Fitting the pieces of the puzzle together: I-League, ISL and national soccer

Ask any Indian sports lover if he or she follows soccer and the answer almost always is an unequivocal ‘Yes’.

The Indian soccer fan is well aware of what’s happening in the world of soccer and follows European club soccer with a passion that’s drawing foreign clubs to form local fan clubs and try to tap local talent and markets.

But query the same Indian fan whether he or she knows what’s happening in Indian soccer and they will reward you with a blank stare.

The state of Indian soccer has never been worse.

The Indian Super League that was launched with much fanfare last year promised to lift the sport out of its doldrums.

But it’s early days yet and it may take some time to see any real results.

As this writer sees it, for now, it attracts has-beens from Europe and South America who would probably have eked out the rest of their careers at their home-town clubs but have now been given a new lease of life—at least, for two months—by the lucre on offer in the ISL, salary caps notwithstanding.

Meanwhile, the I-League, which is the heartbeat of Indian soccer, languishes with teams threatening to pull out and the AIFF finding it hard to find replacements.

The national soccer team is not faring too well either.

They are ranked 155 in the world.  It is hard to believe that at one time—in Feb 1950—India were 8th in the standings.

The current side have yet to register a win in the Asian qualifiers, losing their three games so far.

The ISL promises glitz , glamour and riches for the Indian players on display. They are suddenly earning crores overnight.

But how far will it take the junior players? The established stars earn their moolah and rightly so.

The I-League can function as a feeder tourney but it’s dying out.

The I-League itself is a recent phenomenon re-launching the National Football League in a new avatar in 2007-08.

The first six seasons were dominated by Goan clubs.

Bengaluru FC sprung a surprise in 2014 and this year it was old warhorse Mohun Bagan that claimed the refurbished title.

The AIFF is considering merging the two tournaments, the ISL and the I-League.

A committee has been formed to look into the possibility and how it could be made to work.

That will be the subject of my next article. Till then…

Can Marin Cilic defend his US Open title?

Marin Cilic is in the semis of the US Open once more.

Last year, he won his maiden Slam knocking out Asian hope Kei Nishikori in the process under the watchful eye and tutelage of his countryman Goran Ivanisevic.

Tennis fans all remember Goran not just for his histrionics on court, his big booming serves but also for the fairy-tale ending to his career where he won his first and only Grand Slam at Wimbledon in 2001 after succumbing at his earlier two final appearances at the sport’s Mecca.

Cilic has been plagued with a shoulder injury this season. He missed out on the Australian Open and has had indifferent results—by his newly exalted standards—losing in the fourth round and quarter-finals at the French Open and Wimbledon respectively.

The Croat has flown under the radar at his Grand Slam homecoming in New York.

It’s always difficult returning from an injury.

No one knows that better than Cilic’s coach, Ivanisevic, who was unseeded at his maiden Grand Slam triumph, only playing with the benefit of a wild card.

But it’s Del Potro, another US Open winner, that similarities can be drawn with.

The 2009 US Open champion first suffered a left wrist injury in 2010.

He returned only after a nine-month break.

He was back to his best only in 2012 ending the year ranked No.7. He returned to the top 5 in 2013.

The recurrence of his wrist injury saw him missing out most of the 2014  season.

He returned briefly in 2015 but withdrew from the Australian Open with the injury flaring up again.

He has been operated since and is now rehabilitating.

Can Marin Cilic break the hoodoo?

Since 2003, except for Rafael Nadal and Roger Federer, no US Open champion has returned to claim the title.

The title has not been defended successfully since 2008 when Federer won the last of his US Open titles.

The singletons in the club—in terms of US Open titles in the modern era—include the likes of Arthur Ashe, Stan Smith,Ilie Năstase,Manuel Orantes, Guillermo Vilas,Mats Wilander,Boris Becker,Marat Safin,Lleyton Hewitt, Andy Roddick, Andy Murray and Novak Djokovic.

Cilic takes on a formidable foe in Novak in the semis. It could be either Federer or Wawrinka in the final. Interestingly, all the semi-finalists have at least one Slam to their credit. Wawrinka is the only one without a US Open title.

A trivial bit of trivia about Cilic is that he is yet to clinch an ATP 500 or Masters title.

It’s going to be a slug-fest. Sit back and enjoy the fireworks.

Can Stan Wawrinka make the US Open 2015 his third one-of-a-kind Slam?

Is Stan Wawrinka on the verge of yet another Grand Slam title?

