The row between Cricket Batting legends Sunil Gavaskar and Allan Border was a show of pent up anger dating back from the Bedi vs Bob Simpson series in 1979 which India almost won despite unfavourable (read highly biased) umpiring by Australians:
1. Gavaskar - Quoting David Hookes incident:
This is perhaps the only incorrect reference/ remark in the whole episode.
David Hookes or anyone else, the quote was out of context and Gavaskar lost track of his argument from here, allowing the Aussies to defend themselves. Thumbs Down.
2. Ponting defending sledging by referring to it as a cultural difference:
Sure there are cultural differences and India and West Indies are at one end of the cultural spectrum and Australia and England the other end (England has lately moved to the centre of the spectrum). This end of the spectrum is red (blood), and they sure play the game hard, and would resort to any style to win - in fact winning is everything. Remember how Bob Simpson was never given out in 1977-78 series led by Bishan Singh Bedi where the Aussies could not stand up to the Indian Spinners so only their partisan umpiring saved the day for them. I don't know how many remember the Trevor Chappell underhand delivery? New Zealanders surely do - and would never forget that. Or more recently Ponting sledging the minnow nations play - well he should go to the football world cup and take a stand there first. Similarly, England resorted to Bodyline, Vaseline (John Lever in India) and even through racial means which they abandoned later (discrimination at MCC, etc). At the West Indian and Indian end of the cultural spectrum (which is white as in peace) we've always known that the game has to be played fairly and even tampering the psychology of the opponent is not fair. Now this is another matter whether tampering with the psychology is fair or not, but it is a part of the game tactics. Thumbs Down.
3. Ponting - on Gavaskar Chauhan walkout:
Well that incident is a blot on Gavaskar's otherwise spotless career (besides the Kapil Dev drop in Calcutta). Still, let us understand, they didn't resort to sledging and their decision was hurting none other than their own team and Chauhan in particular (he lost what was in hindsight was probably his last opportunity to score a test 100). It is still much better than Aussies tricking to keep out Murali through various unfair means. It is a well know fact that only the actions of cricketers from the sub-continent have been found incorrect. Ricky Ponting, what do you say to that? Thumbs Down.
4. Ponting - on Adam Gilchrist walk out without being given out:Cosidering that Ricky Ponting did not take it lightly, and did not like Adam Gilchrist's walk says a lot about how Aussies play their cricket - i.e. not in the best of sportsman spirit. Thumbs Down. The bottomline is that some teams want a fair results, and some teams want to just win. And recently since they have been winning, they have not been found to be a Champion, they're just winners. West Indies were Champions. Champions are winners whatever the results. Thumbs up.
5. Border - on how Gavaskar played his cricket:
Well Gavaskar surely played it better than Border who just kept on and on till he could cross Gavaskar in the number of runs he scored - and at what average? If Border wants to refer to Gavaskar's ODI career, well, that is about India taking time to adapt to the new style of playing cricket and Gavaskar's 36 runs in the world cup, was the bottom. Thereafter Gavaskar adapted well and had a score of good performances. Finally it is a fact that India and West Indies took the cup much before Australia could stand up and be counted. Even Sri Lanka took it before them. Thumbs Down.
6. Border - Quoting David Hookes incident:
This is perhaps the only incorrect reference/ remark in the whole episode.
David Hookes or anyone else, the quote was out of context and Gavaskar lost track of his argument from here, allowing the Aussies to defend themselves. Thumbs Down.
7. Darren Lehmann - joining the controversy:
Darren who? Well, what is the need of Darren now to get into the controversy? Thumbs Down.
More like this at onedayers.com
Sunday, March 25, 2007
Demise of Sports Media Reporting as well as Bob Woolmer
It is a very sad situation when (probably) factor's related to one's first love (cricket) lead to the person's death. Bob Woolmer is no more.. This article is not to hail him as a Champion, but to look into the reasons of such incidents.
1. Did Pakistan lose track?
Pakistan lost the plot in their games surely, and all people in it are responsible for the loss. This includes Selectors, Captain, Coach, and the rest of the team. There is no doubt about this. And a defeat is a national concern. Thumbs Down.
2. Is a defeat a national concern?
A defeat is a national concern, and fans are known to go berserk all over the world after defeats in popular sports, especially when any team loses easy matches or loses to unworthy (percieved) opponents. This usually happens after World Cup matches or important championships. Surely, a defeat is a national concern - no doubt about it. But it is surely, not a matter of Shame!! Thumbs Up.
3. Is Media's role reasonable?
Media's role changeover from reporting to driving is a major cause of concern. The 4 pillars of a democracy are Government, Defence/ Military/ Police, Justice and Media. They play important roles in Governing / Managing, Protecting, Redeeming, and Reporting. However media is trying to play each of the 4 functions to some extent and is especially to provide instant justice. The reporting has become more opinionated than ever. Media should keep analyzing individual player performances and but leave suggestions to improve out of their ambit (especially blame fixing), and leave that to the Captain Coach and Selectors. Thumbs Down.
