Desicritics

Scrap the Duleep Trophy

Pratyush Khaitan — Fri, 13 Apr 2007 00:09:05 EDT

Among the steps the BCCI announced to improve Indian cricket were many related to domestic cricket. Sidharth Monga dissects these initiatives. I share the view with Monga that the Duleep Trophy should be scrapped. He writes:

The Duleep Trophy, supposed to be the highest-level first-class tournament, is robbed of gloss because of its timing. An inter-zone tournament should have the best performing players of the season participating but, by being staged at the the season's start, the selections are based on the previous season's numbers. Also, the Duleep Trophy was the step between the Ranji Trophy and international cricket, and was a prize of sorts for doing well in the Ranji; instead of diluting the identity and character of the Duleep Trophy it's better to scrap it and make the Ranji season a bit less cramped.

There are quite a few other problems with the Duleep Trophy.

Players in Duleep Trophy teams are very different each year. It means that the team system and the benefits these systems bring do not come into play in a Duleep Trophy team. For instance, if we take the North Zone team assembling to play a game versus the East Zone, the Delhi players in the North team will hang out with their Delhi buddies, the Punab guys with their Punjab team mates, so on and so forth.

You come to play. Game finishes. You go back to your states. The sole goal of individuals is to notch up big scores or take truckload of wickets so that they can impresse the selectors. Aspects like team spirit, playing as one unit and developing together over the years are lost.

It also clogs up the calendar and eats up into the Ranji Trophy season. England faces a similar problem of too many and indistinguishabledomestic tournaments.

Matthew Engel speaks about them in the 2007 Wisden Almanack editorial:

The current set-up is not merely the worst that has yet been invented, but possibly the worst that could be imagined: the Championship interspersed with three one-day competitions, turgidly organised and distinguishable from each other only by the length of the matches. The destruction of the once-beautiful knockout cup should be used as a case study of blithering administrative idiocy. In Washington, politicians get impeached for less...

...Sport needs above all a narrative, a straightforward storyline that the public can grasp. Ashes cricket has it - and how. The World Cup will probably get one. So do all successful sporting events. Going along for the spectacle of a Twenty20 may be one thing; but the county cricket enthusiast is vanishing - turned off by the hopeless mish-mash.

Why should we, in India, need millions of tournaments? Duleep Trophy, zonal one dayers, Ranji Trophy and Ranji one dayers - the list never ends. Have a tight 10 team top division and lower divisions with a promotion/relegation system, one each for first class and one day cricket, and that should be enough. The Irani Trophy match has tradition and is a nice curtain raiser to the domestic season and so keep it but that should be it.

Australian first class teams play 10 first class games in their domestic competition each year. It provides tough, hard fought contests which benefit the players and builds up a story which people can follow. Ensure that the games are scheduled in such a way that international players can play at least play in half of the domestic matches (BCCI has indicated it will ensure players play more domestic matches in the future) if not more.

Years ago, we scrapped the Quadrangular/Pentangular. Now, it is time to scrap the Duleep (and stuff like zonal one dayers) and take a step forward.

French Open: Last Four Preview

Pratyush Khaitan — Wed, 7 Jun 2006 12:56:18 EDT

The French Open is my favourite grand slam ahead of Wimbledon - the battles fascinate me more than the quick matches we see on grass. This year though, the football and NBA has meant I haven't been able to talk much on the French Open.

On the women's side, the stories so far have seen Hingis outsed by Clijsters - showing she has a lot of work still left to do in her tryst with destiny. The biggest story has been Nicole Vaidisova though. Is she the next big thing in women's tennis? Defeating Amelie Mauresmo and then striding over Venus Williams is no mean thing. The last four sees Vaidisova face the real test when she faces Svetlana Kuznetsova - the in form player at the moment and likely to go through to the finals. The other semi has another Belgian battle between Clijsters and Henine-Hardenne. It is a match for which no one seems to have any clue about who will advance - the ingredient which makes Clijsters-Henine encounters exciting prospects.

The big action is happening in the men's side though. The top 4 seeds have all reached the semis. When you consider the history of players from no where reaching the last 4 - be it Michael Change, Thomas Muster or Gustavo Kuerten, it is amazing to have the four best players on paper coming to the party. More importantly, Nadal and Federer look all set for the show down of the clay court season. Before that, Federer has to defeat a challending David Nalbandian, one of the best clay court players in his own right.