The Swiss No. 2  just gets luckier and luckier.

This time, it’s Andy Murray, his prospective quarter-final opponent, who lost his legs against a fitter, smoother South African Kevin Anderson.

Wawrinka faces a much easier adversary in him.

Roger Federer is expected to be his antagonist in the semis should he get past the latest version of Richard Gasquet as the 17-time-champion quizzically put it.

This semi-final could be anyone’s. I give the edge to the younger man.

Novak Djokovic takes on on last year’s winner Marin Cilic in the other semi-final.

Should Djokovic win, he should be odds-on favourite to clinch another Grand Slam and repeat the kind of success he had in 2011.

Should Cilic win , Wawrinka would have a much better chance of winning the third Slam of his charmed, revived career.

Can he? Will he? The tennis Gods will let us know—very soon indeed.

Dahi handi now a safer adventure sport

Dahi-handi is now an adventure sport.

What’s new about that, you say?

We all knew it’s dangerous. Only reckless idiots would try to shatter an earthen pot five to six storeys above the ground without a safety net.

That is the point the state government apparently is trying to make.

Celebrations of the birth of the Hindu deity, Krishna, have to be tempered.

School-going children and college youth are not to be made victims of the dangerous stunts pulled by teams in competitions for prizes and money.

The sport will be regulated.

Human pyramids will adhere to strict standards and guidelines.

No kids under 12. Kids aged 12-15 will need their parents’ permission.

The rules apply to every pyramid that has more than four tiers.

Govinda troupes have to register themselves, impart proper training, hold demonstrations and institute certificates and awards.

Medical treatment is to be provided if a participant is injured. Foam mattresses, harnesses, and guards for knees, chest and head are to be put to effective use. And Govindas are  to be insured.

The sport is now permitted throughout the year given its ‘adventure’  status.

The new rules and regulations have dampened many organizers’ enthusiasm.

One of the reasons is that it is also a religious activity and with the accompanying frenzy that ensues means that mandals  pay scant attention to the organizers and the rules of the game.

The Bombay High Court previously restricted the height of pyramids to 20 feet; this implies that since each layer is about five feet, only four layers are practical under this ruling.

The festival has many competitions happening all over the city and state with prize money running into lakhs of rupees. Bollywood stars are often attractions at these mandals.

Mumbai celebrated Janmashtami last Sunday. The number of injuries were drastically reduced this year, falling from 300 to 130. Only 12 were seriously injured compared to 29 last year.

There was only one fatality this year.

Ben Stokes no fury at his obstructive dismissal

Was it obstruction or was it self-defence?

Was it deliberate or was it instinctive?

Preservation of one’s self is an instinctive response in any living creäture.

Was Ben Stokes any different?

There is no one way to decide it—it all depends on which side you’re rooting for.

The third umpire’s decision is final. And Joe Wilson adjudged the left-hander out.

And that’s how it should have stayed.

Sure, Stokes was the first English batsman to be dismissed in such a fashion in an ODI.

Sure, he was only the seventh batter in cricketing history to be kayoed so cruelly.

Sure, to be run-out is the unhappiest and unlikeliest  way any cricketer expects or wishes to be dismissed and to be considered wilful in obstructing the natural course of a game is worse.

The opposing skippers have their viewpoints.

Steve Smith called for a referral after appealing and has no qualms about his decision. He will not be losing any sleep over it.

Smith said:

“If you’re out of your crease and put your hand up to stop the ball, it’s out.

It might have looked a bit worse because it went back to the bowler, but it’s exactly the same as me turning for a second run, putting my arm out and stopping the ball.

The ball wasn’t going to hit him, he was out of his crease, he put his arm out and got in the way of the ball. The ball was going very close to hitting the stumps.

If you read the rule book, we’re well within our rights to appeal and the umpires have given it out.

Not at all. I’ve got no dramas with that (his decision to appeal).

I thought it was the right decision at the time and I still think it’s the right decision.”

The English were united in deriding Smith’s characterisation of his act.

English skipper, Eoin Morgan, said:

“A guy throws the ball in your direction and all you can do is flinch.

You don’t have time to think. It was a natural reaction to avoid the ball. Mitchell Starc was about five yards away from Ben Stokes.

The decision was made. It would have been a lot different if we were fielding.”

(Would it, Morgan, would it, really? Easier said than done, Eoin, easier said than done.)

