If you're new here, you may want to subscribe to my RSS feed. Thanks for visiting!

On my last post, I detailed the sorry state of events that led to the PIL, filed by Shantanu Sharma and Rahul Mehra in 2000. The case seems to have progressed slowly to the current state that, now after five years, a New Delhi high court has instructed Sharma and Mehra, to file (on or before May 25th) a wish list. The BCCI has also been instructed to file appropriate response to each item on the wish list. Rediff set out to ask its readers to send in suggestions. Most of these suggestions seem very clear cut. But some seem to be knee jerk with no explanation as to how such a suggestion could be logically implemented by the BCCI in the near future.

I have attempted to dissect some of the major suggestions that have been thrown up by these readers. I have also added as and when required, my own suggestions to suggest a framework by which the BCCI�s day to day activities could be coordinated towards the single goal of ensuring a better experience, both for the players and paying public. I think I might sound stupid, but I am ignorant sometimes. So please bear with me and do leave your comments if you think there are some points that I need to learn about before talking about them.

Go and ask any cricket fan in India for his/her views about how BCCI could improve, the first thing that would probably come out of their mouth would be that the BCCI should be run with people who have played some cricket in a professional capacity for a State or the country. But how are we going to attract these former players?

Let�s ask a question to ourselves. Let us assume X earns a monthly salary of Rs. 20000 through an IT services company. Such employment offers X a fixed framework to work, by way of a fixed job description, fixed working hours (mostly) and not to mention, job security. Let us say that X is a very good singer. X loves to sing and has been singing at live concerts for a sum. Suddenly a music company comes to X and offers singing gigs, but at a lesser salary that X has been earning so far. X is also told that the payment will be on an hourly basis and only when X sings. Would X want to leave the IT services company just to sing on an hourly basis? Wouldn�t X think that it would be better if the two jobs could be juggled in such a way that the working hours wouldn�t conflict? And in any case, professionally there would not be any conflict of interest, unless X has to sing for a campaign to promote a rival of his employer. And I am sure that X would come to such a conclusion.

Do you see where I am coming at? Most former cricketers who I think have the capability to administer cricket, say a Gavaskar or a Ravi Shastri (for e.g.) are contracted with one TV channel or the other to offer expert commentary during televised games. While X�s dual gigs would not be in conflict, Gavaskar�s presence in both the TV studio and the Board�s selection committee meeting would probably be in conflict. Rameez Raaja found just that last year when he, even though he was in the team selection panel, was sitting in the commentary box, sometimes dishing the same players he helped select. So the way out, to sign on capable cricketers exclusively by offering them remuneration comparable to what they would receive from the TV channels. Also this employment contract would be of no fixed duration giving them the oppurtunity to leave if they choose to. But for this to happen, a corporate structure has to exist within the BCCI. This is currently not the case.

The ICC�s member profile page for India informs us that India has been a Full Member since 31 May 1926. But what really surprised me is the fact that the BCCI�s office seems to be headquartered at Trivandrum (address: Board of Control for Cricket in India, “Kairali”, G.H.S. Lane, Manacaud, Trivandrum 695 009, Kerala, India) with an email address hosted by Sathyam Infoway for contact! Funny, because I always thought that the BCCI is based out of Mumbai. While this might just be a oversight or a error on the ICC part, it is really surprising (and saddening) that the India seems to be the only full member of the ICC that does not have an official email address, let alone an official website. Even Zimbabwe seems to have at least an official looking email address. I have sent an email to the address mentioned in the ICC website and will update this post as and when I get a response (or the email error message that I expect to get). I am highlighting this trivial issue because since even the perfunctory corporate structure does not exist, how are we going to treat it like a corporate body?

So, do we force the BCCI to incorporate a business framework into its working? I think that�s the way out. Now this does not mean that I want the government to take over the BCCI. Well, certainly not forever. But again, a government take over has its own pitfalls as a lot of Rediff�s respondents seem to have realized. So I have an alternate suggestion here.

Change is inevitable. And when the situation has not met change for eons, then the change would need to be radical. My suggestion has echoed by a lot others. But I think I have added a unique side to it, which will be apparent when you read on.

