cricket

Mahendra Singh Dhoni and Neymar are rapped for being ‘bad boys’

Mahendra Singh Dhoni at Adelaide Oval (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Two captains hit the headlines for being participants in fractious misdemeanors on the field.

Both have been punished for their transgressions.

The Indian ODI and T20 skipper Mahendra Singh Dhoni collided with Bangladeshi fast bowler Mustafizur Rahman  during the first one-day in Mirpur. Dhoni was docked 75% of his match fee and Mustafizur 50% of his.

At the Copa America in a crucial group encounter against Colombia, Brazilian star forward Neymar laid into his nemesis Camilo Zuniga for being physical with him.

Neymar shouted:

“Camilo! Camilo! Thanks a lot! Bet you’ll call me after to say sorry. Son of a b****.”

Zuniga was the man who knocked the Selecao skipper out of the 2014 World Cup with an ill-advised tackle that could have crippled Neymar prematurely ending his soccer career.

Brazil succumbed 0-1 in an ill-tempered game and Neymar vented his frustration by aiming a headbutt at at goal-scorer Jeison Murillo when the match ended.

Neymar has been provisionally suspended and received a red card for his trouble.

Violence and bad behavior have always been a part of sport. More so, professional sport.

No one likes losing. And particularly so no one likes losing after giving what they believe to be their best. Let none   tell you otherwise.

More so when it is what they do for a living.

And the perceived injustice is worse when the gladiators feel that they are not in control.

That certainly seems to be case with Neymar with the star forward lashing out at the standard of refereeing in the ballgame.

Neymar said:

“They have to use the rules against me. The ball hit me on the hand without any intention and I got a yellow. That’s what happens when you have a weak referee. I only lose my rag when officials don’t do their jobs. There was a melee, but he didn’t need to send everyone off.”

MS Dhoni, on the other hand, is the epitome of cool. He is said to have nerves of steel.

That the Indian skipper was party to an unsavory incident where he appears to be the aggressor is strange indeed.

Mahendra Singh Dhoni and Mustafizur Rahman were found guilty under Article 2.2.4 of the ICC Code of Conduct, which penalizes “inappropriate and deliberate physical contact between players in the course of play during an international match“.

Match referee Andy Pycroft said:

“In the hearing, Dhoni defended the charge on the basis that the bowler was on the wrong line and realising that he couldn’t avoid the collision, he used his hand and arm to push him away as he went through to ‘minimise the impact. However, my assessment was that Dhoni deliberately pushed and shouldered Mustafizur, which was inappropriate.

Even if there was a narrow gap between the runner [Raina] and the bowler, an experienced Dhoni should have tried to avoid the collision as cricket is a non-contact sport and the players are expected to avoid physical contact at all times. On this basis, I fined Dhoni 75% of his match fee”.

Dhoni’s experience was a crucial factor in the adverse decision. His adversary, on the other hand, was making his debut.

Dhoni said:

“The bowler (Mustafizur) thought I would move away while I thought he would. But as none of us did, we collided. This can happen in any match. It’s nothing big. I spoke to him later.”

The Indian skipper’s explanation is specious.

Some sections of the media believe that Virat Kohli should be handed over the reins in all formats of the game. Mohinder Amarnath, in particular, believes that Kohli brings a refreshing approach to the game and it is time a young Indian side are led by one of their own.

Is the pressure telling on the man from Jharkhand?

Or is this a mere aberration?

Time, and results, will tell.

Is Lalit Modi Sushma Swaraj’s Achilles heel?

Lalit Modi is in the news once more.

Indian cricket administration’s enfant terrible has snagged yet another victim.

This time, it’s External Affairs minister Sushma Swaraj.

 Sushma Swaraj 

Swaraj finds herself embroiled in a conflict of interest.

The minister championed Lalit Modi’s cause requesting the British government to let Modi to travel to Portugal to visit his ailing wife citing ‘humanitarian‘ grounds.

Whether the minister was in the right is debatable. But she was clearly in the wrong in acting for Modi because her daughter is on Lalit Modi’s legal defense team. So is her husband (Swaraj’s son-in-law).