Michael Vaughan said :

“Anyone who has played the game knows that when the ball is thrown at you from close range like that you put your hand up to protect yourself. When you see it in real time he fears the ball is going to hit him. It was obvious. It was a poor decision.”

Alec Stewart added:

“He was taking evasive action; he’s looking the other way. Show me someone who can catch the ball looking the other way?

You would have thought between the three umpires that common sense would have prevailed.”

Shane Warne was not quite rooting for Smith and his side.

Law 37 (Obstructing the field) states quite categorically:

“1. Out Obstructing the field

Either batsman is out Obstructing the field if he wilfully attempts to obstruct or distract the fielding side by word or action.  In particular, but not solely, it shall be regarded as obstruction and either batsman will be out Obstructing the field if while the ball is in play and after the striker has completed the act of playing the ball, as defined in Law 33.1, he wilfully strikes the ball with

(i) a hand not holding the bat, unless this is in order to avoid injury.  See also Law 33.2 (Not out Handled the ball).

(ii) any other part of his person or with his bat.  See also Law 34 (Hit the ball twice).

2. Accidental obstruction

It is for either umpire to decide whether any obstruction or distraction is wilful or not.  He shall consult the other umpire if he has any doubt.”

Stokes himself is not chuffed about the manner of his exit.

https://twitter.com/benstokes38/status/640486910402654208

Team-mate, Steve Finn, was quite vocal with his antipathy.

He said:

“I think everyone in the dressing room, when we saw it in real time, we all thought he was taking evasive action. When you watch it in slo-mo, the fielding team were entitled to appeal if you’re going by the letter of the game. The fact that it was in slow-motion didn’t help Ben’s cause.

How often does the bowler feign to throw the ball but doesn’t actually do it? But this time he did let the ball go and, by the time you realise the bowler has actually let the ball go, then first and foremost you’re worried for your safety rather than worrying about where your stumps are.

Everyone in the dressing room was disappointed but I don’t think the game was won or lost at that moment. In the dressing room, we weren’t overly happy.”

If there was any doubt in Smith’s mind about the mode of dismissal, he should have retracted his appeal and let the game continue. This would have been within the ambit of the Spirit of the Game. He need not have looked further than former India Test skipper MS Dhoni and his recent magnanimity in rescinding his appeal against Ian Bell’s dismissal for walking out for tea before the bails were whipped off by the on-field umpires. But I guess, no one, least of all Steven Smith, wishes to be termed a sucker in this ultra-competitive day and age.

Michael Mandelbaum: An understanding of the experiences of team sports

The Meaning of Sports

What is the meaning of sports? Why do they mean so much to us?

Why do you and I invest so much time, money and emotional energy in following them?

These are some of the questions Michael Mandelbaum attempts to answer in his book, ‘The Meaning of Sports: Why Americans Watch Baseball, Football, and Basketball and What They See When They Do.’

Mandelbaum’s publication is divided into four chapters, three of which devote themselves to each of the team sports that dominate the American hemisphere. The first chapter deals exclusively with the questions outlined at the beginning of this article.

I have attempted to present a synopsis of this segment of this work.

Team Sports

According to Mandelbaum, baseball, basketball and football are modern creations.

Team sports have become popular as childhoods have grown lengthier in the modern age. Children no longer help out in farms and at work and thus have more leisure time than earlier. Childhood is now the most enjoyable phase of an individual’s life and it is nostalgia for a pleasant, carefree time of life that sustains interest in games into adult lives.

Schools have taken over from hearth and home when it comes to teaching skills that need to be used in the workforce. It is also the institution where organized  games are first encountered.

The growth of American cities are crucial in the rise of team sports.

The transport revolution made these sports a national phenomenon. This also led to  a series of similar formats and uniform standards given expectations of similar quality.

Sports and Organized Religion

Mandelbaum compares sports to organized religion.

Because they share the following features:

1. They address needs of the spirit and psyche rather than those of the flesh.
2. They don’t bear directly on basic needs namely food and shelter.
3. They are outside the working world.
4. They are a welcome diversion from the routines of daily life, models of coherence and clarity and have heroic examples to admire and emulate.

Drama and Coherence

Sport is a way of ‘disporting’ i.e. diverting oneself.

Human being need to be diverted from the wears and cares of modern life.

We seek diversion in staged drama.

Drama is simply tension and its release, that is, uncertainty ultimately relieved by a definite conclusion.

Sports provide audiences compelling drama.

Outcomes are unknown—for both individual games and the season.