For starters, I DO want judicial and/or executive intervention into the BCCI�s affairs. The courts seem to have laid out some initiatives from their side, but it seems easily possible that the BCCI can get some another judge to either overturn the original order or at least obtain a stay in this regard. So would Executive intervention be a solution? I am not a constitutional expert, but would it be possible for the government, not necessarily the PMO, but Raisina Hill, to reach out to the BCCI and see what is going on? Now that would be a start.

This is how it should play out. The government appoints a steering committee, initially comprising of a few cricketers. However, I would definitely not want the one�s who keep putting their foot in their mouth everyday in the media, like Ashok Malhotra (who seems to have been in a coma for the past 5 years) and Mohinder Amarnath (who seems to be proud that he has a lap but no laptop). It would be better if this committee included people like Venkatraghavan, Vishwanath, Gavaskar and Pataudi, four people who seem to be intelligent enough to handle the attention and still do what is asked of them capably. Again the remuneration conditions that I have mentioned above should be followed clearly.

My next suggestion is probably the most controversial. Someone like Dalmiya or Bindra should be included in the committee. These two seem to have built up Indian cricket into this money making machine, starting with the 96 World Cup that their expertise in the business side should not be ignored. Bindra in addition seems to be doing pretty well in administering the PCA and seems to have developed Mohali into probably the best facilities in India. But Dalmiya or Bindra, either way, will not head the committee nor have any veto powers.

The government also deputizes a senior civil services officer from the IAS or the judicial system to liaise with the committee and make sure everything goes on track. This is a key position and the person chosen should be knowledgeable and also senior enough to not be in awe of the cricketers. This last part is trivial, but it seems possible that with cricket being as big as it is in India, anybody could be swayed from their duties.

Now what is this steering committee for? This steering committee would first figure out a business framework for Indian cricket under the financial and business laws laid down by the Constitution of India. Once the framework is set, the committee and government of India would advertise in the media channels calling for qualified candidates for a CEO to head �Cricket India�.

My take is that, the CEO of �Cricket India� just needs to be a good manager with pre-requisite experience of leading a reasonably large company successfully. Now once the CEO is chosen, the CEO sits with the steering committee to pick a candidate for a CFO and a CTO. The qualifications for the CFO would be just like any other company. But the CTO should have been involved with cricket or played cricket, not necessarily in India. For starters, the steering committee (along with the CEO, CTO and the CFO) shall pick a selection panel comprising of former international cricketers as salaried employees. These employees shall have no fixed term, but would be free to leave their positions as and when they deem fit. Subsequently, other cricketers shall be interviewed for these vacant positions if there are any.

And once the business framework is set, the company shall take over the running of the BCCI at the national level with the state level organizations following suit in time. The new organization shall be registered as company in the stock exchanges and shall be answerable to all its shareholders. Such an organization would enter into agreements with service providers like the TV production companies just like any other company would do with its vendors and customers. The financial details would also be made public every year or quarter. And I am sure that Indian cricket would be comparable to any current blue chip stocks once it is listed.

Now, this cannot be done within a day or two. So it is logical that we let the BCCI stay as it is, till the steering committee shall do what it needs to do. Once Cricket India becomes a reality, the BCCI should be asked to hand in the reigns with all assets of the BCCI transferred to the new organization.

But all this will not be possible without executive intervention. And the PMO intervening would be too much to ask, with the current political scenario in India being non conducive for radical steps. So where do we go? Would Raisina Hill oblige with an executive order? Is it even possible?

The turn of the last century was a tumultuous period in Indian cricket. A cursory glance of the headlines on Cricinfo seems to corroborate this view. In February 2000, The Indian team returned from a drubbing at the hands of Australia in Australia, a tour that was as controversial off the field as it was one sided on it. The tussle between the selectors and the team management in Australia began with a widely reported statement from Board Secretary J.Y.Lele that the team was going be whitewashed. Then Nayan Mongia was recalled and sent to Australia to cover for Saba Karim and was publicly ignored by Kapil Dev and Tendulkar who stated on record that they had not wanted Mongia in Australia. These off the field issues certainly did not help the team, which was beaten badly.

