The KP Mishap

The ECB took the bold, but dimwitted step of dropping Kevin Pietersen from the test team. Well-intentioned rules and regulations controlling player behavior are just that. “Well-intentioned”. They neither guarantee success nor do they ensure cohesive team behavior. However, many people get caught up in the rules and regulations and assume them to be the foundation for team success.

Here’s something that you always knew but no one told you. There is no formula for team success. Some of the most successful teams would have been called undisciplined by today’s pundits. And some of the most regimented teams have fallen by the wayside frequently. Note South Africa’s continued quest to be number one and win a world cup. [On that subject, why is ESPN reporting Kirsten’s statement about SA’s desire to be number one as some big secret being let out? As opposed to what? South Africa is playing to be the number 3 team in the world? Or just playing to play?]

We suffer the bureaucracy regularly in businesses that bemoan the loss of innovation. Teams that are constrained by too many rules, regulations and codified ethics can’t function creatively enough. While this piece is not an advocacy for debilitating self-centeredness or anarchy, for sure individual expression and freedom must be cherished and preserved. Theere is a line that should not be crossed. But this should be left to the team to decide, not officialdom and definitely not codified by edicts to cease and desist tweets, blogs, etc.

All the establishment cronies – Nasser Hussain, Atherton, Vaughan, etc. have come out advocating KP being dropped. They are also unwittingly advocating England losing the next test match. Does anyone believe that Bairstow and whats-his-face will be able to withstand Dale Steyn, Philander and Morkel? Are spectators paying to see a military parade or a cricket game with flair, flourish and pomp? Spectators want a battle out there, not a meek surrender? Spectators want players to play out of their skins to win a game of cricket. They don’t care if players are running with the right form and doing good media interviews? What will the ECB and even Andrew Strauss end up doing after England lose? Blame KP for the loss for “misbehaving” and losing his place in the team?

Misguided officials and team captains cover up their own inadequacy of being unable to manage and motivate extremely talented individuals by scurrying to justify their failure with rules. Flintoff, Pietersen, Warne, Symonds and probably every Pakistan player falls into this category of players. Perhaps, a bunch of 70s era Australians and the entire West Indies team under Clive Lloyd did too.

My guess is that many fans too will come out in support of ECB’s move. “No individual is bigger than the game”, they will proclaim, completely missing the point. Individuals make up the team. A captain and official’s success is being able to get the best out of the most temperamental genius in the team. There’s a reason Botham prospered under Brearley. Warne prospered under Taylor and Waugh. And there’s a reason Symonds was lost by Ponting and now KP is being lost by Strauss.

I’m not at all advocating that every prima donna be pampered. However, the fault lies with ECB and Strauss for letting things come to this state. KP’s personality is well-known. Not being able to plan and manage a player of his caliber is definitely Strauss, Flower and ECB’s fault. A little bit of humility from them early on, would have helped tremendously.

Thanks to their incompetence, the next test match has been reduced to a farce. What a shame!

Top 6 reasons why Usain Bolt is encouraging talk of his association with T20 Cricket

1. Looking at the roster of cricketers playing the game…Hayden, Gilchrist, Warne, Sachin, Jayasurya….he thinks it’s group activity for residents of old peoples retirement homes and is considering this as a post retirement past time.
2. He may not be as knowledgeable about the game as he thinks and has completely discounted the fact that ‘running between the wickets’ involves running fast, stopping and returning; something he has never done.
3. The remote possibility of getting to build a partnership batting with Inzamam-Ul-Haq with Sanjay Manjrekar as the commentator tickles his funny bone
4. Like Sachin he believes that T20 cricket is like getting a seat in the Rajya Sabha and can continue to focus on running
5. He simply wants to rub it into Sachin’s fans that he is a greater athlete and celebrity than the God of Cricket. After all no athletics league ever flirted with Sachin
6. He is a fan of Bollywood Item Songs

Selections for NZ Test Series & T20

Rohit Sharma’s non-selection for the New Zealand test series may be positively interpreted as a “rest” to sort out issues with his form, regardless of format. His selection to the T20 squad could also be likewise interpreted as a statement of confidence in his potential and viability as a long term India prospect.