Team sports are epics. Their protagonists overcome a series of challenges to meet their ultimate goals.

Coherence is another basic human need.

All cultures seek order and intelligibility.

Team sports is a low or “mass” form of art accessible to the majority of society. They are supremely coherent. They provide a haven from the vagaries of modern life.

Games are models of coherence.

They are transparent and they are definitive.

Hence, their appeal.

Sports and Hollywood

Team sports have evolved much like Hollywood.

At first, the major production companies were all-powerful. They decided which movies were to be made and who would feature in them.

Now, it is the actors who are arbitrators. They rule tinsel town and command astronomical fees.

Similarly, team owners were omnipotent—at first. But now, players rule the roost and decide which sides they turn out for.

Labor in movies and sports cannot be readily replaced. The best performers enjoy enormous leverage. The public pays to watch them.

Sports stars, unlike movie stars, are real and spontaneous. Sports supplies heroes.

Heroes are objects of admiration and emulation. They can be exceptions or exemplars. The latter embody virtues that everyone can aspire to and everybody can practice.

Sports stars are both.

Extraordinary mortals yet role models.

They display diligence and performance under pressure.

These are qualities much suited to the modern world. Who wouldn’t want to be described as diligent and yet graceful under fire?

Sports stars, however, possess a narrow range of skills. They are specialists—outstanding ones.

Equality and Competition in Sports

America is a democratic country.

Costumes (uniforms) worn by participants reflect its social egalitarianism. They express equality.

Team sports also express the principle of merit.

No side begins with an advantage. The score is always 0-0 at the start.

Preference is for achieved status.

Team sports is a division of labour.

It has two main parts: Specialization and Interdependence.

No player can win a game singlehandedly. Each team needs to cooperate within themselves.

Each game and each series also embody the opposite principle: Competition.

This is a parallel to modern life.

Everyone who works in an office or factory is a part of a team. These teams compete with other teams to survive and prosper in the marketplace.

Rule of Law

Rules are overridingly important in sports.

Rules, like laws, have three main properties:

1. Universality: they apply equally to all players and citizens.
2. Transparency: they are known to all.
3. Legitimacy: they are accepted as binding.

Referees and umpires are the equivalent of judges.

Clarity and simplicity of rules in these three sports distinguish them from individual sports such as diving, gymnastics, figure skating or even boxing. There is very little discretion applied by officials.

Questioning and protesting an official’s decision is actively discouraged. Players can be removed from games if they are felt to have transgressed a certain boundary.

The most serious attack on the integrity of the game is not when an individual or a team tries too hard to win but when a player or group of players deliberately set out to lose.

When a contest is ‘fixed’, its outcome pre-decided, it is no longer a game. Cheating is thus the ultimate sin. This is the reason why doping in athletes is met with virulent condemnation.

Equality and Merit

Equality of opportunity and merit are deeply ingrained in North Americans.

The US is more deeply committed to ensuring the wherewithal needed to take advantage of opportunities.

The amateur draft and salary cap are the mechanisms used in professional leagues to restrict the role of the free market and make teams more evenly matched on the field.

European societies, on the other hand, are more committed to equality of results i.e., draws or ties are more common in games like soccer, cricket and rugby.

Integration and Division

Overseas, identification with teams has a polarising effect.

You support one side and rail against the other.

Team sports reflect and aggravate social and political divisions.

Not so, in the States.

They are both sources of integration and division.

They promote social solidarity.

American team sports do not have international competitions. They are self-contained.

These games are barely played elsewhere.

There is very rarely violence visited on team competitions. If fights break out, they occur over high school games.

Geographic mobility is a part of an American’s life.

He or she will move for college education and jobs—several times in their lives.

So too sportspersons.

High school teams may have co-located players.

But colleges and professional sides draw upon persons from all over, even overseas.

Professional sports are also melting pots for various ethnic groups, much like the larger cities.

Sports is thus a microcosm of cosmopolitan America.

---

The above are similes and metaphors for why sports is so important to sports lovers and what it actually means to all of us. Some metaphors could apply to other societies as well. It would be interesting to compare the reasons why sports in gaining traction in India as an industry to its evolution in the States. The proliferation of leagues in multiple sports as vehicles to promote them and provide means of livelihood to many is a recent phenomenon. Are there more parallels than differences?

Some metaphors may resonate with you more than others. Some of them might make you think. Aloud.

I know it certainly struck a chord with me and opened my eyes as to how and why sports can be a way of uniting rather than dividing. Sports recognizes no class barriers—in theory.