Nadal faces an easier challenge against Croat Ivan Ljubičić. Ljubičić has overcome Julien Benneteau, the first local hero to reach the last eight since Sebastian Grosjean in 2001. Can the out of the norm Ljubičić cause Nadal trouble? Maybe, though I seriously doubt the Nadal winning streak will be halted in the semis. There is the greater possibility of Nalbandian playing the spoil sport and depriving us of the match we have been waiting for from the moment the clay court season started. Nalbandian fans aside, every one will be hoping that does not happen.

The clay court detractors should start watching now and experience for themselves why clay court tennis is enrossing like nothing else in tennis. If you cannot watch and still want to have fun, you can always listen to the live commentary at the official French Open site. The guys there are hilarious. For example, at the break between games, one of the commentators started singing the fool on the hill by The Beatles. On a serious note, when was the last time in men's tennis two players battled like Federer and Nadal have this clay court season?

We have seen the Graf-Seles finals where it was certain the two would face each other in the tournaments they were taking part in. In phases, we have seen Agassi-Sampras beat the competition. When have two players faced each other final after final in the tournament they took part in over a season or specifically a clay court season? Who knows what the future will hold for these two. Regardless, it has been a memorable season and the next few days promise much more.

The Flipper: Women's Tennis and Equality With Men Edition

Pratyush Khaitan — Wed, 26 Apr 2006 00:06:55 EDT

The pay issue in tennis has all the ingredients to captivate the mind - authority versus player, man versus woman. The issue has reached a boiling point with the announcement of the All England club. Reports CNN:

The All England club announced on Tuesday that its singles winners would receive a four percent increase, but with the men's champion receiving 30,000 pounds ($51,000) more than his female counterpart.

This leaves Wimbledon as the only Grand Slam which gives away less prize money to its women's tournament champions. The French Open announced equal pay for its champions earlier this year. However, they still give more money to the men compared to the women. The US Open gives its prize money down the middle though as seen by the 2005 prize money distribution.

The women are fuming. Former players Chris Evert and Billie Jean King's views from the same CNN article:

Three-time winner Chris Evert called the decision "a black mark for the sport."
"Wimbledon should do the right thing and award all women's players equal pay to the men," added the American.

Six-time winner Billie Jean King said: "Wimbledon needs to join the modern world on this issue."

The current players are making no small talk either. Venus Williams says, almost threatening:

"We want to be treated equally as the men. This is not just about women's tennis but about women all over the world," she told BBC Sport. "At Wimbledon we would like to have equal prize money to prove that we are equal on all fronts.
"We will keep lobbying on the matter. We don't want to deprive fans from seeing women's tennis but we are willing to be extremely proactive in our stance."

Maria Sharapova has logic to back her:

"Women's tennis players are getting as many sponsors and media coverage as the men, and I understand that our TV ratings at the Grand Slams are pretty much equal to and often better than the men so I don't understand the rationale for paying the men more than us."

All England Club chairman Tim Phillips counters the views. From Fox sports:

Phillips said the WTA Tour paid 63 percent less to players in an average week than the ATP Masters Series did.
"Whereas we're 87 percent," Phillips said. "So it seems to me we are much closer to equal prize money than they are on the rest of the tour."

One issue, a lot of statements and a lot of layers if the surface is scratched a bit. Women give as much effort as men. So why should they not be paid equally is one arguement. Well, I am sure the curling players also give as much effort. So why not pay them money too then? Or why not pay all the women equally then as they all put as much effort?

The second arguement from the other side borders on insanity. Women play 3 sets and not 5. So they are bound to be played less. Michael Jordan does not play basketball any more. Still he earns more than many women players. So maybe Jordan should come out of retirement? Or what about boxers. They box far less compared to how much time tennis players play. So maybe they should be paid less then?

The air time question comes up. As women occupy less air time because there matches are shorter, the sponsors get much less exposure. So it is justified that the players are paid less. Well, women have played 5 set tournaments in the WTA season ending championships. So it is not as if the women aren't capable of playing 5 sets. So do women have to play 5 sets at Wimbledon to get equal prize money?