4. Is the unruly crowd at player's homes behavior correct?
Just like the media role, the extension of public into the personal life is unacceptable. However, this behavior derives from high media attention given to players, and targetted rundown of individual players by the same media creates confusing signals in the society which are exploited by political parties. It is for individuals not only to abstain from participating in such activities but to counter such activities through writing or intervention. And never to vote for people involved in such events. Thumbs Down.
5. What do political parties have to gain from this?
Political parties use these events as nurseries to nuture future leaders (sic). It is sick but true that these kind of people are future leaders, or conversely, most of the current leaders have been through this behavior. It is tough to accept that our leaders are also part of this, but it is true. Such events also come as a shot in arms for opposition parties, since cricket defeats can also be portrayed to magnify government failure is other areas. Rot is thus set. Thumbs Down.
6. Why did Woolmer die?
Whatever the cause of death, personal, professional or third party, it is definate that the pressure on him was immense, and after a certain limit, the physical pressure bearing capacity of the body becomes important, however tough your mind is. That's where age, physical health and surely mental conflict come into play. And historical tensions pile up e.g. fate dealt him bad blows 3 times in the world cups - Twice for the Soth Africa team and now for the Pakistan Team. Woolmer's physical capacity to bear jolts must be going down with each unexpected result.
Facing charged crowds in Pakistan and India is a tough task and it was eventual that Woolmer and Inzamam would have to go back and face the crowd (actually you have to face the media more than the crowd and media tries to infuriate the crowd). This is a major factor. Thumbs Down.
7. Does this affect the teams and players?
Yes, the high pressure gets into the teams and the play style turns defensive, which is not the way the game is to be played. You cannot play to avoid defeat, and Victory is not equivalent to avoiding defeat! A person playing to avoid defeat has already lost the match/ battle in his mind. There is only one way out - Media should please stop getting into the role of Captain, coach or Selector. They should concentrate on reporting. Thumbs Down.
Read more like this at onedayers.com
1. Did Pakistan lose track?
Pakistan lost the plot in their games surely, and all people in it are responsible for the loss. This includes Selectors, Captain, Coach, and the rest of the team. There is no doubt about this. And a defeat is a national concern. Thumbs Down.
2. Is a defeat a national concern?
A defeat is a national concern, and fans are known to go berserk all over the world after defeats in popular sports, especially when any team loses easy matches or loses to unworthy (percieved) opponents. This usually happens after World Cup matches or important championships. Surely, a defeat is a national concern - no doubt about it. But it is surely, not a matter of Shame!! Thumbs Up.
3. Is Media's role reasonable?
Media's role changeover from reporting to driving is a major cause of concern. The 4 pillars of a democracy are Government, Defence/ Military/ Police, Justice and Media. They play important roles in Governing / Managing, Protecting, Redeeming, and Reporting. However media is trying to play each of the 4 functions to some extent and is especially to provide instant justice. The reporting has become more opinionated than ever. Media should keep analyzing individual player performances and but leave suggestions to improve out of their ambit (especially blame fixing), and leave that to the Captain Coach and Selectors. Thumbs Down.
4. Is the unruly crowd at player's homes behavior correct?
Just like the media role, the extension of public into the personal life is unacceptable. However, this behavior derives from high media attention given to players, and targetted rundown of individual players by the same media creates confusing signals in the society which are exploited by political parties. It is for individuals not only to abstain from participating in such activities but to counter such activities through writing or intervention. And never to vote for people involved in such events. Thumbs Down.
5. What do political parties have to gain from this?
Political parties use these events as nurseries to nuture future leaders (sic). It is sick but true that these kind of people are future leaders, or conversely, most of the current leaders have been through this behavior. It is tough to accept that our leaders are also part of this, but it is true. Such events also come as a shot in arms for opposition parties, since cricket defeats can also be portrayed to magnify government failure is other areas. Rot is thus set. Thumbs Down.
6. Why did Woolmer die?
Whatever the cause of death, personal, professional or third party, it is definate that the pressure on him was immense, and after a certain limit, the physical pressure bearing capacity of the body becomes important, however tough your mind is. That's where age, physical health and surely mental conflict come into play. And historical tensions pile up e.g. fate dealt him bad blows 3 times in the world cups - Twice for the Soth Africa team and now for the Pakistan Team. Woolmer's physical capacity to bear jolts must be going down with each unexpected result.
Facing charged crowds in Pakistan and India is a tough task and it was eventual that Woolmer and Inzamam would have to go back and face the crowd (actually you have to face the media more than the crowd and media tries to infuriate the crowd). This is a major factor. Thumbs Down.
