at straws. Barring Sreesanth, none of the bowlers were really threatening even a little (from the accounts I have read and heard). RP and Irfan's figures and strike rates make it clear that they had very poor outings.

On South Africa's part, I believe De Villiers came of age in this test match. He's had the potential for a long time and this match is probably his coming out party. He'll never be in the same league as a Tendulkar or a Kallis, but he will be effective and perhaps continue in the tradition of a Damien Martyn or Gary Kirsten.

Gary Kirsten, clearly hasn't helped the batsmen much at this time, but I doubt if the batsmen were looking for anything from him.

Speechless

When others can say it better and you are left speechless, it is best to step aside and let Uncle JRod do the talking. This piece is almost better than scoring 309 at better then a run a ball....

Jesus, Moses, Madonna, and Paris Hilton are out, Sehwag is in
By Uncle JRod - Reproduced Here...

I’m not an expert on global politics, free markets, terrorism, or why people watch reality TV.

But I do know that all these things pale into insignificance when compared to Virender Sehwag’s innings.

Natalie Portman turns ugly.

George Clooney loses charm.

Dubya Bush makes sense.

Britney Spears puts knickers on.

And Tony Greig is palatable after this innings.

It is the sort of innings that could turn Amelie Muaresmo straight and keep Warnie’s pee pee in his pants.

If it were a hot woman, you could not only not score with it, that if you were in the same room, your tool would melt.

It could start and end wars.

Upon viewing it Aliens would be afraid to invade.

If you had the colt 45 cocked and pointed at your mouth you would put it down and pick up a cricket bat.

Sehwag batted so well the earth started spinning in other directions.

No one has been this unkind to the saffers since Muhummad Ali turned his back on a young Barry Richards.

When the Africans were killed by tribes of Zulu’s it was nowhere near this brutal.

Batting at the other end was not a spectator sport, but a voyeuristic thrill ride through the realms of batting thought beyond those of mere mortals.

It was so good, there was a good 15 seconds when Sunil gavaskar didn’t bag white people, Bishen Bedi didn’t accuse everyone of being a chucker, and Navjot Sidhu made sense.

Yoko Ono and Paul McCartney had intercourse during his third hundred.

Palestinians invited Israelis around for a beer after a particular over of Ntini.

Anna Nicole Smith can back from the dead to give an Interview for ET, during the tea interval for maximum exposure.

Michael Moore went down on Dick Cheney. Nothing to do with Sehwag, just wanted to see if it was his bag.

The spice girls split up, after a fight over who would get to sleep with Sehwag.

Tom Cruise became a Sehwagologist.

And you know what, so should you.

We all should, I’m assuming all it takes is a little friar tuck action, a rotund little figure, balls the size of Jupiter and a touch of owls blood.

Join Sehwagology, its cheaper than other religions, twice as cool, and comes with it's own action hero.

309 off 292, put the kids to bed woman, we have business to attend to.

Is the New India for Real?

For decades, Indian cricket teams have been underachievers. This, of course, is an understatement. They have been downright pathetic. If not for the hapless Bangladesh and Zimbabwe squads, Indian cricket teams would have held records for the bottom-feeders of cricket. India had some semblance of superiority while playing at home, but they were often blown away while playing abroad. Indian cricket writing too, celebrated individual gallantry in terrible losses, rather than focus on the real outcomes.

Often, India's bowling was pointed out as the chief culprit, while India's batting was lauded. In reality, it wasn't until the advent of Gavaskar as a batsmen and Kapil Dev as a bowler that India had genuine spine, competence and class. We have read enough about the two different approaches to captaincy of these two stalwarts of Indian cricket. One defensive in the extreme, the other often foolishly aggressive with pop-gun attacks.

A recent post from Golandaaz and others on Cricinfo highlighted the fact that India has now routinely started winning abroad. India has probably the best win record outside home compared to everyone other than Australia. I haven't researched this, so I offer no veracity to this claim, but suffice to say that Indian teams are no longer walkovers. They are still vulnerable to the fourth innings collapse, but in general they are fairly competitive.