The question I want to ask is, why is the WTA paying women lower compared to the ATP if we exclude the Grand Slams? Should not the WTA, champions of equality, pay women equivalent to what men get by the stand they take? The opposition to this is on the lines - 'it is the WTA's business what it does in other tournaments. When men and women, both play, we should get equal prize money.'

I scoff at the idea. The issue is not about women's rights. The issue is not about equality. The issue is about market worth. If women's tennis is more sellable, I would not grudge it even paying more than men's tennis does. I do not like that the other three Grand Slams have succumbed to the pressure tactics in one way or another, at one point or the other other.

Women's tennis and men's tennis are different sports. So if one has more spectators than the other, one gets more revenue and distributes more to the players. The issue of equal prize money is not new. A feedback to BBC from 2002 looks as relevant now as it did back then.

I spoke on the issue with blogger Sujatha Bagal who could give a woman's angle:

The market forces theory is good, but it does not take into account so many other relevant variables. Market forces can be created if there is the will. Equal prize money is about recognizing women for the effort they've put in, acknowledging that they've reached the pinnacle of their sport and rewarding them for it. Why are women's finals played on Saturdays while men's are on Sundays?

Why are the market forces not created then? If I were a promoter of a tournament, I would look at maximising the demand. Or is it just a case of revenues not going back to the players who generate them?

The WTA stars certainly believe they deserve higher pay. Wimbledon would bear huge losses if the stars do not turn up. With three Grand Slams agreeing to the demand of the women, Wimbledon stands weak on the bargaining table regardless of how fair this is. The women know it and are letting Wimbledon know it as well.

I do have an issue with equality though. Female prostitutes get paid a lot more than the male postitutes because there is higher demand for female prostitutes. It would look very silly if the male prostitutes ask for equal pay. The platforms are different but the point of contention remains the same.

The Flipper: Clay Court Tennis Season Preview

Pratyush Khaitan — Thu, 20 Apr 2006 07:54:51 EDT

The clay court season has taken off from the sluggish first gear, if there ever exists one on clay. The serious business has already begun with the first two rounds Monte Carlo Masters tournament over.

Justin Gimelstob writes over at CNNSI:

This past week, a sport within a sport began: clay-court tennis. What is arguably tennis' toughest season tipped off around the world with events in Houston and Valencia, Spain.
Clay surfaces offer totally different challenges than the hard-court tennis that dominates the early part of the ATP Tour calendar. Clay-court tennis hinges on movement, strategy and defense. Sliding effectively on clay is an art unto itself. It combines the artistic flare of ice skating with the athletic grace of a ballerina.

The season ends with the French Open, a title most clay court gladiators of Europe consider the ultimate prize in tennis over Wimbledon. Clay courts provide gruelling battles. You cannot win games on serves and volleys. The ball slows down considerably once it hits the surface. So you have to defeat the opponent despite the surface. In a Wimbledon, you would have to grass on surface aid you with bounce and pace after bouncing. On hard courts, you do not have the support of the surface. However, it doesn't make you toil much more like clay does.

Clay provides the raw battle of man versus man as nothing does in tennis. Clay court specialists thrive in such conditions. They can run forever, hit deep shots forever and come back at you forever. It doesn't matter if the match has gone for over 4 hours. Hell, some matches have even gone on for over 5! There have always been clay court specialists in the game. However, the specialist field is getting thinner with the ATP points system requiring players a minimum matches on each surface the way it is structured now. There still exist players like Coria and Ferrero though.

Nadal was the King last year. He is still at a 38-0 winning streak on clay - a stat which says much more about his dominance on clay than any amount of words can. Federer sniffed at Nadal last year though. He was almost there but not good enough in the final last year at Roland Garros. Had Federer won then, we could have possibly looked a wee bit differently at the clay season last year. After all, Federer too had a superb clay court season.

Do not mistake Federer's grass court success as a reason to discount his clay court ability. Born and brought up in Basel, Switzerland, Federer is as comfortable on clay as he is on any other surface. The man strives for perfection and success and knows how to achieve it. So expect him to come back strongly this year. Or at least make a strong battle out of it and come bloody close.

What about the rest of the field? The people remaining in Round 3 at Monte Carlo would give a good idea of the people who can have a good clay court season. The 16 players include, apart from Federer and Nadal, Coria, Juan Carlos Ferrero (on a come back of sorts and can do a lot of close to his best), Ivan Ljubicic, Fernando Gonzalez, Gaston Gaudio, Tony Robredo, David Nalbandian and Nicolas Keifer (check out the tournament draw here). I am not going to bore you by going into the past achievements of the given players.

