Home Field (Dis)Advantage

India went 2-0 up on March 5 in the latest (2013) bout between India and Australia for the Border-Gavaskar trophy. It was only the 4th day of the game and India had wrapped up Australia for a paltry 131 batting second, and they were not even able to set a target for India to chase. It was an innings defeat for Australia and the biggest defeat India have handed them in some decades. Or very well, the first of such magnitude.

To put this into perspective, let's back up a few years. It all began in 1998 when the masters of batsmen against spin, Navjot Singh Sidhu and Sachin Tendulkar shredded the wizard of spin, Shane Warne to beat Australia at home by 2-1. That was followed by a 3-0 drubbing Down Under, during the eclipse on Indian cricket of Sachin's captaincy. After that, followed a fiery captain for India, and fitting heir for Steve Waugh's Australia in Ricky Ponting. The two together charged up the rivalry to it's present height. India secured a thrilling, coming-from-behind, gladiator-esque home series victory in 2001 and gave Australia a run for their money in 2004. Australia fought back on their next tour of India to take the series 2-1, claiming their 'final frontier'. It has nothing been a see-saw, a constant tussle between the two cricket giants, no matter where they played, home or away. But something changed along the way.

However, in all this, the one thing that remained constant were the 'home' conditions of India, and the invincible aura of the Indian team at home. Except for Australia and South Africa, two of consistently competitive teams in world cricket, no one team has been able to beat India. India's home record of God mode test cricket extended quite a few years, emphasizing the mastery of home conditions by India. At the same time, the utter ineptitude of India in abroad conditions, even with ever weakening sides like West Indies, Indian cricket always stooped to the level of the other team. This begs the question: What is home field advantage? Why can't the same players who post mighty performances at one place be as productive elsewhere?

Coming back to the 2013 Australia in India series. When India went up 2-0 in a dramatically one-sided fashion, with India's spin bowling casting wizardry on all-pro Australia, I was talking to a few people as if India had already clinched the series 4-0, when 2-0 was not even enough to say India had won the series. The trend was obvious. India was plying only 2 seamers so far, the spinners were grabbing wickets in the dozens, and M S Dhoni/BCCI were requesting more spinner friendly surfaces. What was left to watch? We didn't an oracle to tell us it would be a whitewash. Sure, Australia were tamed on the 5th day of the third test, on historically seam friendly Mohali pitch, but the last test in Delhi was wrapped on 3rd day itself with the key being.....spinners. R Ashwin is the Man of the Series.

Just a few series ago, India buckled down to two back to back whitewashes in pace-friendly Australia. Gautam Gambhir famously challenged Australia to produce the same performance on spin-friendly Indian pitches. Just a series before that, India capitulated to England at their home on pitches that were reportedly asked to be made 'greener' meaning to favor seamers, which Indian batsmen, with all their mega talent predictably failed to overcome. The 2004 'final frontier' Australian victory was also marred by pitch complaints. Down 1-0 in 2 games, India needed a draw at the worst to prevent the scepter of home series defeat. Instead, Australia won the third test on Nagpur's fast pitch and bagged the series. Indian fans/BCCI cried foul over the laying of an 'infavorable' pitch for India. The last test match in the series, was nothing more than a face saving exercise for India, when the Mumbai pitch was promptly created to favor the spinners. Surprise, surprise! Indian spinners (even Murali Kartik) grabbed wickets by the dozens to help India retain some dignity (in terms of series record of 2-1). But a pitch so rigged, prompted Ricky Ponting to lodge a complaint with ICC in this regard, which went nowhere.

This article won't be complete, if the disastrous Indian tour of New Zealand in 2002/3 isn't mentioned, where the pitches seemed to only work for New Zealand. What do we make from this all?

It just feels like cricket is turning into a sport with a flavor for each country.Australia is unbeatable at home on it's bouncy pitches. India loses 4-0 against England in England. India beat the mighty Australia 4-0 at home but lose them by the same margin when visiting? In terms of putting it in an analogy, it is akin to asking a marathon runner win a 100m dash and conversely, asking Usain Bolt to win the marathon.
Home field advantage should be factors out of the sport's control. Like crowd, weather. Not umpires (Australia, the worst offender) and pitches (India, the worst).Instead of sizing up to the task of grooming players for certain conditions, and selecting the players whose style and ability are a better fit for the destination, world teams and cricket boards resort to doing a one-up against each other by providing home team friendly only pitches.I wont be surprised if one day, we will see all spinners in the bowling attack since day 1 of a test match played in India. We already see no spinners being played by Australia in Australia. T20 cricket is catching up fast with Test cricket, and the very short nature of it ensures both sides get fairly the same kind of pitch. The short length of the game also ensures that both teams don't have a natural upper hand when playing the longer version of the game. There must be a standard on how to lay a pitch, internationally. A set of rules of the kind of pitches provided in a series, no matter which country hosts it.