In fact, the recent series against Australia, put India on almost the same level as Australia from a test capability and superior to Australia in ODIs. India have won the T20 World Cup and their superiority in that format is quite palpable.

The question though is whether this dramatic change in the Indian cricket is purely serendipitous or is it part of a grand plan that will sustain itself for the future. The composition of the team provides some food for thought. The early Indian teams, right upto the late 70s were dominated by Bombay players. A few players from Karnataka and other states were sprinkled in, but for most part, it was the urban, suave, Bombayite that made the team over their less suave brethren. Kapil Dev, probably, was the first people's player. A player of the masses. The everyday Joe (or in India's case -- Pandu). He broke all the class barriers when he became the captain and better still won the World Cup as captain. He did this mainly due to his support among the masses more than support among the elites.

The gritty, middle-class Bombayite made way to the rustic, suburbanite from Chandigarh's outskirts. In reality, the partnership between Gavaskar and Kapil yielded several great moments for Indian cricket (despite their public bickering). It was also quite clear who called the shots and who the elite, tea-drinking, BCCI members empathized with. It was Gavaskar. This was never more apparent than when Kapil was dropped for the Calcutta Test against England in 1984. But Kapil was a lone example in the zonal jungle that was the BCCI.

Kapil's 1983 World Cup win, Gavaskar's 1984 WCC win and Sachin Tendulkar's heroics brought cricket to the rural masses. Lo and behold, India's potential began to be unlocked. Bowlers and batsmen from states and zones hitherto never in the reckoning began to challenge the established titans, Bombay and Karnataka in Ranji Trophy. Even the urban players that started being noticed were not in the same elite mold as before but more like Kapil Dev. Rustic, energetic, eager and brazenly patriotic. They lacked the finesse, but played with their hearts.

In my opinion, John Wright, deserves credit for adding the smarts to Indian cricket. His influence was apparent in India's very first test series and was much more pronounced in India's fantastic victories over Australia and Pakistan away from home. Well, not quite victory in Austalia, but a great drawn series. He brought a strategic thinking to the obvious talent that Indian players had. Given that far more people had taken up cricket and that there was no longer the odd Eknath Solkar or Kapil Dev in the state teams that were ready for prime time, but a whole host of others, India began to approach games with a rare pragmatism.

Gavaskar and perhaps Shastri were pragmatic, but didn't have the bowling arsenal's at their disposal to make it count. But Ganguly and his successors no longer have that issue. India has discovered players like Sehwag, Dhoni, Sreesanth, Patel and RP Singh who would probably never have made it in an earlier generation. In fact, Dhoni being touted as the future captain and the only other contender being Sehwag is one of the greatest achievements in social engineering for Indian cricket. As I said earlier, in an earlier era, this would have been impossible, due to the deep class division and zonal biases.

I'm sure India has not eliminated zonal bias totally, but at least now there is credence to the fact that there is talent available in all zones in India. Most likely the changes have been driven because the money bags have now started showing up in the hinterland too. And some level of chauvinism is guiding these trends. But its undeniable that the pool of cricketers available is larger and that there some level of truth to the fact that good talent is making it to the top.

So, I think, this is real and sustainable and not just a fleeting glimmer of hope for Indian fans. India now needs to add good infrastructure, scientific techniques to coaching and physical fitness to the mix, in order to keep the engine running for a long time.

Are Player Bans Legal?

The International Cricket Market is inherently protected by the ICC. Simply because the competing teams are drawn on national lines. There are currently no known competitors to offer cricket as a product to the international market. Nor will there be any even in the long term future; unless of course the teams are stacked differently.

The local markets for cricket however are facing competition. The country boards that form the ICC are trying their best to use legal means to protect their markets. Currently these boards including the BCCI have a monopoly over these markets. The legalities of how each board is structured within a given country is different for each country. India's board is an association; not accountable to the government of India and is a private society, not required to make its finances public. New Zealand's I believe is a private enterprise. The West Indies board represents several countries.