I hope you enjoy reading this piece as much as I did Mandelbaum’s chapter. If you don’t, blame me and not Mandelbaum!

Waugh, Ponting and Holding toss away the coin

If Steve Waugh, Ricky Ponting and Michael Holding have their way, there will be no more commemorative coins to toss while celebrating special Test occasions.

Former Aussie skipper Ponting suggested—during the recent Ashes series—that the toss be done away with and have the visiting side choose which side should bat first. This would even out any advantage from pitches prepared to suit the home side.

Speaking to Melbourne Radio Station, Waugh said:

“I don’t mind that, I think that’s not such a bad thing. At the end of the day I think there’s probably too much emphasis placed on the toss and the conditions away from home. I don’t mind the authorities looking at some other options.”

Michael Holding, in his column for Wisden India, wrote:

“…the concerned authorities must look at what Ricky Ponting suggested – no more tosses. The minor setback there in my opinion, is that tosses are big for television. It makes for good tension, everyone is focussed on that coin when it’s in the air and the winning captain’s decision and so on. But that isn’t relevant now, times have changed and interest is waning in Test match cricket. What you need to do now is to make sure you have even contests between bat and ball. For that, there should be no toss and the visiting captain should be allowed to decide what he wants to do after inspecting the pitch. It’ll ensure better pitches throughout the world, because no one will look to build a pitch whose features are obvious, and which will give an immediate advantage to the visiting captain. They will try and prepare good quality surfaces that give no obvious advantage to anyone, which is what you want in Test matches. Some may say that policy will produce flat lifeless pitches with boring games. I disagree. You will still see a bit of ‘hometown’ pitches which suit the qualities of the home team more than the opposition, but the slant won’t be as dramatic as we tend to see in some countries now.”

In his previous post, the West Indian fast bowler elaborated on what makes a side great.

“Great teams can win home and away, and good teams will win at home. It’s as simple as that. I don’t personally see much wrong with that, to be honest. It comes down to how people classify them. Teams should only be qualified as ‘great’ only if they can perform all over the world, and can excel everywhere. If they don’t, they’re not a great team, and that’s fine.

I don’t think the boards should actively try and do something about making it even, you don’t need to say: ‘okay, we have to find a way of making sure teams can do well overseas’. On the contrary, talk to the individuals, the players who are actually playing and performing, and see what necessary adjustments should be done for them to be successful when they leave their homes. There is nothing wrong with people failing away from home as far as world cricket is concerned. I don’t think they should try and make an adjustment. If you can, you can. If you’re not good enough, you’re just not good enough.

Having said that, when you go to some countries, the pitches are prepared in such a way that they are highly in favour of the home team. And I’m talking about even going to some parts of the subcontinent, in India, for instance, where you find – not necessarily now, but quite a few years ago – pitches that turn from day one. It didn’t matter who was touring India, because they knew they had great spinners, and they would be brought into the game from day one.

In England, they changed the nature of the pitches altogether, because they recognised that without seaming pitches, they had no chance of beating Australia. As I said before, I don’t see it as a major factor when you say teams are better at home than overseas, but if you want to have consistent pitches in countries, then you have got to adapt the principle that Ricky Ponting suggested – get rid of the toss.

All you need is for the visiting team to look at the pitch and decide what they will do. Then you will always get consistent pitches, because if it’s too heavily favoured in one way or the other, then the visiting team can take advantage with their decision. That way you’ll get consistent pitches, but that doesn’t mean all of sudden touring sides will start winning away from home. They’ll get a better chance of winning, but at the same time, they’ll have to play well to win away from home, because you can’t change overhead conditions. The ball will still swing in England, and you’ll still need good technique to play there. But the pitches won’t be that heavily favoured to the home bowlers.”

Will the ICC look into the matter?

We don’t wish to see series everywhere decided by the toss and pitches suited to the home side.

We’d like to watch real contests and adaptable players, not bully boys who score by the tons and take wickets by the dozen in their backyards and come up a cropper elsewhere.

We need classy players and their class should be evident on all surfaces and in all conditions.

Take away the toss if that’s what’s needed.

Prepare sporting wickets if that’s what’s needed.

Make curators more independent if that’s what’s needed.

Do whatever that’s needed.

Just don’t let Test cricket die.

Yoga is now a national priority sport. Can it go international?

Call it ‘yogic karma’ or ‘just desserts’ but yoga is now a sports discipline in the ‘priority’ category.