Almost immediately after the team?s return home, in Feb-Mar 2000, a South African team led by (the late) Hansie Cronje landed in India to play 2 Tests and 5 ODI’s. The selectors seemed to take another step backward by including Azhar in the test squad, a move that surprised everyone. As a result, even before the series started, Sachin, who apparently did not think too much of Azhar and who had been captain in Australia announced he was relinquishing the captaincy after the 2 Test series. But the series that started in such a sour note ended with India being whitewashed in a home Test series at home for the first time.

It was in such strained circumstances that Shantanu Sharma, a lawyer and Rahul Mehra, a businessman decided to file a PIL on April 20, 2000 against the BCCI in a New Delhi high court. The PIL charged the BCCI with abandonment of any efforts for the growth and betterment of cricket in India. An Outlook article from last October mentions that the two petitioners spent close to 3 months studying accounting records from the BCCI (how did they manage to get access to those records?) with the help of a ?leading economist?, not to mention Prem Panicker, to figure out what was going on in the BCCI. And Outlook did a cover story on what they discovered. It makes for quite an interesting reading!

The BCCI hired a hot shot legal team comprising of a virtual who?s who of Indian legal eagles ? Kapil Sibal among them. They argued that the PIL was not ?maintainable? since the BCCI was registered under an obscure act (Tamil Nadu’s Society Registration Act of 1860) as a private society, making it answerable only to the 31 state associations and not to the public! So then first, the court had to rule whether the incredulous claim was valid or not, according to the laws of the land.

The BCCI, then, in an apparent display of excellent (but anachronistic) foresightedness announced that it had drafted a 27 page Vision Statement for Indian Cricket that it submitted to the (then) Sports Minister, Sukhdev Singh Dhindsa in New Delhi in August 2000. A closer look however revealed that the vision statement was actually a PowerPoint presentation containing 27 slides containing 5 or 6 bullets each, totally comprising of somewhere close to 1700 words (which I found by using the word count tool in MS Word). It is interesting to note that, in comparison, my recent post titled Weekend Chronicles had exactly 1000 words (the post title and my sign off included)! Either I am very thorough or the drafter of the vision statement was gifted with extreme conciseness. Sadly the former seems to be more plausible, once you actually go through the whole vision statement.

Soon Rediff did their own version of the vision statement that it (i.e Rediff, in BCCI garb) said would be reviewed by “a broad-based panel of experts, comprising of cricketers of standing and repute, management and financial experts, for comments, criticism and suggestions, which will then be incorporated into the final draft. Which, in turn, will then become the cornerstone of a new cricketing future for India”.

However, after that the activities get murky. After practically hearing nothing for a couple of years, the next thing I heard was that, in the midst of the telecast rights imbroglio last year (before the Australia series), Zee TV had gone to court, contending that BCCI, being a public body cannot act arbitrarily. This time, the BCCI while giving the same argument as the previous case, also added that the Saurav Ganguly led team was actually representing the BCCI and not India as a country. This theory was pooh poohed by the court which ultimately said that the team was actually representing India, since the Indian colors and the Tricolor were prominently displayed in uniforms and gear. This judgment was in October 2004 (as reported on Outlook).

The original PIL was in the back of my mind for a long time, but of late my thought has been that, with the slow pace of the Indian judicial system, it has almost been abandoned or silently dismissed! So it comes as a pleasant surprise that while the case has actually been proceeding slowly, it has certainly not been dismissed. Rediff reported a couple of days ago (as my previous post says) that Rahul Mehra and Shantanu Sharma, the original petitioners have been asked to submit by May 25, “a wish list of what, in their opinion, the BCCI should do to clean up its functioning”. The court has also ruled that the BCCI has to respond constructively to every suggestions from the petitioners.

But before we jump up and down, it has to be understood that this is but a small victory ? a minor battle won in a great war that still hinges on the balance. It remains to be seen how Mehra and Sharma respond. Given their tenacity, I think they would already have something ready. So, let’s watch everything carefully and hope for the best.

The media seems to be watching the events closely. As Amit Varma told me, Rediff has been doing an awesome job (most of the links here are from there) of publicizing this issue, though I feel that there have been lot of gaps chronologically. But ultimately, we, as fans can also put forth suggestions. Last October, during the height of the telecast rights controversy, Amit raised a number of valid questions in this regard and pointed out some possible solutions, on his 23 Yards blog on Cricinfo. Now, Rediff has asked for suggestions from its readers.