In this day and age of Test cricket erosion, if test giants like Australia and India, succumb to the lure of 'home field' tactics and cannot overcome the same as visitors, then what is left to watch in a game of Test cricket. Like the analogy, I used before in my post on match fixing, the point of watching a rehearsed play or recorded suspense movie or a sports game is to witness excellence of talent while keeping the outcome a suspense. Similarly, if we all knew what is going to happen, when country A visits country B for a Test series, if the home country is almost always assured of a victory, then test cricket would be nothing but making a farce out of itself.

Internationalization

Just as meteorologists use satellite images and weather vanes to forecast weather, or a mechanic uses probes to find the status of machine, what would we find if we were to make a quick physical exam of international cricket. Here are the observations:

Australia
The only team in the world that seems to care for excellence. Right from being the national sport of the country to the grassroots level, passion for cricket seems to run down the veins down under,....... and.....a very big 'and'.....translates to the seriousness of maintaining a high standard of game.

• Won 1987 World Cup in India
• Won 1999 Wold Cup in England
• Won 2003 World Cup in South Africa
• Won 2007 World Cup in West Indies
• Finalist in 1975 in England and 1996 in Pakistan

In short, excellent international team for the past 35 years, and does well outside home conditions too.

High cricket standards in national cricket. Unfortunate to have to send only one team on the international level.

India

Passion for cricket runs deep to the point of insanity. The same level of commitment towards achieving professionalism and brilliance for the de facto national sport: Patchy. A single team to represent about a billion people on earth, over and over: Extremely unfair. Highly polarized and nepotistic cricket board that manages Indian cricket: Board of Control for Cricket in India, or BCCI:

• BCCI grows super rich over the past 2 decades, is a monster in the ICC room.
• Bullyish and pushing it's own agenda on ICC. Makes room for Indian cricket for IPL giving international tourneys a second thought.
• Opposed to DRS, on ridiculous grounds
• Produces cricket pitches that would make bowlers take up another sport instead.
• Become Test and ODI World Cup champions only to follow up by 2 back to back overseas whitewashes, bringing home World Cup glory into question.

Sri Lanka

• A nobody cricket team until 1996 World Cup. Wins the World Cup and creates waves for rising up from being underdogs to champions
• Has been on a downward path ever since, and despite featuring in the 2007 and 2011 World Cup finals, remains a toothless opposition.
• Circa 2012, Sri Lanka Cricket is cash-strapped, dysfunctional. Players not payed wages. Team selection is erratic and spurred by personal motives. Talent dwindling.

Pakistan

• Always a volatile team. Possesses talent.
• Pakistan Cricket Board - An unruly board. Complete new faces every couple of years. Coaches come and go. Superstar players thrown out only to come back later. And then thrown out again. A team in a constant state of repair and rebuilding.
• Players involved in serious offenses involving spot fixing, drug use
• Political and security situation of the country debilitates international cricket. Sri Lanka team attacked, bomb explodes outside New Zealand team's hotel. A places off-limits for any international team
• India and Pakistan don't play bilateral series for years at stretch due to diplomatic breakdown and make ups between the countries. The only series that could match the Ashes in rivarly doesn't happen for years at a stretch.

England

• As always, truly England
• When will this team be the team to beat. Despite beating Australia in the Ashes twice in a row at the time of this writing, a perennially mediocre team.
• Great county cricket structure, gave the world Twenty20 cricket
• Quick question: How is England an international team, when it is only a part of United Kingdom?

South Africa

• The only other team in international cricket that knows to stay competitive and interesting over the course of many years
• Can be blamed for having players that were at the heart of match-fixing, and got exposed.
• The only team consistently able to challenge Australia at home and away venues.

West Indies

• Old glory does not seem to come back to the Caribbean
• Athlete loyalties shift from cricket to soccer, basketball and baseball. Serious deprivation of talent
• Board infighting leads to key players leaving international cricket, significant player strikes
• Now: Mediocre team with no hope in sight for improvement

New Zealand

• Almsot forgot the Black Caps
• Such is the case with the team who plays the fifth popular sport in the country.
• Talent rare. Passion: Hard to find
• The forgotten team of international cricket. No one except New Zealanders care if they the World Cup or anything

Zimbabwe

• A poor team that looked to become good by 2003
• Political debacle in the country, destroys it's upcoming team. Relegated by the ICC from Test cricket
• Test status regained, but stays a team, no major team can dream of losing to.