From the field, I will be closely watching as to how Ferrero shapes up. The mosquito, as he is widely known, has played some of the best clay court tennis I have seen. Ferrero, though, has been a pathetic shadow of his former self in the recent seasons. Can he play at the same level once more? David Nalbandian is another player who can defeat the best on his day. Would he up the notch this season? Or would it be some one no one expects? Like Chang or Gustavo Kuerten maybe?

The point is that the field is wider than ever before. Who will dominate the clay court season? Who will come out triumphant in Paris? Your guess is as good as mine. The next few days will give us a fairly good idea though. The last 4 rounds of the Monte Carlo Masters will see some serious battles which could tell us how things will shape up this season. The promise of some classic tennis looms large.

The Flipper: The India-England Test Series Edition

Pratyush Khaitan — Wed, 22 Mar 2006 06:39:35 EST

A few days ago I asked the question, "Has England let the opportunity slip in the battle for No. 2 and chasing Australia?"

A win in Mumbai is now needed for England to remain in the race. Very difficult but it is the only way England can stop the opportunity from slipping. No one said the battle was ever going to be easy!

England did win in Mumbai and showed strength in the face of adversity. The persistence was evidant in the way England batted in the post tea session on Day 4 - with planning to go for the shots only once England felt safe. The persistence was also evident on Day 5. The pitch had not deteriorated. It was playing much better than most 5 day pitches play. England kept the ball in a line which made Indians play. Ball after ball this line was maintained. There was hardly any straying. The discipline and superb bowling effort was a pleasure to watch.

Defensive mindset

India has been defensive in mind set in this series. In the first test they went for the shots very late. That was when the score line read 0-0. Here the score line was 1-0. So it was unlikely that they would go for runs and risk losing the match and hence drawing the series. The plan would be to play out the first session and a half or two sessions and if wickets are in hand after that, see if going for the target during a small phase is a good option.

This is where I think India erred. Defensive play is never a good option regardless of the situation. Dravid almost got into a shell and Tendulkar survived a few close LBW shouts which would have been plumb had they been a bit closer to the wicket. Safeguarding your wicket is needed in such situations. But in the process playing the natural game as far as possible should not be forgotten. If you let the bowlers dominate, they will gain in confidence and get on you sooner rather than later.

With the dismissals of Dravid and Tendulkar, the inevitable occured. A game which was always going to be near impossible for India to win (no team has ever chased 300 in the 4th inning in India in more than 70 years of test cricket) would now be a battle for survival. But did India have a man for the job? An injured Sehwag, flashy Yuvraj and ultra flashy Dhoni do not enthuse confidence.

Lack of responsibility

Dhoni and Harbhajan Singh decided there was no chance India would win this match. Dhoni skied one but Monty Panesar was unsighted. Dhoni skied another one with the same shot. Panesar made no mistake this time. Harbhajan Singh played agressively and played a suicidal shot to get out while a specialist batsman in Yuvraj Singh remained at the other end. It didn't matter what shots Dhoni and Harbhajan Singh had played to get out. The arrogance of the shot plays were infuriating enough.

It is never easy when you lose a test match. That India did not compete against a battling England caused much more pain. There is no shame in fighting bravely and losing. But to not fight at all smacks of irresponsibility which has to be shunned. I do feel sorry for Anil Kumble here. He personifies consistent persistance. If only others had similar attitudes.

Chasing Australia

The race for number 2 continues to be enthralling despite India falling further. England, despite its throwing matches away from comfortable positions (Multan and Mohali) have managed to regain lost ground. South Africa fought but lost the first test versus Australia. They have to do better in the remaining two tests. A fourth team in South Africa competing for the spot would make things much more interesting.

As things stand right now, England and Pakistan are neck and neck. It is nicely setup for Pakistan's tour of England. I hope Shoaib Akhtar is fit and both teams are able to play their First XIs. England would want to come back strongly after their recent series loss in Pakistan. Pakistan would want to show that they are a team to be taken seriously and not a bunch of inconsistent performers. Pakistan has already started walking on this road with their recent performances. It is a matter of whether they have it in them to take the next step in England.