7. Does this affect the teams and players?
Yes, the high pressure gets into the teams and the play style turns defensive, which is not the way the game is to be played. You cannot play to avoid defeat, and Victory is not equivalent to avoiding defeat! A person playing to avoid defeat has already lost the match/ battle in his mind. There is only one way out - Media should please stop getting into the role of Captain, coach or Selector. They should concentrate on reporting. Thumbs Down.
Read more like this at onedayers.com
ODI Cricket Strategy - Substitutions in future cricket one day
Cricket does not allow full substitutions though it is a long game, whereas Soccer or Hockey or even Basketball allow substitutions. Being a team game, it is a game of strategy, and being long it depends on continual physical endurance of all eleven players. A new rule was experimented in 2006 however, it is presently not in play. It allowed for a Captain to name a super-substitute before the toss and call the super-susbtitute in the second innings. This rule favours the team winning the toss, which gives a second advantage to the team winning the toss, besides the toss itself.
Cricket does allow for a fielder to come in for another player but in that case both the players are handicapped, the player coming in cannot bat or bowl or keep wickets, whereas the player going out cannot also do the same immediately on coming back. This affects the ability of Captain to really strategize and make unique game plans.
Also, in cricket players need an excuse to go out, and it becomes a matter of debate whereas running substitutions in hockey allow for the coach to strategize and keep important players back to allow them to gain strength for the finish.
What then could be the possible recourse?
There are many possiblities:
Cricket does allow for a fielder to come in for another player but in that case both the players are handicapped, the player coming in cannot bat or bowl or keep wickets, whereas the player going out cannot also do the same immediately on coming back. This affects the ability of Captain to really strategize and make unique game plans.
Also, in cricket players need an excuse to go out, and it becomes a matter of debate whereas running substitutions in hockey allow for the coach to strategize and keep important players back to allow them to gain strength for the finish.
What then could be the possible recourse?
There are many possiblities:
- 1. Allow captains to name super-substitutes after the toss and decision.
2. Allow players to go in and out of a team of 14 and only 11 take field. Captains would need to name the batsmen at the start of batting (an interesting angle would be to restrict the total number of batsmen to 8), and declare bowlers at the start of bowling (again the number of bowlers to be restricted to 6)
3. Like bowlers, batsmen could be called midway of his innings and sent back later. This would allow captains to seed stablizers if there is a sudden collapse and to seed blasters if there is no acceleration happening. This would make for interest strategy, though it'd be a statistician's nightmare (but games are made for spectators not statisticians)
4. Coaches can be allowed access to Captains (and vice versa) midways so that strategizing makes the game more attractive. It may be recalled that Bob Woolmer presumed that this is perfectly ok before Hansie Cronje's ear piece was discovered!
ODI Cricket Strategy - Rolling Substitutions
Greg Chappel tried rolling substitutions to some extent but got bogged down by big names. Substitutions have come to stay and teams that manage to susbtitute and preserve key people would go a longer way to win a higher percentage of matches than teams who play all key players in every match..
This was not what Greg did. Greg tried to keep changing players for undecided spots, which is a very different strategy than rolling all people to keep them healthy as well as leave a strong bench strenth.
In fact he rolled those non key people even after they performed and key people were not disturbed even when they didn't perform at all. In fact, only the form should be the criteria to get into the team. And inf act some cricketers didn't get enough chances despite some success, like Gambhir, Mongia, Sreesanth, Balaji, and Irfan Pathan (who should've played even on the basis of just his batting).
A possible strategy could be:
This was not what Greg did. Greg tried to keep changing players for undecided spots, which is a very different strategy than rolling all people to keep them healthy as well as leave a strong bench strenth.
In fact he rolled those non key people even after they performed and key people were not disturbed even when they didn't perform at all. In fact, only the form should be the criteria to get into the team. And inf act some cricketers didn't get enough chances despite some success, like Gambhir, Mongia, Sreesanth, Balaji, and Irfan Pathan (who should've played even on the basis of just his batting).
A possible strategy could be:
1. Play 5 batsmen and 5 bowlers. This could be 4-4-2-1 (batsman-bolwer-allrounder-keeper)
2. Send the best men forward (have you heard in hockey or football, if they protect their best men by keeping them behind). So Tendulkar and Ganguly should open (if Sehwag is kept out for some time).
3. Only successful cricketers can continue to play matches (more than 3), if their continuous average is 50 or they average 2 wickets per match or they get xyz points. As soon as this continuous string is broken, they are rested.
4. Rest all cricketers after every 3 matches for a match (success to be defined by a point system), and bring them back for another 3 matches (2 matches if unsuccessful earlier).
5. Cricketers who are unsuccessful after a set each of 3, 2 and 1 matches are to be dropped.
6. Point system to be clear to all, since transparency in selection makes it fair to everyone.
7. Similar point system in the Domestic cricket makes it easy for cricketers to get selected, and not be dependent on selector's whims and fancies.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