Each of these boards have however found ways to collaborate and take a hostile stand against ICL. The private cricket league floated by Zee Tv. Some might say it is not collaboration but India bullying the other boards. Whatever the case, the strategy of these boards to ban ICL employees; be it players, officials or administrators; from representing their local associations and national teams controlled by the boards, is unlikely avoid the scrutiny of national laws across all cricket playing nations.

Personally, I am very keen to see how this strategy; a purely competitive one; stands the test of employment laws and whatever other laws that exist, to protect the rights of citizens to earn a living using lawful means. Who will be the first country to out law the practice?

If New Zealand's board bans a Shane Bond from playing for his country, only because he sought employment with an international firm outside of New Zealand; are there no laws that can protect Shane Bond's right to gain legal employment even if it is outside of New Zealand? Why can he not play for New Zealand once his contract with his foreign employer has ended; or for that matter even while his contract is in play? Let's say for argument's sake that Shane Bond decides to take a year off to make money working for Google as a security officer. In such a circumstance, is it legal for New Zealand Cricket to ban him from representing New Zealand?

It is all to naive to blame it on the BCCI. And indeed it may be the pressure from the BCCI that is forcing these boards to enforce these bans but are there no laws that may deem this action illegal? Why don't player associations, or even individuals exercise their rights using the laws of their lands. Surely the BCCI has no influence in that matter.

The first country to help its citizens and cricketers may well be England. They may have reduced themselves to a laughing stock with their performance against New Zealand but that country may have the right laws to protect its cricketers.

Chris Read, the Nottinghamshire wicketkeeper, has said he will take the ECB to court if his involvement in the Indian Cricket League (ICL) proves to bring an end to his England career.

But even he is using the fact that there was no "official policy" by the ECB against employment with the ICL at the time he signed with the ICL. I say shouldn't such policies be unconstitutional? I know England does not have a constitution; technically; by surely there is something else that governs policy making.

Criketers are an affluent bunch. There are no groups looking after their interests. Player Associations will need to mobilize thier legal options.

Australianism: India Style

Australia are likely to get better from this point on. Can the same be said of India? Can it get any better than this.

The CB Series, which for a long time seemed to spell the death of one-day cricket, ended as one of India's greatest one-day triumphs. And while 1983 and 1985, the canvas was broader, the 2008 team had a more daunting ask.

To consistently beat the 2 best teams in the world over a period of 10 games. You be the best judge of which one of those wins you would rank at the top. I am actually tempted to put this win way, way at the top.

India handled Brett Lee in both the finals and they came through. It was percentage cricket. There had been 13 games against India when Lee had taken 2 wickets or more and India had won only once.

All else aside it was one of the key factors that decided the series so comprehensively in India's favor. Sachin Tendulkar came up tops against a worthy competitor, when it mattered the most.


There is such a strong sense of revenge when you beat this Australian team. This team who are so stubborn on upholding an almost undisclosed "internal code of conduct", a team so full of themselves, a team in denial, a team who quite stupidly believes that "playing hard" is something only Australians are capable of, a team who believes that only they own the scope of what "banter" is. When you beat this Australian team, the victory is that much more sweet.


The incident that will linger in my mind, above all, even with so much discontent between the teams is the way Sachin Tendulkar handled the Bret Lee beamer. No it was not called a beamer initially; it was a shoulder high full toss. A beamer is what Sreesanth hurled intentionally at Pietersen during the English summer last year. Pietersen was so shaken by it that he meekly surrendered immediately thereafter.


There was surprisingly little effort by the media to highlight how India's best batsman and a true great Sachin and Australia's best bowler and a future great Lee, showed the way to those who, through the series, let their emotions betray themselves. It would have been so easy for anyone else in Sachin's place to take the beamer as a licence to further incite discontent between the teams.


Andrew Symonds, thought it necessary to "stand up for his mate" and confront Harbhajan when Harbhajan Singh patted Lee on his bottom. Imagine what would have happened if Sreesanth would have bowled a beamer to Lee with Symonds at the non-strikers end. There would be mayhem.