Applauding Freddie

All said and done, the England in India series will be remembered most for the performances of Andrew Flintoff. He sacrificed the joy of seeing his son being born. He stood up to the challenge of captaining his side. He bowled. He even batted. In all this he kept battling on and inspiring his team mates to do the same. Flintoff won the Man of the Match for his performances in the third test and the Man of the Series. In between all this, he has also gained much more respect from cricket fans from around the world.

A superman in every sense of the word.

The Flipper: Has England Let the Opportunity Slip?

Pratyush Khaitan — Thu, 16 Mar 2006 08:29:56 EST

The English Team was at crossroads in Pakistan. I had written about it nearly three months ago here. I titled it Facing Adveristy. In the period that has followed since then, England has enountered a lot of adversity. A menacing Shoaib Akhtar in Pakistan and a series of unfortunate events leading to four of their first XI withdrawing from the tour of India being unquestionably the biggest external adversities.

The internal weaknesses they have shown shouldn't be forgotten either.

With the collapse in Pakistan (including throwing away the first test match in Multan chasing a mere 198), and losing a test match against India in Mohali that they should have probably drawn, England has likely let slip the opportunity to challenge Australia for now. From being the unquestionable number 2 side, it has gone down a step in the close battle for that spot.

In fact, it also finds itself in a position inferior to Pakistan. Although Pakistan appear to have lost Shoaib Akhtar for the immediate future, there is some time to go for Pakistan's tour of England. If Pakistan can manage even a draw in that series, it would mean that Pakistan has set itself above the current English side.

And what about South Africa? South Africa played superbly in Australia. It is now involved in the home series versus Australia. If South Africa can manage a victory or even a draw, it can be accepted as a strong team despite Glenn McGrath not playing in the current series and despite what Chris Fogarty has to say regarding only The Ashes mattering, test cricket is about more than just The Ashes. John Stern analyses the current situation and the mouth-watering prospect that lies ahead of us much more judiciously.

India may be finding bowlers (Munaf Patel, Piyush Chawla) who might show some potency in times to come. However, with it playing just two test series in the run-up to World Cup 2007 and having lost the series to Pakistan (despite it being like a one test series), India finds itself behind the pack in this chase. Did New Zealand not go behind a huge distance in one session in their home series versus Pakistan where Shoaib Akhtar wrecked them? It did India no favours that for them that the home series versus England was always going to be The Nothing Series.

India in fact loosened their noose in the tussle they failed to win - their last series in the West Indies. That they lost the home series versus Australia did them no favours. They have been chasing as a back runner since then and will have to keep persisting. They do not find themselves in the picture before the "pyajama cricket" World Cup 2007 is done with.

Climbing up the ladder is difficult. It requires consistent brilliant performances. New Zealand is finding it out the hard way. It is doomed in mid-table for the time being.

Has England let its opportnity slip by its two collapses - one in Pakistan and one in India? The importance is not in that England lost. England would be respectable losers after drawing their first test match in India. The importance was in the manner in which a match which should have been drawn was lost. A win in Mumbai is now needed for England to remain in the race. A very difficult proposition, but it is the only way England can stop the opportunity from slipping. No one said the battle was ever going to be easy!

Pakistan does have a small lead ahead of the rest of the pack - England, South Africa and India. South Africa has the best chance to contend with Pakistan. While all this is going on, Australia cannot work out who the right players are for their international side. A side which boasted of depth finds itself bringing back older warriors who were discarded after the Ashes war was lost. The batsmen are not showing consistency. There is no sign of a future Glenn McGrath or Shane Warne.

Most importantly, Australia has set such high standards for themselves that they will themselves find it difficult to maintain these levels. Even if McGrath and Warne do manage to play for a few more years, it will be very difficult for Australia to not slip from its high intensity performances that it is now characterized with. Some would argue that the slipping has already started.

Very interesting times to be a Test Cricket fan.

The Flipper: The English Cricket Fan Edition

Pratyush Khaitan — Sun, 12 Mar 2006 00:48:21 EST

Corey Flintoff, son of Andrew Flintoff, was born just a few days ago. English cricket fans are already predicting the 2025 Ashes to be Corey's Ashes (similar to Ian Botham's Ashes in 1981.) Yeah right! Just like the 2005 Ashes were Liam Botham's Ashes. Liam Botham, Ian Botham's son, did play country cricket for Hampshire and took the wicket of Mike Gatting as part of his early exploits. But his true calling was rugby to the dismay of the millions of English fans.