Bangladesh

• Achieved Test status in 2000 in a hasty fashion
• Since then, has been able to record upset victories in ODIs against all major teams, but only one-off games. Never a tournament, except if keeping Zimbabwe in picture. By now, these two countries must have developed an Ashes like rivalry, amongst the bottom tiered teams
• In the past 11 years, have won only 3 test matches, 1 against Zimbabwe and 2 against second tier West Indies team sent during their phase of player strikes

Other fringe teams:

• Kenya - The team with the most potential wasted over 16 years since debuting on tier 1 international level in 1996 World Cup. Beat West Indies in 1996, semifinalist in 2003 World Cup owing to match forfeitures. Left to rot by ICC to play against minnows. Never given Test status.
• Ireland - Made an impact by edging out Pakistan in 2007 World Cup. Beat England in 2011 World Cup in stunning comeback victory chasing 300+ total, featuring fastest World Cup century by Kevin O'Brien. Future in dark, as they keep on playing the minnows for the coming years. Test status, a pipe dream.
• United Arab Emirates - Featured in 1996 World Cup. Best known for being clobbered by Gary Kirsten for record breaking World Cup innings
• Netherlands - Barring 1999 World Cup, made it to all World Cups since 1996. Have a couple decent players, but, as usual, ICC won't do anything to bring them up and make them play against elite cricketing teams. The team features mostly original Dutchmen, instead of South Asian disapora pretending to represent the country, which displays some level of mainstream support
• Canada, USA, Scotland, Namibia, Bermuda, Hong Kong, Afghanistan - Good to know they made it to tier 1 stage at different points in time

Conclusion:

• The prospects for international cricket to continue over the same course it has taken for a while looks very bleak.
• The onslaught of 24x7 cricket, between the same teams over and over is getting monotonous
• Teams that were formerly powerhouses of cricket have regressed to mediocrity. New teams do not have good talent and ICC support framework to make a meaningful addition to international cricket
• More and more players are being stretched between the practicality of good fortune offered by club cricket and representing national cricket
• ICC needs to put in a creative and aggressive plan in place, if it plans to keep international cricket the face of the game. It needs to add more teams that are competitive quickly and decide upon the standard format of the game: Tests, ODIs or T20s. Otherwise it risks not just failing to expand it's audience, it might be staring at fan erosion.
• Alternatively, cricket should take a cue from other major professional sports. Promote club cricket around the world and keep international cricket limited to World Cup and it's qualifiers and Olympic Games.

Act ICC! For once.

The Darwinian Test

       6 years and counting. 200 years and counting. A fledgling and a bicentenarian. Is it the time for the new to take over the old? Or is it too young and naive to considered a worthy replacement for the veteran? This is the kind of debate that has been raging in the world of cricket over the past couple of years. Should the T20s be the face of the game than Test cricket? The arguments have been reaching fever pitch, to the point where they are only rhetorical. This article, clearly taking a pro-T20 stance, tries to reason the importance and significance of T20s to the future of cricket.

       200 years ago, when the game was new, the society and the technology was very different and only better compared to previous centuries in terms of reliability, but not technique. At this point, someone might say, "Yes, Mr. Obvious, that was a time when even electricity did not exist". And yes, it took us about 100 years to lead to an industrial revolution and another 100 years to lead to an information age. Over 90% of these past years of Test cricket, movement of information was slow; slow compared to that of the present day. The options to entertain the masses were minimal. There was hardly anything like a personal entertainment device like a smartphone or a laptop or a tablet to play around with. It was a time, when, whatever the source of entertainment, it had to be preserved, it had to lengthened as much as it was optimal. Such was the time and circumstances under which Test cricket was born. But the times have changed. Information travels at the speed of light to almost every nook and corner of the Earth (of course not literally). Options for entertainment have gone up exponentially. The attentions spans, as a result have reduced. Is that good or bad? It doesn't matter because the reduction was not desired but acquired naturally owing to the inventions we are surrounded with. Thus, a solution, that is Test cricket, that worked to entertain the masses two centuries ago, does not apply to the current age, and the future. T20 promises to be cricket's Noah's Ark.

       40 years ago, the cricketing world took another turn. It introduced One Day International cricket and from the time, it took only 4 years to host a Cricket World Cup. World Cup. The World. Never before ODI cricket was introduced, was there a concept of a multi-nation, all teams encompassing tournament in cricket, which had stepped beyond 150 years since it's inception. And the teams were playing the 'purest' form of cricket till the time. Limited overs cricket brought about a revolution for the cricket world and cricket fans, where in they started to vaunt for, want for, long for and strive for the one and only way to supremacy. The World Cup. So much for being pure and sacred, Test cricket managed to create no landmarks, no unification of the world under it's umbrella, that limited overs cricket achieved in less than a decade.

       The cricket fans went berserk, the players experienced nirvana, when their team lifted the Wold Cup trophy. They were the champions for the next four years. Such was the revolution ODI cricket was able to bring and change the face of the game. Some might have complained, it was a corruption of the game. Some might have complained, a win in a day is only a matter of luck against a victory that was persevered over 5 days (of course, assuming the result was not a draw). This was the era of the television. Specators were watching the game in theatres, reading it in newspapers, listening to live commentary on the radio, and finally watching it with their friends and family at the leisure of their houses. Sprinkled in were the bonus of action replays and a million other camera angles. ODI cricket helped reinvent cricket as a spectator sport. As Test cricket comes under more scrutiny, more and more of the legendary Test matches have been quoted in articles. Unfortunately as spectators, more than 90% were games, that a majority of the cricket fans have not even heard of, leave aside having actually witnessed it.