Ultimately Australia met its match in playing "hard and fair". India were just better at Australianism than Australia.

India used Harbhajan extremely well both on and off the field and the character that Harbhajan is, he irritated the Australians into forgetting the basics.

I have yet to read from a white guy who does not believe Harbhajan is a weed. There is debate whether he is obnoxious; there is also debate if he at 6 feet tall, can be called little; there is debate whether Hayden should have been so honest; but there is no debate amongst this race of tolerant writers that Harbhajan is indeed a weed.

What exactly is a weed by the way? I am sure there isn't a common understanding of that either. That hardly matters though.

The smart Sikh conned an entire race of writers. He played hard, broke no rules, or even if he did they could not be proven, took key wickets and taunted the Australians into submission. It was Australianism India Style. Sweet.

Over to the boys now; the men will play gain in October 2008.

Are Australia Rattled?

There may be some truth to Harbhajan's assertion that Australia's crown is shaky. It appears that Australia's chief suspects; Hayden, Clarke, Ponting and Symonds, have indeed been rattled by the sledging saga. It's clear based on their current form and loss of swagger that India have got into their heads. My view is that in the aftermath of the Sydney test, the Australian team has been shown up to be the bully they really were. In fact, at the end of the first final, Ponting alluded to the fact that Australian batsmen needed to get their heads corrected, although, he may not be talking about the effects of the sledging saga.

For once, it appears that India were able to force a change to the "official" view to support their position. It's clear this was done with a naked display of money-power. I, personally, am not a fan of such tactics. But it seems that it has evened out the cricket field. The Australian team, having followed the "letter" of the law, are a confused bunch now. They don't seem to have a plan B. They don't seem to know how to win a match in which they are "out-sledged." They don't believe that the Indian team's sledging style is legal, but it appears that they can't do anything about it. The tables seem truly turned. In the past, it was the other teams didn't believe Australia's sledging style was legal. But they couldn't get the officialdom to back them. Now with the power-shift, India has turned the cricket world on its head.

I think South Africa were the biggest casualties of Australia's tactics. Otherwise, its inexplicable how they can win against everyone else fairly convincingly, yet crumble so meekly against Australia. It is a known fact that South Africa are "chokers" and Australia seems to have exploited this mental fragility to the hilt. Against others, South Africa was able to display their cricketing skills freely without having to worry about the word play.

India, by getting the Harbhajan ban overturned and then turning on the heat by actually winning one of the early matches convincingly, proved that they could get into Australia's head. Ponting seems exhausted by his off-field job of having to field questions and defend team-mates that are seemingly losing it. Hayden may be mentally strong when it comes to his batting, but he has no clue that by restarting the verbal duel, he has re-ignited embers that were dying out. His reprimand has put the pressure back on the Aussie team. In my opinion, his "obnoxious weed" comment only showed that the Australians still care deeply about Harbhajan and his behavior. They just can't seem to be able to move on.

The Harbhajan reprieve was a huge blow to Australia's morale, where they were left feeling that they lost a fight in which they were "right". With Cricket Australia compromising and then the IPL auction, it appears that the cricket team is low on morale. The IPL showed India's money power more than anything else. There appears to be some residual tension within the Australian dressing room in the aftermath of the results of the IPL auction, despite the public postering with humor. We are talking some serious money here. Its probably clear to Ponting at least that the less likeable he is to the Indians, the less money he is likely to make in his lifetime.

Clarke, Symonds and Ponting have all seen a dip in form almost immediately after the Sydney test. All three have lost their swagger. They continue to display good fielding form, but batting and bowling wise it doesn't appear that they are pulling their weight in the team. Sri Lanka laid them low in the run-up to the final and with an emphatic win in the first final, India have well and truly levelled the playing field. India is not playing their best cricket by any means. While their bowling has been excellent, their batting is still struggling. Yet they are winning games.