Some might argue that blooding Rohit Sharma against New Zealand would have been a good strategy, given that they are the weakest test team today. Minus Vettori, they become cannon fodder for India’s flat track bullies.

I am somewhat ambivalent, but I’m willing to cast my lot with the selectors in this case. We might see a false dawn if Rohit were to score a lot of runs against New Zealand. I’m willing to bet with the selectors that he needs to be blooded against England much like Virat Kohli was thrown to the Australian wolves or even Tendulkar who was sent into the fire-pit of Pakistan against Wasim, Waqar and Imran.

Suresh Raina has come back into the test squad probably due to backing from Dhoni and his own desire to persevere. Pujara is certain to make the squad and unless Dhoni opts for seven batsman, Raina will likely not play. Pujara’s selection is welcome relief for die-hards like me. We hope that he carries the torch forward. India’s ODI riches mean that he would likely not play the other formats, but hopefully, the public, selectors and Pujara himself retain interest in the art-form that his test cricket batsmanship.

The selectors have picked three seamers and three spinners and I don’t have an issue with the Chawla selection, unlike many other pundits. He is probably included simply to provide a leg-spinning option. In a two test series, Chawla is unlikely to play, unless someone is injured or a rank turner is prepared and India play only one seamer. Umesh Yadav too may not play if Ishant Sharma is fully fit.

Regardless of who plays, India should expect to steamroll New Zealand in both the tests unless they play on eighties style featherbeds. Hopefully, there are rank turners as promised by Gambhir during the Aussie debacle. Otherwise, we might be embarrassed by a mediocre New Zealand side. While on Gambhir, it’s good that he is back as Vice Captain. Hopefully, he has figured out how to be supportive of his team management and not be a loose canon.

Yuvraj’s selection to the T20 squad is a good emotional gamble. However, Balaji’s selection is hard to understand. I’m a fan of Balaji and would have reveled in his selection four years ago, but now it’s a little stale. Praveen Kumar’s absence from both squads is weird, unless I missed something about his fitness. He is the canniest bowlers that India possesses and not including him in the T20 squad is a serious mistake.

Harbhajan’s comeback to the T20 squad is also a good move on part of the selectors. He too is a street smart operator and with Ashwin could form a tough bowling combination in Sri Lanka. In T20 games, it’s not so bad to include two off-spinners if they are in really good form.

Overall, though with Irfan Pathan regaining his luster, India have a more balanced T20 look to them. Should Yuvraj be ready to go, Dhoni would have several bowling options and a good T20 batting side to boot. Winning the World Cup with this squad is possible. Nitpicking aside, these selections are pretty good.

England sweats as Pietersen apes Sachin

After seeing Kevin Pietersen bat in his debut series against Shane Warne, I quickly placed him alongside VVS Laxman in his ability to play spin in general and Shane Warne in particular. Both used their feet to him generously, were not afraid to leave their stumps as they advanced down the leg side and both attacked Shane Warne on instinct.

Eventually Kevin Pietersen turned out much different than VVS Laxman; may be because there was nothing inherently common between them in the first place beyond the attacking styles on the surface. Yet his overall mindset and desires are more suited to the Indian setting than an English one.

For starters, he behaves like a star. And he should because he is an innovative batsman and I feel like turning on the television when he is batting

He wants to play more IPL, be with his family, knows people like to watch him bat in Tests, wants to pick and choose his tours and is willing to play only one form of the shortened game. No, I am not picking on Sachin Tendulkar again. This is what Kevin Pietersen wants too.

Kevin Pietersen wants to become like Sachin Tendulkar and the ECB and the England dressing room is fretting because they are worried it will set a bad precedent.

Since when is wanting to be like Sachin Tendulkar bad for a country?