       Association football or soccer as it is called, came into world arena some 7 decades after cricket, and hosted it's first World cup 4 decades prior to the first Cricket World Cup. It is being played as a serious sport on a national level in over 200 countries today. Cricket on the other hand, remains a mainstay of about only 10 Test countries, and a game of curiosity for the rest 40-50 countries. Why is the pure and pristine form of game not appealing to the masses? Former cricket giants, West Indies are withering in talent, as basketball and soccer are taking roots there. It appeals more to the spectators and athletes in West Indies, enough to ignore the glory and heydays of their previous generation. So much for purity. Not only Test cricket has been able to shut it's doors to the world, it is estranging the full members. The cricket world is eroding. Test cricket has become the dinosaur of modern sports. ODIs showed us the way towards a shorter format of cricket, and making it a spectator sport for the 21st century. T20s provide us the opportunity to perfect this approach and metamorphose this giant to a smarter creature that can survive.

       Often the Test cricket apologists have been slinging mud at T20, by claiming the lack of grace and technique that made Test cricket pure. This begs a question. What is a technique? A technique is a smart way of applying a solution to achieve success. When the Test and ODI cricket were the only cricket which lasted for 5 days and 1 day respectively, the 'technique' was something that applied to those formats to score runs and save wickets. Come T20s, the manner in which the game is played is THE technique that helps achieve success. So, essentially it is not the solution where in the beauty lies, it is the success. Also, on another note of sanctity and purity, why do these terms apply to only Test cricket which the English invented as opposed to Twenty20 cricket which the English invented?

       The will of cricket fans and the game has come to a crossroads, where we must choose our future carefully. Cricket should not exclude the world, but include it all. Let's acknowledge the T20s and not ignore their meaning for cricket's future. Let our nostalgia not blind our rationale. Let's hope cricket passes it's Darwinian Test.

Cricket - The Alternate Future

Cricket, as we have known so far, is on the cusp of change. The ICC recently announced the Future Tours Programme, outlining the tournaments and bilateral series to played by countries over the next 10 years. Although, this program is nothing more than maintaining the status quo and keeping cricket out of bounds for the rest of the non-cricketing world. Here are a few thoughts on sprucing up the game to be a more global sport, in the order of minor to major improvement ideas:

Jerseys
Cricket jerseys were introduced somewhere around the time of 1992 Cricket World Cup, before which existed an era of black and white, actually just white. Since then, the jerseys have only changed a little in terms of design. But the colors have stayed more or less the same (except New Zealand who went from grey to black). Since then, numerous new teams have been added to the circuit (and relegated too). For example, today, there exist 4 teams with green jerseys: South Africa, Pakistan, Kenya and Ireland. In order to distinguish such teams better, the concept of home and away jerseys could be introduced. It would have been immensely helpful to spot Indian vs Sri Lankan players during ICC CWC 2011 final. This will also make more sense after 'More the merrier' below.

iUmpire

Cricket has been really good about using technology (apart from American Football), to determine the fate of certain plays. The third umpire equipped with camera feeds and latest technologies like Hawk-Eye, Hot Spots can make virtually accurate decisions that are fair and free of human error. The downside of this has been a growing number of hesitant umpires to give a decision on field and instead refer it to the third umpire. Virtually all run-out appeals are sent to the third umpire for referral, and lately even high full tosses too for adjudicating a no-ball. This begs the question, what are the umpires, especially the leg-umpires left to do on the field? Why not invest, or rather re-invest the proceeds pf cricket into introducing better and faster technology for accurate on the field decisions?

Rain or shine
Cricket is a field sport. Hence, the weather has a significant impact on the game, if it happens that is. Cricket is one of the rare field sports in the world that gets severely affected by weather, leading to shortening the game or complete abandonment. While it may be argued that, domes could be built, it is an expensive and brawny solution. Cricket is unique in respect that it relies on the surface of the pitch for the game to happen. If there were overnight showers or continuing drizzles, the game is almost always abandoned and points shared. This is a disappointing sporting outcome, from players' and spectators' perspective, the latter of which happen to be spending their time and money on the sport. Unless the weather conditions are relentless during the game, the game should never be cancelled for overnight rain or ongoing drizzles. Why not make the game happen in such situations on an artificial surface that could be laid over the pitch. This will certainly change how the game will be played, but that will be the fun part of it. Innovation in cricket has full scope here in devising an artificial cricket pitch. Play rain or shine. Don't shortchange us spectators. Don't be unfair to the teams with cryptic Duckworth-Lewis calculations. Don't make the players play on dangerous and uneven bounce pitches.

Twenty20 for the win
It is no breaking news that Twenty20 cricket is here to stay. Why resist it and not let it be the face of cricket? It is a very young format for cricket that has long prided itself as a 5 day game. But, this has resulted in it becoming a niche sport than a true global sport. It is a little more than niche, but the ratio of Test status countries in the world to the number of countries in the world is negligible. Almost, all major sports have 32 teams competing in their respective world cups, while cricket can boast only 16, and even that has diluted the competitiveness. Twenty20 has great potential to spread the game fast and wide and in a couple of decades and bring up the competitiveness in World Cups that could feature 32 teams. A couple of decades is really fast considering how long the sport has existed. Isn't cricket being mulled for 2020 Olympic Games? It is just fitting to say that 2020 Olympics will have Twenty20 cricket. Tests can be ruled out, because by the time one game ends (potentially in a draw), US and China would be competing for their final gold medal tally.