The sports ministry is to make yoga a ‘sports event’.

The Yoga Federation of India, recognised by the Indian Olympic Association , is the main beneficiary of this extraordinary decision by the Narendra Modi sarkar.

Aims and objectives of the Yoga Federation:

• To promote, encourage, popularize, standardize and supervise Yoga in the Country.
• To encourage the formation of State Yoga Associations in the country.
• To arrange and supervise the Yoga Championships, Camps, Seminars and other Contests.
• To arrange, regulate and if necessary finance visits of the National Yoga Team in Asian Yoga Championship and World Yoga Championship. .
• To arrange, regulate and if necessary finance visits of the National Yoga team.
• To perform all such others acts as may seem to the Federation to be relevant and conducive to the attainment of the aims/objectives of the Federation.

Interestingly, yoga does not meet any of the criteria of being a priority. A discipline has to be a part of the Olympics, Asian or Commonwealth games to fall under this listing.

Yoga may now be included in the National Games.

Onkar Kedia, Joint Secretary in Sports Ministry, denied that the move was on communal lines.

He said:

“It’s a tradition. People across the religion have been practising Yoga. It’s high time that Yoga is seen as sport.”

Yoga Federation of India (YFI) secretary general, Ashok Kumar Aggarwal, was jubilant.

He said:

“Winners in national and zonal championships will get grace marks. With the ministry including it as a sport, yoga practitioners will benefit as they will become eligible for jobs under sports quota. We are eying an Olympic entry in the near future. We have asked the national federations to liaise with their respective Olympic associations to push for the inclusion of yoga in the Olympics.”

The YFI conducts National Yoga Championships in the following four events every year:

1. National Yogasana Competition
2. National Artistic Yoga Competition
3. National Artistic Pair Yoga Competition
4. National Rhythmic Yoga Competition.

As per the YFI website, the following is the description of the above events:

Artistic Yoga consists of presentation of various asanas by male/female including forward and backward bending, balancing, supine and prone lying, sitting postures etc. performed in all four directions with music. It is synchronization of body movement with music (without break).

Artistic Yoga Pair consists of presentation of various asanas including forward and backward bending, balancing, supine and prone lying, sitting postures etc. of competitors choice including pyramid making, performed in all four directions with music.

The pair will consist of either both the girls or both the boys or a boy and a girl.

Both the participants will perform, two different postures at a time. Performing same postures will be a disqualification.

The number of postures performed shall be 8-10 of competitors choice.

Body touch is allowed in the competition.

Making of pyramid will be given preference.

Synchronization of body movements with music will be given preference.

Time duration for the presentation will be 120 – 150 seconds.

Rhythmic Yoga is known as pair yoga. The pair may consists of either both the boys or both the girls.

Rhythmic Yoga is the presentation of various asanas to be performed in all four directions.

The pair should perform the same postures together.

Body touch between two participants is not allowed.

There should be perfect synchronization of body movements with the music.

---

With yoga a sport and no longer merely a form of exercise, can we expect a Yoga Team League soon for television audiences?

Ishant Sharma: Angry and suspended but still his skipper Kohli’s delight

Ishant Sharma is earning both plaudits and criticism.

If the bouquets are for his stirring performances with the ball, the brickbats are for the blatant aggression on the field that has not just seen him fined 65% of his match fee but also found him in violation the ICC’s Code of Conduct.

The new-found aggression and maturity (as a fast bowler) has not gone unnoticed.

Dilip “Colonel” Vengsarkar considers the lanky pacer his find.

He said:

“He has been bowling at good speeds, hitting the good length often and getting bounce because of his height and action.”

Amit Mishra had this to say about Ishant’s efforts with the ball in the first innings of the second Test.

“The way Ishant bowled with the new ball was important on a slow track. His effort in the heat, that spell set the game up for us.”

TA Sekhar, India fast bowling coach, said:

“Basically, he is bowling a good line and length. There is an increase in speed from what he used to bowl earlier. After starting (his career) by bowling 145 kmph, he reduced in pace. But now he has gained speed and touching 140. He is expect to give breakthroughs in the first spell with the new ball. Ishant has played a lot of Test matches but doesn’t have a great record. He lacks variation like what Zaheer Khan had and this is something that he has to start working on.”

Another former fast bowler, Chetan Sharma, believes that Ishant is a much improved player now.