Shashi Tharoor 

The last time, the UPA was in power, Shashi Tharoor—coincidentally Minister of State for External Affairs—had to resign his seat because of similar conflict of interest allegations. His then wife (now deceased) Sunanda Pushkar was an interested party in the forming of the Kochi Tuskers (now defunct) franchise.

What is it about Indian politicians and conflict of interest situations?

Is it time our politicians were made to undergo an induction training session where a conflict of interest situation is made clear to them?

Are these high-profile names merely the tip of the iceberg and simply anything goes in Indian politics where non-transparency is the norm?

It will be interesting to see how Prime Minister Narendra Modi handles the first real blemish on his government’s record. Will the NDA emulate the UPA and ask Sushma Swaraj to resign? Or will it be simply a case of ‘I dare you to prove otherwise.‘?

Virat Kohli’s ‘six batsmen, five bowlers’ theory nice, dicey in practice

English: virat kohli (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Virat Kohli is avowedly a proponent of the “six batsmen, five bowlers” theory in Test cricket.

The dynamic India Test skipper believes that it is the only way to win games and be aggressive.

In theory, it is a wonderful ploy. Six batsmen should be able to get the team the desired runs on the scoreboard. Five specialist bowlers ought to be able to bowl out the opposition and restrict them if required. This would also decrease the load on the fast bowlers, especially the Indian ones who seem to lack the legs to come charging in at the end of the day when the new ball is available. Bowling 18 overs in a day is somewhat more palatable.

Kohli says:

“I would want someone like R Ashwin, who is averaging 40 with the bat in Test matches – you really can’t ask for more from an allrounder – and someone like Harbhajan Singh to step up with the bat, and [Wriddhiman] Saha too. If those three start clicking, you literally have eight batsmen, and you can’t really ask for more as a captain. It’s basically up to the first six to take more responsibility and we are confident of doing that.”

The above statement requires further analysis.

The stratagem, as stated, will execute just fine on sub-continental wickets. It is when India tours England, Australia, New Zealand and South Africa that the shortcomings become evident.

The team need batsmen who can exhibit patience, fortitude and technique abroad to counter the fast bowling threat. The nucleus of the side, thus, has to remain unchanged. I am not a fan of the ‘horses-for-courses‘ method of selecting the side.

Quicker, bouncier wickets would need Team India to play three or four pacers. Are any of these in the all-rounder mold? Except for Bhuvaneshwar Kumar and Irfan Pathan (perennially injured), none of the current lot inspire confidence.

Gone are the days when the likes of Madan Lal, Roger Binny and Manoj Prabhakar could be counted on to contribute 20-30 runs with the bat and two to three wickets with the ball.

Fast bowling all-rounders, as a breed, are almost extinct on the Indian cricketing scene while batsmen-wicketkeepers flourish aplenty.

Perhaps, the new Ranji regime where games are played on grassy pitches with steeper bounce will revive the species.

Perhaps.

Legends and Superstars: T20 cricket goes global

Sachin Tendulkar and Shane Warne have launched a Legends T20 Cricket League to be held in the USA in August-September.

Shah Rukh Khan has gone a step further and extended the Kolkata Knight Riders brand by buying Caribbean T20 team Trinidad & Tobago. Mark Wahlberg and Gerard Butler are other actor-owners of Barbados Tridents and  Jamaica Tallawahs respectively.

This confluence of acting and cricketing giants to promote the sport overseas is welcome.

The more the merrier.

Ageing superstars and retired cricketers have much more in common than their age. They enjoy a hold on their fans way past their expiry date.

The Legends T20 League will test this theory. More power to them.

English: Indian actor Shah Rukh Khan with family at premiere of Drona (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Voges and Chanderpaul: A matter of timing

Much has been made about Shivnarine Chanderpaul’s unceremonious ouster from the West Indian side. The veteran left-hander was left out from the Caribbean outfit for the series against Australia following a poor run of scores against England recently.