India may not have yet found their 2011 World Cup team, but they have found their Captain and their main bowlers. Ishant Sharma, Irfan Pathan, Sreesanth, Zaheer Khan, RP Singh, Praveen Kumar, Piyush Chawla and Harbhajan Singh. When was the last time India had an almost West Indies-in-the-80's like situation where every bowler being thrown into the middle is producing good results.

On the batting front, Tendulkar will most likely play the next World Cup. Rohit Sharma seems to be making rapid strides. I still put my money on Suresh Raina to be back among big runs. Yuvraj needs to figure out a few things, but there is no doubt he'll be in the mix. Uthappa, Karthik, Sehwag and others have still to cement their places in my view. But there are a few years left and there may be time yet to blood a new batsman like Tiwary or Badrinath or Pujara. Or perhaps, Virat Kohli, who's making waves on the U-19 circuit. Hopefully, Kohli is handled well and does not suffer the fate of Reetinder Sodhi.

But throughout this saga between the Indians and Australia, there have been two class acts. Brett Lee and Sachin Tendulkar. They have both kept their focus squarely on cricket and have provided the fans something good and pure to cheer about. What these two are playing and showing is cricket. Harbhajan and the four Australians mentioned above are not even close when it comes to these two class acts.

Thank you Brett Lee and Sachin Tendulkar.

India v Brett Lee

By the time the Finals of the CB Series is done and dusted, Brett Lee will have taken more wickets against India than against any other international side. At a rate of almost 2 wickets a game, 50% of his 5-for performances; 4 of 8; have come against India. Amongst major international sides his average of 19.08 runs per wicket against India is bettered only by his performance against the West Indies.

In comparison, Glen McGrath played an identical number of matches against India as Brett Lee. Bowled almost the same overs, conceded approximately the same runs, which makes him as economical as Brett but never took a 5-for. Brett Lee however took 20% more wickets than Glen McGrath against India everything else remaining the same.

Quite obviously India have found Lee too hot to handle. Of the 25 matches that has featured Lee against India, Lee has finished on the losing side just 5 times. To think of winning 2 of 3 games in the finals, without a clear strategy to handle Brett Lee would be wishful thinking.

The numbers are obvious. If Lee is restricted to 1 wicket or less, India's chances of a win increase dramatically. This has happened 9 times; Lee taking 1 wicket or going wicket less against India; and India has won 4 of those games. In the 13 games when Brett Lee has taken 2 or more wickets, India have won only once.

Sachin Tendulkar's aggregate score in India's losses against Lee is 308 in 16 games; falling to Lee 6 times. His average 19.25. Less than half of his career mark.

India's chances of winning the CB Series lie entirely in their ability to handle Brett Lee

Weeding out Immaturity

The Australian Summer has been sizzling. Post the Test Match series. Since then intermittent cricket has dampened the show put on by the rains, Duckworth, Lewis and the main event; the verbal volleys between the players.

Cricketers make tons of runs, take hundreds of wickets and web many nicks and get to get rich. Many fail to see their role beyond the game. Some like Brett Lee see the big picture. Some like Hayden interpret Jesus and call people names. After all it is their right. They think.

Michael Jordan was reportedly the biggest trash talker in his time. He also went on radio shows. He like Hayden probably disliked many of his opponents. For some of them "obnoxious little weed" would have sounded like conferring knighthood to them. But we will never know for sure. That is why Michael Jordan is Michael Jordan and Mathew Hayden is Mathew Hayden. The ways of Jesus as interpreted by Hayden are strange.

If ever there was a time for "no comments"; this was one. Instead Harbhajan opened his oral communication tool. The crown on Australia's head is shaky he says. Its a strange conclusion to arrive at.

India lost the Test Series 1 game to 2. Ditto for the 1 day series so far. It will probably end 4 games to 1. They also forgot to show up for the T20 game in Melbourne. Australia have proved that they are superior to India in all forms of the game. They are the champs all right.

Harbhajan's conclusions warrant a checkup of his analytical tools.