More the merrier
Owing to it's lengthy format (read Test cricket and ODIs), cricket has not only become a niche sport, it is also  a rare sport that features primarily bilateral clashes. American Football and Soccer lovers raise your hand if you think, National Football League, English Premier League or Champions League, is more exciting than a tour of the English soccer team to France, for 30 days. Now, this never happens, but such is the fate of cricket. While it may be argued that the Ashes is hugely popular, and the Border-Gavaskar trophy is rising in it's fame, raise your hand if you think these series are more exciting than Cricket World Cup, Champions Trophy, IPL or the more recent Champions League. 9/10 people tend to think of trophies and championships as multi-team, multi-nation tournaments, and it is way more fun than see two teams butting heads for 30 to 60 days. Twenty20 cricket offers us that option. Let's seize it.

Change is the only constant thing
If Twenty20s were to become the default version of cricket, a number of rules would need to altered, or added to make it more exciting and fair. Twenty20 is always labeled as two teams competing in slog overs, and the butchering of bowlers. There will be many suggestions to stanch the run flow and even the contest between batsmen and bowlers:

1. Specialists - Have 2 teams, within the same team. When a team bowls, let it field a specialist bowling team, that consists of 11 players that are either bowlers or specialist fielders. This would make the bowling and fielding super competitive and sharp. Well, this game is not going to be converted into baseball, which is extremely fielding side friendly. Back to cricket. While the bowling team has all full time bowlers and fielders, the batting team line up has full time batsmen. Imagine a game, where bowling unit has Glenn McGrath, Dale Steyn, Shane Warne, Jonty Rhodes et al against Sachin Tendulkar, Ricky Ponting and company.  This has the potential to raise the talent bar higher than ever. This will also spare the spectators from watching the tail being treated as sitting ducks by the bowling side when they have the game on their hands.
2. Cricket has bye runs. Agreed, bye runs can never come unless the fielding team is caught napping or there is a mis-field or the bowlers bowl erratic. Cricket has leg byes. Agreed, it is always tough to tell, whether the batsmen got a fine nick or completely missed it. So while it could be unfair to the bowling side, the leg-bye rule applies to both the teams, and that evens itself out. But why do we still keep up with the glove rule? Why does a run off the glove attributed to a batsmen and why is the batsmen out on a catch off his gloves. Let's eliminate this confusing rule and deem it as a leg bye. Sorry bowlers, your task got a little tougher.

Capiche? Take the survey, if you would like to.

The game is fixed.....

     April 2, 2011 witnessed one of the highest points of international cricket, when Indian skipper Mahendra Singh Dhoni hit a confident six to bring India it's share of World Cup glory after 28 years. The whole world was watching - the cricketing world that is - with more than two thirds of the followers from India alone with the rest of the fan base from the rest of the countries. The stakes were high, both for the World Cup finalists, as well as all other 'entrepreneurs' who make their living off the outcome of the game; which has a been a pet peeve of many betrayed fans.

     Ever since the match fixing scandal boiled and spilled over world cricket, there has been a sizable number of cricket fans who doubt the authenticity of game results. The accusations reach a fever pitch when the games go down the wire. For a common fan, the situation just gets too confusing on whether to believe in the game-fixing rumors or to stay innocent and have a childlike entertainment out of it.

     A movie has actors, a plot with the right amount of spice and twists and turns with a finale. Similarly, the game has it's performers in the form of athletes who perform 'live' on a field in front of not only the crowd,  but the millions others glued to their TV sets. The actors in a film get the help from the director, the make up crew and choreographers, whereas the cricketers have to deal with a constantly changing plot and without much on-field instructions. They also have to rely on each other's abilities to do what they are asked to do.

     Just like a movie has a finale, which we never want to hear about beforehand, the game has a final twist that we do not know. A movie experience could easily be ruined by the spoilers, however in a game of cricket (or any other sport), no matter how much it is 'fixed', it is extremely tough for a majority of fans to really know what, how and when anything is going to happen. If we were to enjoy a movie that lasts on an average of about two and a half hours- a finite amount of staged storytelling - there is not much of a problem in watching a staged game.

     A movie, a TV series, a circus, or a stand-up comedy show is successful only after hours, weeks and days of practice and retakes, as it applies. Whereas in a game, the players have only a limited chance to perform to the script and only a little time to correct their actions if anything goes askew. Thus, performing to the script is even tougher to achieve. So let us all enjoy the game we love, and not despair over something we only suspect is staged. If the game is fixed, so is the fate.