Was it the right thing to do? The southpaw is 40+ and is not getting any younger. Age should never be a criteria and rightly so. Form and class play an important role. Australia are a top side and playing an out-of-sorts Chanderpaul, however, would not have been fair to the rest of the side.

Sachin Tendulkar was given a farewell Test series by the BCCI against a weak West Indian side at Mumbai; he was able to go out on a relative high. Many would have preferred if the great had called it quits after the 2011 World Cup. The Master Blaster lingered on. It is a human failing fans have witnessed in so many wonderful sports persons. They do not know when to bid the game goodbye.

Ironically, the first Test saw the resurgence of a wonderfully talented Australian batsman Adam Voges making his Test debut at 35. Australian selectors are ruthless when cutting out-of-form or aging players to make room for younger champions.

Little credit is given to them for their bravery in choosing older players who would be considered journeymen in countries in India or Pakistan.

Thus, Matthew Hayden made a comeback at 32. Look where he finished!

Michael Hussey made the best of the chances that came his way the second time around.  Adam Voges is probably another of this breed. Team coach Darren Lehmann himself was a beneficiary of the selectors’ long memories.

Should Chanderpaul have played and contributed a ton à la Voges, he would have been lauded by one and all. But, alas, that is wishful thinking reflected upon by the mawkish.

Sports, like business, has no room for sentiment. Winning is serious business; so is modern sport.

From IPL 8 to French Open 2015

IPL 2015 is finished, over, done with. The champions have been crowned. The champions are Mumbai Indians.

Three teams have now won the IPL twice. Chennai Superkings (of course), Kolkata Knightriders and Mumbai Indians. The other winners are Rajasthan Royals and Deccan Chargers (now defunct).

Is Rohit Sharma, on the basis of IPL results, a better skipper than Virat Kohli? Has captaincy led to a new-found maturity in the cavalier—yet immensely talented—Mumbai batter? Is Sharma a better candidate to lead the Indian Test side?

Recall that Saurav Ganguly was appointed skipper only after Sachin Tendulkar refused the crown of thorns for the second (and final) time. The rest, as they say, is history.

Meanwhile, the French Open beckons with a tantalising glimpse of possibly history in the making.

Can Novak Djokovic become only the fourth man in the Open era to claim a career Grand Slam?

For once, Nadal does not ride into Paris as the overwhelming favourite on his favoured surface—clay.

The Mallorcan has feet of (well, you said it, not me) clay.

In the women’s draw, the top two contenders are Serena Williams and Maria Sharapova. Both have claimed career Grand Slams and Sharapova—interestingly—has two French Open titles; it is her least liked surface.

(My cable operator is not televising the French Open; it is not among the default options offered. So I guess I’ll be following it mainly via the net or the print media.)

Cheers!

IPL 2015: A big tamasha that could be better

Embed from Getty Images

Have you been following IPL 8?

Be truthful.

I haven’t.
Embed from Getty Images

It’s not that cricket doesn’t excite me or that watching Chris Gayle or AB DeVilliers clobber bowlers to all parts of the ground and beyond isn’t a thrilling spectacle.

It’s just that it’s no longer interesting, it’s no longer fun.

It’s a surfeit of instant cricket following closely on the heels of the 2015 World Cup.

Yes, the cheerleaders are pleasing to look at; so are Archana Vijay and Shibani Dandekar.

However, it’s simply the same old package with very little changing.

Ravi Shastri, former Indian cricketer. 4 Test series vs Australia at Adelaide Oval (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

The only positive change is the recruiting of former women cricketers as expert commentators.

I support Mumbai Indians.

But Rohit Sharma’s men simply don’t evoke the same passion that the Indian cricket team does.

What is the IPL then? A great Indian tamasha. Enjoy with bhel and popcorn and you won’t suffer from indigestion.

As for the genius who decided that the studio experts should have cheerleaders lauding their every soundbyte, he should have his head examined.

It’s obvious that advertisers have not deserted the Indian Premier League as yet.

But more of such hare-brained shenanigans and they surely will.

