Monthly Archives: August 2008

The world’s most prolific opening batsman -–Sunil Gavaskar, if he needs to be named -– was clear about what theIndian team needed to do to save the third Test match againstAustralia. It was a simple formula, designed to ensure that Indiawould salvage a draw, unmindful of the tall target that Australiawould set.”The wicket is playing true and I would take bed roll to the creaseand go to sleep,” he told STAR Sports’ Sportsline programme onThursday. “The batsmen should not allow the scoreboard to pressurethem and bat it out session by session. It is not impossible but canbe done.”Clearly, the Indian team, of which he is batting consultant, did nothear the simple advise. None of the fine batsmen who grace its ranksseemed anywhere near taking a bedroll to the crease and batting outsessions on Friday. Virender Sehwag was the exception among thespecialists, making the most of a dropped chance at 0 to rustle up ahalf-century.The other five batsmen, including the likes of skipper Rahul Dravid,Sachin Tendulkar and VVS Laxman -– names that the Australians respectand perhaps even fear –- contributed 14 runs to India’s secondinnings played a total of 51 deliveries among them. The tally of 8.3overs for the quintet represents just a shade over a quarter session.Many among the present generation may not even be aware that Gavaskarhad actually achieved that task memorably back in 1979 when India wasset a fourth innings target by England at the Oval in London. He madea patient 221, taking India tantalisingly close to victory.Of course, later in career, as captain of the Indian team Gavaskarcarried more clout, masterminding the preparation of flat tracks whenhe had Kapil Dev as his only match-winning bowler. It is somethingthat Sourav Ganguly was not able to achieve here, with the VidarbhaCricket Association offering a sporting track that pleased Australiaand tested India.Aakash Chopra, his confidence undermined in the past few months byevents beyond his control and by his own failures in the BangaloreTest, was bowled middle-stump through the gate and India’s hopes ofgetting off to a good start were quickly crushed. His defensive prodwas little more than a hopeful prod, a nothing shot.Among the Indians, Dravid is the best equipped to play long inningsbut he played the wrong line off just the sixth delivery he facedfrom Gillespie. The ball darted back enough to find the inside edgeand peg the leg-stump back. It was the second time in three inningsthat Dravid was being bowled off the inside edge.A firm drive through covers off Gillespie raised hopes thatTendulkar’s mental strength and determination would help him overcomerust. He has been through spells away from the game owing to injurybut he has not had to run into a committed bunch of bowlers in suchcomeback games.In the event, Tendulkar spooned a simple catch off Glenn McGrath togully, a shot the showed that shorn off the gift of timing even agreat batsman would be made to look ordinary. At 20 for three,India’s hopes of savinf the Test were as good as gone.The other half of the most famous partnership in Indian crickethistory, VVS Laxman, is another who has shown powers of concentrationbefore but not on Friday. His ambitious hook off Michael Kasprowicz’sfirst delivery found Glenn McGrath at long leg, the big Australiannot having to move to take the catch.Laxman’s scores of 31, 3, 4, 13 and 2 give him a total of 53 runs at10.60 runs an innings in the series, a far cry from the numbers hegrossed in the previous series against Australia. His woeful run ofscores places him among the prime candidates for exclusion from theside in the next series.Mohammed Kaif joined Tendulkar and Laxman in offering the Australianscatching practice. Sehwag’s half-century and his 65-run stand withParthiv Patel were only footnotes on a day on which the premierbatsmen had all let the team down badly.It has to be seen whom the selectors pick when India has only prideto play for in the final Test beginning on November 3 at the WankhedeStadium in Mumbai. The best that India had to offer floundered,crushing the hopes of millions who expected them to run Australiaclose.Nobody would have realistically expected India to chase the 543-runtarget but you could not grudge anyone if they hoped that the teamwould put up a fight, making Australia work for success. None wouldhave been unfair in expecting the India batsmen, renowned andrevered, to bat out sessions.Indeed, dreams of a well-fought series remained just that as theIndian batting decayed beyond recognition. Was the same bunch thathad done so well in Australia last season? Had it run out of steam somuch and its focus become so diffused that it lacked the spine toresist Australia’s drive for victory.Australia bowled India out for 200 to win the Nagpur Test by 342 runsand take an unassailable 2-0 lead with one more Test to play in theseries.

espnstar.com October 29, 2004

eam India’s inability to turn the corner in the ICC Champions Trophy tournament has provoked a variety of reactions but the one that has held my attention the most was the murmurs within the Board of Control for Cricket in India about the fee structure for the players.
“I firmly believe that our cricketers have to be made accountable and the only way to do it is to have a system where payments are based on performance. The better you work, the more you earn. It’s as simple as that. I am going to take this up seriously during the Board’s next meeting. Hopefully, we will have a system in place in which the players get paid according to their performances,” BCCI Vice-President Shashank Manohar was quoted as saying in The Times of India.
The report was headlined ‘Pay cut for cricketers who fail’ and was interpreted by many as a move to reduce the players’ pay. I wondered if a key member of the Board was indulging in populist methods after Team India had not delivered the goods at the ICC Champions Trophy or if the newspaper headline was a little misleading since the words pay cut did not appear in the report itself.
Be that as it may, I have never been one for a system of punishments and penalties but have always advocated the system of rewards. I believe that those who do not perform should be dropped from the squad. There can be no worse price that a player can pay for under-achieving than with his place in the team.
Not too many noticed an attempt by BCCI Secretary Niranjan Shah to clarify the position when he said the match fees for the players was likely to remain the same. “A lot of Board members feel that performance-linked bonus payments should be introduced that will be disbursed among the various players as part of the 13 per cent of the Board’s revenue each year,” he said. “Those who perform well will get more from this share.”
The BCCI is said to be planning the formation of a three-member panel — Chairman of Selectors, Coach and an administrator – to evaluate player performances in every match. Trust the BCCI to increase the workload of the Chairman of Selectors and Coach and at once offer players the chance to wonder who was responsible for some players getting a fatter pay and others not being as fortunate.
If anything, there must be a win bonus for the team as a whole rather than have any incentive for individual performances in what is essentially a team sport. The inherent risk in a system that rewards individual success is that it can lead to selfish rather than selfless performances. You would not want a bunch of players to go out with thoughts of penalties dragging them down further.
In a nation that did not seem as anguished when its communications satellite and the largest rocket both disintegrated in mid-air during a dramatic failure just moments after lifting off in July, national cricketers have to come to terms with being objects of extreme, passionate focus irrespective of whether they win or lose.
As I sign off, here’s a passing thought: Of course, the Board is well within its right to demand accountability from the players. Would it not be lovely if BCCI members apply such standards to themselves and become more accountable? In the year that this bunch of office-bearers has been in place, we have only heard lip service on how the Board would be run more professionally.