This name calling - Yes it is that - Not sledging, not mental disintegration. It is simply name calling. It should stop.

And I have an idea to get rid of it. Ban the Match Referee.

Players can say what they like to each other. On the field. Off the field too. Let the people decide whose stock is higher. This is what I like about privatizing cricket. Players will be forced to be responsible. When comments they make, actions they indulge in, start affecting their contract values, you will see them mature suddenly.

There are too many retired cricketers alive. The ICC had to find them jobs. The match referee was invented. When you create a job you also have to create work. That's when the "code of conduct" was given to these referees to implement. It's like appointing special referees to uphold a nation's constitution.

Coming to the CB series; Australia will win the finals in 2 games. India are rebuilding. Australia is retiring. In time India will learn to sledge. Australia will learn to sledge more. Then October will come and the circus will move to India. It is here when what is said and not said will affect player valuation for the IPL. A match referee will no longer be needed.

IPL: Cricket's New Evil

Over the next few days and weeks, players who have accepted IPL contracts will have to face the caustic digs and taunts of fans, commentators and the media. Digs like; Australia's million-dollar batsmen fail again.

AUSTRALIA'S multi-million-dollar batting line-up was reduced to small change by Sri Lanka yesterday, but again had its bowlers acting in their best interest.

Every performance both at a team and individual level, that falls below expectation; and from now on every performance will ; will be linked to the distraction of the IPL and the gaudy display of money power by the BCCI. Forget all else, just make some runs, Symo, cries article by Jon Pierik

AUSTRALIA is clearly a distracted team, and one man struggling to pay his way is Andrew Symonds.

Micheal Clarke's value has skyrocketed; and only because he did not allow his self to be traded in the IPL meat market. Not my words but that of Andrew Webster writing in the Sydney Morning Herald

This column has been shown a copy of the letter Clarke sent to IPL chairman and commissioner Lalit Modi. He wrote: "With no disrespect to the IPL, I feel my body and mind needs a break and with the hectic international schedule over the next 18 months, I feel I need to freshen up and a break will do me good. By trying to continue to advance my profile and reputation with the Australian team, I hope to one day become an asset to your tournament.

Struggling to come to terms with what is being perceived as betrayal, in the pursuit of dirty money from a loathsome BCCI, of their players; Australians are recalibrating their heroes and villains. Micheal Clarke is suddenly mama’s boy and Ponting, Hayden and Symmonds are the new villains. The sting in criticizing their failures will be intense for at least some time to come.

The melodramatic tones, some have chosen to use in describing, a rather class less player auction; I must admit; would shame even Bollywood directors of the 70s. Simon Barnes writing in The Australian says in Cricket comes poor second when millionaires play for money.

HOW do you think he felt? Abused, betrayed, like a piece of meat, bereft of human dignity, a mere commodity, a piece of flesh to be traded in, nothing more nor less than a whore.

IPL Franchises have secured the services of close to 80 international cricketers by offering them lucrative contracts. Everyone insists that players were sold and bought; that the players who have accepted these contracts have fallen prey to the evil vices of money; that somehow they have placed country after money.

If the IPL is only about money, then it will fail. Says Simon Barnes, again, this time in The Times Online. The headline leaves no doubt that Simon believes it is only about money and thus it will fail. He and many other cricket writers turned economists like him apparently know the Indian market better than the Ambanis (Bombay) and the Shahrukh Khans (Calcutta) of India.

Nothing is only about money. Not even the IPL. The BCCI has diverted over 750 million dollars of corporate spending in India into cricket. This is new money coming from businesses that have traditionally rarely invested in cricket. The BCCI did that by spending almost zero. The franchise idea is not new; neither can the BCCI, lay its claims on inventing the Twenty20 format. And if you consider the ICL, Zee’s brainchild, they were not even the first to execute the creation of a Twenty20 league in India. But the enterprise the BCCI has shown in injecting new money into the game is laudable.

That the 8 businesses invested as much as they did, is only because they hope to recover all of it back and then some more.