The T20 Theory of Conflict Prevention & Integration

Unity in Diversity

India, the seventh largest country in the world, is also the second most populous country in the world. Not only it is the second most crowded country, but it arguably a country with the most diversity packed per square capita. There are at least about 20 languages being spoken at the moment, and all major religions freely practiced. And on top of it, there are multitude difference within people from the same geographic area, religion and language. No wonder the British were able to employ the divide-and-rule policy to great success.

Cracks in the joints

Being a country with a large number of inherent fractures, India does demonstrate a great deal of 'Unity in Diversity'. As much as it is touted, it has also caused a number of problems. The problems range from regionalism, favoritism, castism to terrorism and 'secessionism'. There is always a great number of people who feel they are being wronged or do not get the attention of the government due to their different identity. While it is not true every time, unfortunately some times it is.

Cricket, the common denominator
So what are the reasons that keeps India together, despite the diversity. Let's not think in terms of intangibles like, 'the feeling of oneness', 'patriotism' and the like. Religion, language and customs are already ruled out. The history of medieval and ancient India is a proof of India's divisiveness. The real things that bring Indians together are a common cause. The Indian army and Cricket are the biggest factors that gels this mosaic population. While people keep on integrating with one another through the army, it is a silent and unglamorous process. Cricket on the other hand is flamboyant and exhilarating, and it is publicly broadcast to millions of people. It is always great to see Indians of all regions cheer together, when India plays.
The stage
IPL has been a phenomenal success in India. It's rise in popularity is so alarming that international cricket is being seriously challenged by a league format from one country. Currently (10/17/10), there are only 8 teams in the league, covering different zones of India. It might be argued that this might fuel regionalism even more, but coming to think of it, it is much different than the tensions that exist between various Indian states today. For eg. The rivalry between Mumbai Indians and Royal Challengers Bangalore would be much more amicable and friendly than that exists between the two states over the border dispute. If in future, the league continues to expand and if it is doubled to include 16 teams, we could have even more regions being represented in the league and henceforth more number of people would feel included in the process of 'Indian' cricket.

The Upside
Some of the biggest advantages of this greater participation would be more people to people contact and lesser strife between communities. More players would get an opportunity to plays for various clubs out of their hometowns and more people will cheer for a player of their team, regardless his origin. I would assume, Chennai Super Kings fans would be more grateful than resentful of having their team led by 'North Indian' MS Dhoni.
The introduction of club cricket to more remote regions of India, like the Northeast, will create more jobs, more financial stimulus and greater media attention accelerating their integration. The presence of a popular entity like a cricket club in the region and with a great amount of money and pride at stake, state governments will take an active role in solving the problems of terrorism and separatist sentiments. The renewed financial promises and greater respect in the public eye, can change the psyche of the people from the region leading us to a spiraling trend of money and harmony from the grassroots.
Better and meaningful integration
Instead of singing patriotic songs and asking for calm and peace in the wake of poverty and joblessness, this will be a more effective way to achieve the same results: Strong and united country. If this could help turn around the friction to a healthy rivalry within a country, could it be extended to achieve stability and peace within South Asia..and beyond?

One Two Ka 20

In continuation to my previous blog “All Out At 40”, here are top 10 reasons why T20s will rule:

1. Us spectators, selfish me:

In a T20 match, there is so much going on; the game itself, the cheerleaders, the fireworks, the celebrities. It is like a carnival.

2. Fair game:

The game is more fair for both the batsmen and the bowlers. Bowlers savor their every single dot ball, batsmen savor their shots, and spectators get to see an intense contest that doesn't last too long to leave the Television set (Are advertisers reading this??)

3. Bowler friendly:

For bowlers, although it may appear to be more brutal, it actually will not be. They have to bowl only 4 overs at the maximum per match. Bowler trauma reduced from 10 overs to 4 overs. Each dot ball will be treasured. It will worth saving about 3 runs per dot ball. In fact, I would recommend, the bowling statistics to be represented differently in T20s. Instead of
Overs-Maidens-Runs-Wickets, it should read,
Balls bowled-Dot balls-Runs-Wickets

4. Batsman friendly:

Similarly for batsmen, although it appears to be demanding, it actually makes them bat for a maximum of 20 overs. And on an average, for the really good batsmen in T20s, they would (or rather afford to) hog the crease for about a maximum of 10 overs. Currently, batsmen play for about 10 overs in ODIs easily, and more. Sachin Tendulkar played all 50 overs without a runner. Go figure!!

5. Lesser player fatigue:

We will see lesser player injuries due to shorter duration of the game. Current international cricket schedule is extremely strenuous, leaving players injured every other series. Australia's tour of India in 2009 made more headlines due to player injuries than anything else. We'll see lesser and lesser high profile players retiring from the mainstream, if T20s become mainstream

6. Cricket Argentina:

Creates a level playing field. Any team that can get hold of themselves in a given match has a chance to win. Takes out the high level of skill needed that second rung teams take decades of years to build upon. Didn't we see Netherlands beat England in a T20? Will we see Argentina's team in world cricket?