For all we know, the sons of cricketing greats do not become greats. Cricinfo published an article on the subject. Does any one recall W.G. Grace junior, Richard Hutton, Eric Bedser, Mali Richards, Ron Headley or John Bradman? How many people for that matter will remember Rohan Gavaskar 20 years from now? Some cricketers, like Chris Cairns and Yuvraj Singh, have achieved more glory compared to their fathers. However, how many sons have even emulated a great cricketing father, let alone surpass his achievements? Mohinder Amarnath? Lala Amarnath was not a great player though he has been one of the most controversial cricketers in Indian cricket history.

It is near impossible to emulate a great father. This is why I squirm when I see photographs of junior Tendulkar or junior Inzamam in the papers. Let the kids be. It is a great injustice to the children of famous cricketers. John Bradman in fact changed his family name to Bradsen for a while when he was finding it impossible to lead his own life and create an identity for himself. Sadly, expectations and comparisons are part of the human psyche. This does not change the reality that the lives of the sons and daughters of famous people get affected adversely in more ways than we can imagine because of the unrealistic expectations of the fans and the media lapping up to this expectation. I feel extremely sorry for Corey Flintoff whenever I hear any one mention his name because of this.

One aspect of the English fans I do admire tremendously is their ability to laugh at themselves. Essex guys will make fun of Yorkshire guys, Yorkshire guys will make fun of the eccentricities of the Surrey guys and so on and so forth. The jokes never end. It is all in good spirit and creates a healthy sporting atmosphere. Individuals are hardly spared either. So Ricky Clarke and Ian Salisbury are quite popular as centre pieces in jokes because of their ordinary records.

The latest addition to this list is Ian 'Pie Thrower' Blackwell. With a first class average of above 38, the mysteries as to how he made the national squad mystified the fans. He was the butt of many a joke even before he delivered a ball in Test cricket. That Blackwell has played 28 one-day internationals shows more about the lack of quality spinners in English cricket over the past 15 years than about the talent Blackwell possesses. Hopefully the problems are now solved with the coming good of Monty Panesar. The jokes on Panesar will never end though despite what his achievements in the future might be. He is already a cult hero.

Speaking of cult heroes, the biggest among the spinners in the last 15 years (the competition is by no means easy considering England has seen Robert Croft, Shaun Udal, Ian Salisbury, Ashley Giles among others) is 'Tuffers', the great Phil Tufnell. Phil Tufnell is to English cult spinners in the past 15 years what Don Bradman is to batting. Apart from being a pie bowler, the requisite criteria for an English spinner, Phil Tufnell is also The Cat (title conferred because of his dressing room naps), was the bad boy of English cricket in the 90s, Aussie Basher, star of the the DVD Tuffers' Duffers, winner of television show I'm a Celebrity and key spinner and no. 11 of the Awkward XI.

The great Tuffers has added one more chapter to his legacy. Tuffers will captain the English Celebrity XI to tour India to raise money for charity. Reports Cricinfo:

A celebrity cricket team - comprising such luminaries as Phil Tufnell, Jack Russell and Harry Judd, the drummer from the pop group, McFly - has set off for India to take on the stars of Bollywood and raise money for Sport Relief.... In 2004, Sport Relief raised �16.5m, and the team members will be able to witness at first hand how the money is being spent. This year's event will take place on July 15.

When we mention cult heroes, how can we forget Kevin Pietersen? The guy is hated and despised in South Africa and is referred to as 'The Skunk' because of his hairstyle. There is a multitude of people who loathe the mention of Kevin Pietersen (KP). He has an even larger cult following. Girls go absolutely wild whenever they see or hear of KP. They absolutely loved his 'skunk' hair style. KP recently shaved his head for the hot tour of India, sending shock waves all around the globe where the KP Cult exists. It would not deter the legion of KP fans from idolizing him or his past hairstyle. Schools have started a secret movement to tackle this growing concern. They are even willing to violate human rights in the process.

Rain during a match does not mean the action stops as far as English Cricket is concerned. There is a lot happening apart from the adventures of the Barmy Army.

I hope you enjoyed the first edition of The Flipper.