He said:

“Ishant is bowling well. I was in Sri Lanka and I spoke to him for half-an-hour. He sounded a very mature fast bowler. There used to be shy bowlers who used to sneak past their seniors in order to avoid a talk with them, but not Ishant, who comes and speaks to you. And that tells you about his confidence. He understands what he is doing. And, he has the backing of a lot of talented youngsters like Varun Aaron, Umesh Yadav, Bhuvneshwar Kumar and (Mohammed) Shami. I don’t think there is a problem in the pace department. If a pacer can pick up 2-3 wickets on the sub-continent tracks, then I believe he has done his job.”

Fellow Delhiite, Ashish Nehra, was slightly back-handed with his compliments.

He said:

“I am a big fan of Umesh Yadav — talentwise even though he has not fulfilled his true potential as to what he should have achieved by now. He is somewhat similar to me but my case was more to do with injuries. Varun (Aaron) and Bhuvi (Bhuvneshwar Kumar) are also talented.
But Ishant Sharma, who has played 60 Test matches (62) is the least talented among them but one of the most hardworking guys around.
If Ishant has played so much and for so long, it is a testimony that talent alone can’t be the recipe for success. Talent can only take you till certain point but is nothing without hard work.”

If Nehra is right in that Ishant is the least talented among the current crop of pace men, then Indian cricket is blessed indeed.

Nehra spoke at length about Sharma.

Asked about his higher-than-normal strike rate, Nehra said:

“Look, there is a perception about Ishant. I agree his strike-rate is on the higher side but in last one year, he has taken five-fors in New Zealand and England. So he is improving. Don’t forget, he is only 27 and has already played 62 Tests because he started at 18. We should not put undue pressure on him and start saying ‘drop Ishant Sharma and get someone new’. What will happen if he is dropped? Nothing will happen. BCCI should just ensure that a fast bowler is given enough time and confidence to settle down. Dropping a bowler after one bad series can’t be a solution. A new fast bowler would take at least two series to just settle down.”

The Delhi bowler believes that fast bowlers do better when they enjoy the confidence of their skippers.

He added:

“Look the bottom line is, if you are bowling well, then you need nobody for help. But there will be times when even if you keep a deep point, the batsman will still hammer you. Then you have no option but to listen to your captain and bowl as per the field set by him. Michael Clarke was a great captain till last Ashes and today Alastair Cook has suddenly become a great captain. If you look at history of fast bowler-captain relationships — for example Sunil Gavaskar-Kapil Dev or Mohammed Azharuddin-Javagal Srinath, that has always been the case. When the going is good, nothing matters. Everything comes out when the performance level dips.”

Sharma seems to have no such problems on this score with his current leader, Virat Kohli.

Scribes might have expected some censure from India’s fire-brand captain given that Sharma will now miss the first home Test against South Africa for his aggressive send-offs in the third Test and the war of words with opposition players.

Kohli, however, was unperturbed.

He said:

“I was very happy with the incident (argument with Prasad) when he was batting. It happened at the right time for us because we had to bowl on Monday and they made him angry. It could not have happened at a better time for us And the way he (Ishant) bowled in the second innings, he didn’t concede a boundary for 19 overs. That’s the kind of pressure he created on those batsmen because of one incident. He bowled his heart out like he has always done when the Indian team has needed to defend scores in Test matches.An angry fast bowler is a captain’s delight. I was really happy to see what happened yesterday and it switched some things on in the right ways. It had to be controlled but in the end it benefitted us.”

The spring in the step is back and very much evident. After two hard-fought series in England and Australia where the Indians came off second-best, they appeared a much more hardy bunch in Sri Lanka. The score-line could very well have read 3-0 instead of 2-1 if the Indians had plugged away as they did in the last two Tests. It is a team sport and moments of personal brilliance and stellar performances can at most win you a Test or two. It takes consistent togetherness and toughness to pull through a gruelling series.

South Africa at home will be the real Test. Can Team India do an encore?

Usain Bolt and Justin Gatlin: Contrasting styles and paths

Usain Bolt is a freak of nature.

Usain Bolt is a force of nature.

The Jamaican claimed his 11th World Championship gold in four appearances in the 4 X 100m relay in his trademarked style.

Is there a greater sprinter in the history of the sport? More dominant, bigger, cleaner?

He was expected to be given a run for his money by his resurgent American rival, Justin Gatlin.

Just one-hundredth of a second separated the two in the 100 metres.

But the 200 was all Usain. It’s his favourite event and we all saw why.

The Bird’s Nest had seen the eagle land and his name was Bolt.