7. Go Mumbai Indians!

T20 promises to bring in club culture into cricket, thus reducing international cricket and increasing domestic leagues all over. This will allow more player exchanges between local and international clubs, thus giving local players a chance to act big than they ever would, in current international cricket arena. This also implies more money for players and organizers, and greater exciting tournaments for us fans, like the Champions league, IPL and the like.

8. World Cup:

World Cup wouldn't have meant so much more!

9. Cricket? What?

Cricket will gain more respect and recognition than ever before. Cricket will spread to nations other than the Commonwealth countries. Isn't T20 cricket a part of forthcoming Olympics?

10. Tests - The Burning Issue:

T20s and Test cricket have a stark difference in their formats compared to Tests and ODIs. This highly increases the possibility that Test cricket will survive due to sheer contrast.

All Out at 40

It was February 24^th 2010, the headline of an article on Cricinfo.com by Kanishkaa Balachandran read:

Flawless Tendulkar 200 gives India series

It took nearly 40 years of waiting and it was well worth it. Sachin Tendulkar chose one of the better bowling attacks doing the rounds, to eclipse the record for the highest score, before bringing up the first double-hundred in ODI history. The spectators at ….....

       On the one hand I was a proud Sachin Tendulkar fan, and on the other I was at some unease over the monstrosity of this innings by Sachin, and the increasing occurrence of high total one day cricket matches. For the past 3 days I have been chewing on this thought. If words could fly out of the screen, the boldened text above, was jumping out at me and shaking me wildly. To put it plainly, I feel ODI cricket has come full circle. How and Why? Read on....

The Journey of One Day Internationals (ODIs)

       The first One Day International was played out in the year 1971, which means it has been almost 40 years since the shorter version of cricket was introduced. Since then, the shorter format of the game, accompanied by men-in-colored-jerseys-using-white-ball-playing-under-lights just picked up steam and came to dominate cricket and also changed the default definition of what cricket as a game meant to the masses. Almost every cricket fan is a huge fan of ODIs. Not me, because, as a cricket fan, I WAS a huge fan of ODIs. Not anymore.

       Considering how ODI cricket was being played before and how it is being played now, and taking into account some statistical data I like to divide this 40 year period into 3 distinct eras.

The Pre Sri Lanka era (January 1971- February 1996)

        The Pre Sri Lanka era comprised of teams that had, for the most part, the same players in both Tests and ODIs. With Test cricket being the original format of the game, one could always see the Test match mentality spilling over into ODI cricket and not vice versa. It was an era where a score of 250+ was a dream target of the teams batting first. It was a total that meant victory for the team batting first and a lost cause for the teams chasing it.

        This era encompasses the time period from the birth of 60-overs-ODI cricket, i.e. 1971, till the 1996 World Cup; which is exactly 25 years. This World Cup which marked the Silver Jubilee of ODI cricket gave us a new world champion in Sri Lanka. This World Cup was one of the highest point ever in international one day cricket.

        Over the last 40 years, International Cricket Council managed to bring in only a handful of new nations on the main stage in ODI cricket and all of them have failed miserably. As far as I know, until the 1996 World Cup, Sri Lanka was a very mediocre team in the ranks of Zimbabwe. This World Cup was a single, isolated moment in the history of ODI cricket where a mediocre team broke all the shackles and metamorphosed into a competitive, respected team. (This left Zimbabwe alone for which ICC felt very sorry for and brought them company in the form of Bangladesh).

        Barring this single event, not a single low-key team has ever moved up in the pecking order in this entire 40 year span. (Reversely, we have seen teams like Zimbabwe and West Indies deteriorate due to multitude of reasons, which is not the focus of this discussion).

        We were entering a new era

The Post Sri Lanka era (Feb 1996 – Feb 2005)

       As mentioned previously, Sri Lanka stormed to championship in the 1996 World Cup. What made them different and why was the rest of the world caught unawares?

       Sri Lanka introduced to us a new match winning strategy. They successfully implemented the strategy to exploit the fielding restrictions in the first 15 overs. With this strategy working like magic for them, Sri Lanka not only posted totals in excess of 250, but also chased such targets – and I must add without a lot of drama. Their butchering of Kenya to post a total of 398, stood as the highest ODI team total for some time to come.

       Since then we have seen a certain shift in the mentality of the teams. Posting totals of 250+ was no longer safe. The bar was raised. The new dream target was shifted to 300+.

       ODI cricket had changed forever and 10 years later we had T20 cricket.

The T20 era (Feb 2005 – Feb 2010)

       Cometh the T20s. T20s, the shortest version of cricket, has come to revolutionize the face of cricket. Although, it is not mainstream yet in the international arena, the mere talk of it by young and old, be it approving or disapproving, gives us an idea that this version of cricket is no joke at all. It is certainly not a passing fancy.