Kevin Pietersen sets in the West, rises in the East

Kevin Pietersen is wanted.

Kevin Pietersen is not wanted.

Rejected by the English and Wales Cricket Board (ECB), the South African born cricketer makes his way to India to turn out for the Sun Risers Hyderabad despite making his highest ever first-class score, a classy triple ton for Surrey.

The 34-year-old is piqued indeed.

He cannot bridge the ‘trust deficit’ with the new director of cricket Andrew Strauss.

Has he done all that’s required? Has he been punished enough for all his previous ‘misdemeanours‘. The English public rooting for him certainly believe so.

Is he worse than a convicted spot-fixer? Surely not.

That begets the question, “What is trust?”

Trust , my friend, is personal. And this decision , my cricketing friends, is personal.

English: England cricket Captain Kevin Pietersen at The Oval (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

ICC World Cup 2015: Australia are champions of the world

To tell you the truth, I did not really watch much of this World Cup’s final featuring Australia and New Zealand.

Switching on the telly after returning from morning Mass, with Brendon McCullum gone cheaply, it would be an uphill task for the Kiwis to compile a formidable total. Two more quick wickets followed and I switched off the set-top box.

For a partisan Indian supporter like me, the final held no thrills or attraction. Most World Cup finals have been one-sided affairs and there was no reason for me to believe otherwise.

Catching up with the morning news, Michael Clarke’s farewell announcing the final would be his ODI swansong caught my eyes.

“A World Cup victory would be a great way to sign off,” were my immediate thoughts. And I dwelled again on  the emotional eulogy he delivered at Philip Hughes’ funeral. Clarke will always have his share of detractors but that was the day he displayed how far he has travelled from being ‘Pup’ and the ‘Bad Boy’ of Australian cricket.

Noon and the Kiwis had folded up for 183. Despite Sunil Gavaskar’s vain attempts at drawing comparisons between the ’83 final and Sunday’s mismatch to keep viewer interest in the game alive, it was evident that barring a miracle the Australians were well on their way to being crowned five-time champions.

It was so, with Clark crafting a well-made 74.

Australians were world-beaters yet again.

ICC World Cup 2015: India versus Australia, What went wrong?

What went wrong with a team that came into the semi-finals undefeated, winning seven straight games in a row?

What can explain the abject display of this  Indian side once they came up against their bete-noire of the last five months? Was it another case of déjà vu?

First, the Australians scored 30-50 runs more than our batters could easily achieve. A score of around 280 was chaseable against their strong bowling attack. Once the Aussies went past the psychological barrier of 300, it was an uphill struggle. Dhoni missed a trick by not letting Umesh Yadav bowl the last over. He was the only one who looked like getting wickets in his final spell and a couple of wickets more could have restricted the Aussies to a less substantial total.

The loss of Shikhar Dhawan began the slide. The left-handed opener was looking good for yet another ton but threw it away in a moment of casual lassitude. Rohit Sharma has scored runs but all of his big scores have come against the lesser sides. The Mumbaikar once again failed to step up to the plate when it mattered. How different is this Sharma from the one who made his debut in 2007-08? Have the years left their scars?

Virat Kohli disappointed. And much as Dhoni tomtoms Ravindra Jadeja’s abilities with the bat, the ‘all-rounder’ has no business being in the side if he cannot average at least a decent 30—both at home and away. Sure, he has three triple centuries in domestic cricket but if that’s the reason he’s in the side, then he should be batting further up the order, not with the tail.

The Indians were probably looking at chasing 328 in chunks. A score of 100 in 20 overs, 200 in 35 and 260 in 40 (power play) would have left them chasing less than 70 in the final 10 overs. It was not to be.

Dhoni’s unwillingness to experiment against the minnows meant that the Indians went up against the Aussies with a closed mindset. What works all the time will fail some day. What then?

Indian fans have a lot to cheer about. At the outset, no one expected this side to travel this far. Winning the trophy would have had their cup of joy overflowing but it would not be a true reflection of the capabilities and form of this side.

Overall, a fair result.