England can transfer Kevin Pietersen to India in return for a few million dollars and you would be hard pressed to find a better mutually beneficial deal in the history of sports.

Whenever a player stands up against the evil administrators, I tend to root for the player. These days, especially in India, even the mightiest of stars; whose very exploits bring in the billions for the cricket boards; are subservient to the boards. May be there isn’t any issue worth their while to take a stand.

Although, I find it hard to digest that India’s stars have nothing to say against the proliferation of 2-Test series, 0 Test away “tours”, the DRS non sense, the Kapil Dev humiliation. In the current business environment though; there is more money to be made by towing the BCCI line for India’s cricketers.

Senior cricketers were better in my time when they made a real difference in how things worked. Gavaskar was always in trouble with the BCCI but fought for better pay. Vengsarkar was not much of a speaker but fought for his right to express his opinions in writing.

When boards all over have embraced outright commercialization of the game at the expense of the game, it is only natural that the players too start thinking like experts with niche skills and demand more freedom in how they want to make their money. When these boards in response try to clamp down this freedom, it only seems hypocritical.

It will only be with players like Pietersen, Gayle and Amla who are willing to challenge the norms, and create disruptions that will demand that the system changes. Hashim Amla in refusing to wear the team sponsor’s logo because it represents something against his religious beliefs is a courageous stand.

Ultimately whether Pietersen; or anyone else; is justified is not the judgment I am making, its that he is willing to stand up and be the Test case for hundreds of other crickets who I am sure must be waiting to see how this ends.

Although I would caution anyone who thinks Pietersen has thought this through. As a leader, Pietersen’s credentials are cloudy at best. His stint as England captain revealed an immature mind in demanding a new coach as soon as he took over. Also no other England captain would have declared at Mohali giving India a victory almost on a platter with the November terrorist attacks serving as the emotional catalyst.

It will be sad if Pietersen’s career ends.

Although, I don’t really think Kevin Pietersen and the ECB will part ways. It’s probably going to end like how Kapil Dev was embraced back by the BCCI; after having read a prepared statement professing his allegiance to the board.

That will be really sad.

Going gaga over Virat Kohli - Why?

Yuvraj Singh was perhaps the first star cricketer, born out of exploits solely in the shorter formats. Michael Bevan was also an ODI-only finisher of great repute but he was a specialist never a true star.

The reaction to Yuvraj even at the height of his exploits seemed reasonably tempered. After all, India’s greats were very much in prime form when Yuvraj was clobbering Stuart Broad for half a dozen sixes in an over. The benchmark for expectations was higher a decade ago. Perhaps it’s a commentary on how badly India is in need of new blood when Virat Kohli’s sustained success; albeit only in the shorter formats, gets so much praise and endorsement from all; convinced that he is a future great.

491 Test runs from 15 innings @ 32 runs an innings with a solitary, garishly celebrated 100 in Australia is no reason for the kind of gushing that is currently on, in the media.

One may be tempted to suggest that the game and its spectators have changed. Perhaps success in formats that were previously thought of as side acts on tours have become the main event, legitimizing performances as authentic. Then again Pollard from the West Indies renders this suggestion lame. People in general, do reserve judgment on his quality till he develops into a Test player.

May be the unabashed praise Virat Kohli generates has to do largely with the plight of India’s ageing seniors. Squabbling over the captaincy, rotation policies, and an abject surrender of the most coveted title in cricket; the World #1 ranking in Tests

Whatever the reason for celebrating Virat Kohli’s successes, they seem premature. His performance has been stellar in the ODI game, but I can’t help but question the quality of the contests, the nature of the tracks they have come on, the intensity of the opposition and occasion and the prestige of the tournaments. Sri Lanka in this series is so tired that they may lose a game even if India actually does not show up for a match.

And there is no harm if meaningless ODIs are helping Virat’s cause. My worry is that these side shows will condemn Rohit Sharma’s career the Vinod Kambli way.