Since I already have a platform to voice mine on, I am going to go ahead and give my take on this issue right here. But I don’t think it will be anything new. So in that case, if the possible solutions are right in front of our eyes, why are these solutions being ignored?

I think I have rambled enough on this post. I will stop now and continue later after collecting my thoughts.

(To be continued…)

Wow, this is making me re-think my abstinence from cricket related posts ! This issue is something I have felt strongly for a long time and I remember a couple of long discussions over the phone with a friend (a fellow cricket fanatic who still plays down south in Florida) . Mebbe this weekend!

Meanwhile Rediff has posted the Full text of the Delhi High Court judgment! Read it!

Nants umlolongi bagithi umama [Here comes a coach, Mother]
Sithi uhm umlolongi [Oh yes, it's a coach]
Nants umlolongi bagithi baba
Sithi uhhmm umlolongi
Umlolongi
Siyo Nqoba [We're going to conquer]

It’s the Circle of Cricket
And it moves us all
Through form and touch
Through thick and thin
Till we find our position
On the path unwinding
In the Circle
The Circle of Cricket

- Ripped off from The Circle of Life (The Lion King), with due apologies to Elton John (music), Tim Rice (Lyrics) and Carmen Twillie (the voice).

Team India has come a full circle - that’s what I distinctly felt, when I saw this. I double checked to see if Wadekar’s statement was circa 1999, but he has been interviewed just a couple of hours ago. So, even at the risk of sounding humorous, I have to ask where has Ajit Wadekar been in the last few years? Was he in a coma? Or was he “Taken”?

Regardless of the condition of Wadekar’s mental stabilities, the comment looks stupid and Rediff certainly has done what it does best, raise up shit just for the heck of it. Wadekar’s opinions on this issue are skewed. Sandeep Patil might be the right person, but the fact that Kenya made it to the semis in WC 2003 is not reason enough for me. Let us not forget that the security issues pertaining to Zimbabwe and Kenya, were also reasons for their semi final appearance. My take on this issue is, let the seniors in the team decide who they want with them. That’s the way sports work these days, even team sports. Ultimately the players are the resources that the Board and ergo the country’s hope thrives on and it definitely pays to keep them happy. So, Mr. Wadekar, if the players decide that Sandeep Patil is the right person, he will be chosen.

Anyways, Adios JW! In my book, you are the best there ever will be! Even considering that India is right now languishing at the same stage (as a team) that it was in when you took over, my opinion will not change. Team India’s state today is a re-affirmation that life comes full circle once in a while. The positives from your tenure are not apparent in the results. Well, they actually are, but the positives are more glaring when the general state of the team, with respect to composition, fitness and the attitudes, is considered.

Thanks, John, for everything….

It is ‘walky time’ these days at Chennai. According to news reports, Gilchrist ‘walked’ after he edged Kumble to Yuvraj via his pad. Then Gillespie turned towards the pavilion after he was caught by Kaif. Kasprowicsz then edged Kumble to Laxman at silly mid off and walked away. It did not end at that. At the fag end of the day, Yuvraj ‘walked’ soon after he realised that Gilchrist had pouched his thin edge off Warne.

Of these four Walkabbies, only Kasprowiscz seemed have walked when/after the umpire, in this case David Shepherd, turned down the appeal. Going by the reports, the umpires were in the process of making the right decisions in the other instances. So why the huge fuss?

It is because, in some ways, walking when the ump says ‘not out’ is going against the official decision and hence dissent. Cricket 24×7 points out that a couple of years ago, Stephen Fleming was fined by the match referee for pointing out that Australia had gone against fielding restrictions in the first 15 overs and placed three men on the boundary, even though the umps on the field agreed and no-balled the Aussies for the digression. Fleming was doing the right thing and then fined too, which sounds stupid.

Well, maybe the both the teams wanted the umpires to look stupid. So did the teams get together before the start of the test match (in light of the mistakes from the umps that went un-punished at Banglore) and decided that they will walk for every legit dismissal regardless of what the geriatrics in the black trousers feel.