       It would be unwise not to mention, that the seeds of this era were sown in 2003, when Twenty 20 cricket was first played in English county circles to record breaking success and popularity. After gaining enough traction and acceptance, the first international T20 was played in 2005, and since then we have seen a spike in highest team totals in ODI cricket. Having come of age in the Post Sri Lanka era and the arrival of T20 ideology, this era has given us 9 innings so far in excess of 400 runs in ODIs.

       12^th March 2006, 5th ODI betweenSouth Africa and Australia played at Johannesburg, is the pinnacle of this era so far and represents the extent to which, the boundaries of possibilities have been stretched in ODI cricket. This match gave us 5 world records at that time.

1. Australia posted the highest team total in ODI history
2. It was the first time ever a team crossed the 400 mark (by a margin of 34)
3. South Africa successfully chased this record breaking total, setting another world record for highest successful run chase, which still stands today
4. Since, they were chasing the highest ever ODI total, they also created the record for highest ODI team total
5. This match till today, stands as the game with most runs scored by both teams combined

       In short, this era has been steroidal, pushing the envelope to 350+.

       Will it ever end? Will the maximum runs possible in an ODI top out? I think that it wont happen right away, but the numbers show we are on that route and we are on the freeway! Following are some statistics that would highlight how the landscape of ODI cricket has transformed over four decades. My sample set was the top 100 ODI team totals ever. Here I focus more on the period/year when the records were made than on what the records were.

Contribution of these eras to highest ODI team totals:

Perspective:

1. More than half of the top 100 ODI team totals have been in T20 era. A period of last 5 years has eclipsed 40 years of ODI cricket
   
2. Pre Sri Lanka era of 25 years has a share of under 10%. Clearly indicates the influence of Test cricket.
   

Frequency of highest ODI team totals

Perspective:

1. The frequency of highest ODI team totals has gone up considerably since Post Sri Lanka era (1996 onwards). All top 5 years with highest team totals in top 100 belong to T20 era (2005 onwards)
   
2. T20 era indicates changed batting tactics (read successful aggressive batting, something that is a feature of T20 cricket)
   
3. If I could do a dumb extrapolation of 2010 figures, this year could easily be the second highest year contributing to top 100 ODI team totals, sending pre Sri Lanka era into greater oblivion
   

ODI Cricket – The Last Lap

        On February 24^th 2010, Sachin Ramesh Tendulkar, the poster boy of ODI cricket hit a magnificent, controlled and a quick, unbeaten 200 against South Africa batting out the entire 50 overs. I couldn't have been happier for Sachin, who has arguably been the best ODI batsman in the world, to take the honor of scoring the first 200 in ODI cricket. All praise and bows go out to Sachin, who has been labeled GOD, and yet it does not seem an exaggeration.

       Now for a moment, let us forget that the man who achieved this feat was Sachin and consider that it was just a regular batsman doing it. Now, let us think about this again. Does this event surprise you? Did it catch anyone following cricket off-guard? Were you at a loss of words for the concept of a batsman scoring a double ton in ODIs?

       One batsman, in one innings and a maximum of 50 overs, scores 200 was a laughable matter in the Pre Sri Lanka era. In spite of injecting some really poor international teams into the pool to trudge on, it was an extremely difficult task in Post Sri Lanka era. For the past few years (in this T20 era), Sehwag has been talking about scoring a double ton in ODIs. And no-one disbelieved him. There have been speculations every now and then that a batsman might score 200. The likelihood of this happening quadrupled if any test playing nation played against hapless Namibia, Netherlands, Bangladesh and the like. But now it seems, even regular elite cricket playing nations cannot escape the fury of batsmen.

       And now, we have the elusive double ton. Whatever that could be done has been done. We have crossed the 400 mark in ODIs. Not once, but 9 times, all within past 5 years. We have a team that has successfully chased one of the highest team totals, needless to say the target was above 400. And now, we have a batsman scoring a double ton. After having all the major records happening right in front of our eyes, is there anyone out there dying to see a bowler take all 10 wickets in an ODI? I guess not. It could be interesting to see if anyone breaks Sachin's record. But the point is not in seeing the record being broken, but now that a landmark has been achieved, possibly the last that mattered, anything beyond it is gravy. Then what is left to watch? Are there any more frontiers left to conquer in ODI cricket?
       High scoring ODI matches are fun to watch, as long as they are an exception. Post Sri Lanka era gave us a great mix of high scoring matches. It gave us fans a reason to believe that chasing 300 runs was not an impossible task. However, after the emergence of T20s, ODI cricket is getting profoundly polarized in favor of the batsmen. I believe cricket is fun to watch only if there an even contest between batsmen and bowlers; not 11 batsmen against other 11 batsmen. It is obvious that this balance in ODI cricket is eroding, and very rapidly. There are such a huge percentage of high scoring matches in this era, that the game has started turning predictable. It is turning into a show of muscles by 22 batsmen. If ODI cricket is going to mimic T20 cricket played out over 50 overs per innings, why should someone spend his time, money and enthusiasm over an 8 hour contest instead of a 3 hour one?

        If this trend continues, it will be indeed, ODI Cricket - All Out at 40.