No it is not the money stupid; no business is. It about creating new value. As long as every one involved in the IPL get something back, the IPL will succeed. The players, the Cricket Boards, the Corporates that own the franchises, the advertisers, the TV companies and the paying public; all will have to get something back from IPL

For me personally, seeing international greats coming together to play on one team at the scale at which the IPL promises to be, will be a great draw.

Beauty is only skin deep. Somehow this gets interpreted as all beautiful people are superficial. The same is happening with money and cricket. People suddenly become black and white in their perspectives when the 2 mix. And this time the mixture is even more potent with cricket and bollywood coming together and creating wealth for the BCCI. Why can’t we expect our cricketers to make money and still honor national commitments?

The extent to which cricket will change post IPL will only depend on its success and how BCCI handles its success. The BCCI is now in a position of responsibility but has rarely acted with any. It's image in Australia and England in particular will need to be worked on. How else can you explain the rather outlandish reaction to the IPL in the Australian media.

The Time is Right

These are exciting times; in the world of cricket. 5 of the top cricket sides in the world are displaying their wares in the part of the world where roughly 0.38% of the world calls home. That's almost 62% of the decent cricket playing countries. I did not count Bangladesh and Zimbabwe but I mean no disrespect. I did count Pakistan, West Indies and South Africa as the other 38%. This time the respect is grudgingly given.

There could not have been a worse advertisement for limited overs cricket. None of the excitement across the 5 countries and 2 series is because of the games on display.

England are battling New Zealand in what may eventually be a close 5 game series, but only one side shows up for any given game. New Zealand were absent for the 2 Twenty20s and then England refused to show up for the first 2 games of the one-day series. The third game gave some hint of this being a contest. For the most part the series has resembled a fashion show where each side has had its share of the ramp and the lime light.

In Australia, the batsmen have collectively gone on strike, or so it seems. We have bowlers who were largely unknowns only a couple of years back, spoiling the party for the batsmen across the 3 best batting line ups in the world. Ponting was Harbhajan's bunny. There was an implicit recognition of Ponting's mastery over the other bowlers in that statement. Truth is the way he is batting he is everyone's punching bag. The moment Ponting shows up bowlers line up to beg for a chance to have a go at him. Kapil Dev wanted to come out of retirement but his association with the ICL has automatically disqualified him from playing for India.

Between Sachin, Ponting and Jaisurya they are the top 3 one day batsmen in terms of 100s. They collectively have 90 between them. In this series between them across 14 innings they have hardly flirted with a half century. It also occurred to me that India and Sri Lanka may have yet to play an uninterrupted game of cricket in Australia; ever. All in all without the batsmen showing up, especially when the bowlers do all the time and the rain every now and then, only the points table looks exciting. The cricket has been a big bore.

Off the field however things have been heating up and that is where the excitement is. Will Australia tour Pakistan and what of the I(PC)L. BCCI's image as a bully is being meticulously enhanced in media all over the world. The ICC is being painted as limp body.

There is a time and a place for everything. And the time is right for the white media to leave their brains at home and play to the public sentiment. Play to the gallery and sell news. The time is right to resist change. The time is right to lament the ugly pursuit of money of Australia's nationalist cricketers, show outward support to the IPL and uphold outdated board laws that seem to throw curve balls at the IPL.

The ICC, which has representation from boards of all cricket playing countries, is not exactly a model of an evolving, ever improving, self correcting organization. The people who have let it stagnate haven't exactly kept up with the modern times and haven't positioned it to exploit the growing cricket market. The time is right for these traditional powers to step aside, sulk, resist change and complain endlessly on how the BCCI is being short sighted.

The kind of organization the ICC has become, only a bully can bring change. The time is right for the bully to step in. The idea of 2 self consuming sides playing for a tiny replica trophy and then extending the idea by naming other bilateral contests is as innovative as naming your children. The traditional powers have not brought in, nor have participated in bringing, lasting innovations and change to the game.

The time is right for someone else to try; even if it were to fail and even if it were to implement it through disruptions to the existing setup.