And making Shepherd look foolish might just be the start of this exercise to induce the ICC to act and pull up the inconsistent umps and maybe even push the introduction of more technology aids for the umps. Anybody know what Gangs and Gilchrist (and Ponting) think about this whole fracas vis-a-vis umpires using technology?

These should be the new classifications and some of the words in the Indian BCCI team�s cricketing dictionary. The first set of words is the words that shall hence forth be referred to as Key Words � words that are key to any success both in the present and in the future. The next set of words are termed Illegal Words/Phrases - the ones that need to be dropped from use because they seem to be words that are not being used any where else in the world where cricket is played professionally. The third group is the set of Other Words � words and phrases that are still used world-wide, but in a restrained, qualified manner (unlike India) to ensure that they do not overrule the use of the first set, i.e. the Key Words

1: Key words/Phrases � runs, wickets, bowler, batsman, opener, wicket keeper, long term, fitness, true pitches, professional management (assets and talent), rest, independent facility management.

2: Illegal words/Phrases: make shift, short-term, experiment, the team�s cause, part time.

3: Other Word/Phrases (for Qualified use): all rounder, foot work, style, numbers.

The timing of the post might actually look wrong, because India seem to be doing well at this point of time (I mean today). But if you really look closer and follow the progress of the Indian BCCI cricket team, you will probably understand what I am trying to tell you here, because the (seemingly) small blemishes seem to be because the Indian BCCI team works according to some of these words from the second and the third set and ignores some of the other key words from the first. Please leave your comments!

I know this is slightly off the charts in terms of relevance, but this feeling of revulsion seems to come to me once every couple of years when Sachin Tendulkar decides that he needs to do something different to ensure that the fortunes change India. And lo, people start talking about how he has lost it completely, not noticing that something’s changed positively. And this feeling is back again. Since I am sick of typing up the same thing, I just decided to repost this on the blog.

(Originally written on March 12, 2002)

During the last few years, I have not missed reading an article about cricket in magazines that have nothing to do with sport. I have all the issues (with covers related to cricket) of a particular news magazine that was on the forefront of the match fixing allegations, a couple of years ago. Basically I find it interesting to read these articles because these magazines do not have anything to do with cricket and so one can get some stuff from other angles. But most of the time I have found that such articles have a common thread. A partisan attitude is evident (barring some good pieces). But it is a truth universally acknowledged that a public in possession of a bad cricket team must be in want of a scapegoat (with due apologies to Jane Austen). However it is still surprising that they have chosen the best in the team for this purpose. And if you notice all these pieces of criticism have come, not from cricketers (or former cricketers), but from people who�s connection to cricket is not evident, at least to the casual reader.

So I have tried to put across a coherent reply to one of the common points raised by such articles� �Is Sachin, an all time great?� A general feeling around the media and some sections of the Indian public, is that Tendulkar, for the greater part of his career, has failed to deliver for his team when they need him the most. And a number of instances have been quoted where we were near and yet so far. These views go as far as indicating that the tag �chokers� that the Indian team has earned in the last few years is because of one man alone. At least that�s what I could surmise�

The one major fact that these people have always overlooked is that there have been many a knock where he has done his bit (rather, almost the whole thing) and India has failed to win because the other ten failed to do their job. I am not a stud with statistics, but what better example to come up than the Chennai Test against Pakistan in 1998-99. This match is quoted by one and all as a prime example to illustrate the �fact� that Sachin is not what he seems to be. In that particular match, Sachin was fighting severe back spasms and was the 7th batsman to get out for a score of 136. This, after the last recognized batsman Nayan Mongia had got out (just about 5 overs previously) with a shot that was deemed irresponsible by one and all. With just one batsman to follow and back spasms racking him, he just had to hit out and go for the finish rather than taking a single and exposing the other batsman to Akram & Co. He got out after hitting Saqlain for 10 runs of the first 3 balls. Even though only 17 runs were required (”only” is not the word to use when Saqlain and Akram are bowling, but nevertheless) India lost all 3 wickets in scoring only 6 runs in the process. Tendulkar was going for the victory and had scored most of the 37 runs in just 5 overs after Mongia’s dismissal till he got out. And of the rest of the 10 members of the team only Dravid (10) and Mongia (52) got to double figures. What happened to the other 8 ?? Ganguly got a bad decision (bad is a word that does not convey the enormity of that umpiring slight) , but then…. Tendulkar’s innings (even though the finishing was not there) was invaluable when u see the scorecard. We would just not be discussing this match if it were not for the scores of the other batsmen in the team. In fact, Akram recently said in a TV program that the Chennai test was one of the best Test matches he had ever played.