He said:

“People pretty much counted me out this season. They said, ‘He’s not going to make it. That’s it for him.’ I came out and proved you can never count Usain Bolt out. I’m a champion, and I’ll show up when it matters.”

It took a runaway Segway steered by an errant cameraman to trip this phenomenon.

What will it take to beat Bolt?

You can’t catch up with him, that’s for sure.

Gatlin said:

“What will it take? It will take staying in front. That’s what it’s going to take.”

And to think that this is his worst year yet.

Gatlin was hoping for redemption for his fall from grace, having been banned for doping.

It was and it wasn’t. The better man won.

It wasn’t for lack of trying.

However, the paying public or the online denizens would not have anything of it. There was no substance behind the portrayal of Gatlin as the ‘villain’ of the showpiece.

The American had paid for his folly. And he was back to prove that he could run—clean—and win.

Bolt spoke of retiring after the Rio Olympics next year.

The newly crowned IAAF chief, Sebastian Coe, was quick to lament the announcement.

He said:

“I do sort of feel that I’m in sort of 1960s, 1970s time warp. It’s the kind of conversation that was probably taking place in boxing at that time as to what happens after Muhammad Ali retires. Well, after Muhammad Ali, Marvin Hagler happens. After Muhammad Ali, (Thomas) Hearns happen, Sugar Ray Leonard, (Floyd) Mayweather. It happens.Yes, what we have to concede, and what I believe is that I don’t think any athlete, any sportsman or woman since Muhammad Ali has captured the public imagination and propelled their sport as quickly and as far as Usain Bolt has. The Usain Bolts of this world will not come along on a conveyor belt . We do need to make sure people understand we have extraordinary talent, which we’ve witnessed in Beijing. We shouldn’t be concerned because we have a sport that is adorned by some of the most outrageously superhuman, talented people in any sport. Our challenge is to make sure the public know there are other athletes in out sport.”

Spare a thought for Gatlin, the vilified.

His lack of contrition is held against him as against Bolt’s lack of arrogance.

Gatlin’s agent, Renaldo Nehemiah, says:

“When people say he never apologised, I say: ‘You haven’t done your homework.’ And the IAAF, who know this, have never come out and said anything, which I am very sad about. Justin has apologised. What is he supposed to do, go to every country and say sorry?”

I have always said to Usada and Wada: ‘Come and test us, day or night’. That’s all we can do, make ourselves available and, if that’s not good enough for people, that’s just the world we live in.

In the last few years Justin has focused on getting his weight right and getting his technique on where it needed to be and starting to run more efficiently. We don’t know with certainty anyone, who hasn’t tested positive, is not doing anything. The good thing about our testing is that it does catch people. Justin Gatlin did get caught doping. That is a fact. So we do catch people and I am happy about that.”

Justin is very charming, personable and bright. But at some point you have to back away. He said: ‘I can’t be beat down by this every single day. I came here to run, this is not fun for me.’ So I told him: ‘If anyone is going to continue to talk about the past, let’s not talk to them.’”

Gatlin admits he was a drug cheat but he’s also a human being:

“Obviously I am the most criticised athlete in track and field but at the end of the day I am a runner and that’s all I can be.”

Gatlin has now gone public about his multiple apologies in the past for his mistakes.

In one of his letters addressed to IAAF’s then president, Lamine Diack, and his senior vice-president, Sergey Bubka, he wrote:

“I am sincerely remorseful and it continues to be my mission to be a positive role model mentoring to athletes to avoid the dangers and public and personal humiliation of doping. And the harm it brings to the sport of athletics.”

I have cooperated fully with the United States federal investigation to clean up our sport of track and field working towards it becoming drug free.”

Bolt may be clean but he’s hardly your typical sprinter.

He’s blessed with twitch fibres much like other sprinters but he’s also a huge man. His large strides lend him an advantage that’s hard to overcome once he hits his paces.

He’s no lumbering mountain man; he’s the biggest, fastest man on the planet.

He’s a freak of nature. And it’s more than likely that it will need another anomalous human being to break his existing records.

Is that possible? Or is it possible, even feasible, that gene therapy and its mutations are the way forward in games that require superhuman efforts to be ‘Higher, Faster, Stronger’?

Go figure.

Share this:

• Email
• Tumblr
• Facebook
• WhatsApp
• Reddit
• Telegram
• LinkedIn
• X
• Print
• Pinterest
• Pocket

Like Loading...