And surprisingly some (including this article by C.Rammanohar Reddy) have compared him with Andy Flower at his best. This reveals another basic flaw. While, on the outset, it is probably fair to dismiss the Zimbabweans as a one-batsman team, the team is full of dangerous floaters (as Douglas Marillier and Travis Friend have amply demonstrated last week!) all of whom are capable of 30’s and 40s in any given day. And they do get these runs regularly. So the “exceptional average” of 84.5 % (which he had a couple of months ago) would lose some sheen if you look at the scores of the other batsman. I am sure you would find the above-mentioned 30s and 40s supporting the hundreds made by Flower to the maximum. So it�s unfair to use statistics as a tool to evaluate Tendulkar. Sidhu might be partly right with his “Statistics are like miniskirts, they reveal more than what they hide” statement. But sometimes the hidden stuff makes compulsive reading and convinces us that the open stuff is all hogwash. And maybe the question that has been posed is answered by the usual view that these people put across. “Given his prowess, Sachin does not seem to be able to set up a victory as often as he should”. Where are the other batsmen to sometimes finish what he started? Please�.. Cricket is just not a one-man game. If you don�t have another batsman to take guard opposite you, then you cannot even bat. This is not street cricket where sometimes all the players get to bat. I hope every Indian fan realizes this and does not get into any conclusion of this kind. Sachin is just the major piece in the jigsaw puzzle that is the Indian team. Only when all the pieces fall into place, will India win.
Accountability is another factor that the Indian public and more importantly, the team and the selector need to understand. They should understand that �no member is bigger than the team� and that includes Tendulkar too. I think he has realized that. His decision to relinquish the captaincy stems from the realization that he cannot cope up with the kind of hassles that a captain has to face and then perform of the field too. But again this has been held against him too. So what more are we going to hold him responsible for? The Babri masjid issue?

So let’s not blame Tendulkar for not making �match-winning� scores. The difference between winning and losing lies in playing as a team and not as a collection of individuals. And if someone says that Tendulkar is responsible for not the team not winning, even though he has had good stints at the crease, then he cannot be more wrong. If one batsman’s score alone would win a match, I am sure India would be the only unbeaten team around, cause from his first Test to the latest, he has done his bit and would continue to do so until he feels he cannot. Then he will gracefully get off the bandwagon and let India rue the day they doubted Sachin’s

Rediff has a pick the team page for the first match of the Champions Trophy. And the possible twelve are Sourav Ganguly (captain), Rahul Dravid (vice-captain), Virender Sehwag , Yuvraj Singh, V V S Laxman, Rohan Gavaskar, Mohammad Kaif, Harbhajan Singh, Ajit Agarkar, Irfan Pathan, Laxmipathy Balaji, Anil Kumble, Ashish Nehra and Dinesh Karthik.

Now if I were to consider Ganguly, Dravid, Yuvraj, Kaif, Balaji, Pathan and Harbhajan (due to recent good figures) as automatic picks (which they are), it leaves me with four places yet to fill. I started with the rest of the batting order, but decided the conundrum might be easier to solve if I figure out my bowling attack. Pathan, Balaji and Harbhajan have been the better bowlers in the three matches of the Natwest Challenge. So ideally we would need two more bowlers. But going by the record so far, I think Ganguly might opt for just four bowlers and would want the fifth bowlers duties shared among his part timers and him. But there likes India’s major challenge - the absece of one Sachin Ramesh Tendulkar. Four bolwers and Sachin would have been my choice too (with others chipping in just to change ends or something), but thats outta the picture. So it has to be five specialist bowlers with the last two coming from the trio of Kumble, Nehra and Agarkar. I would give Kumble an automatic spot, because he adds variety and guile. So that makes eight.

Out of these three places, one has to go for an opening batsman. Normally Sehwag would have been an automatic pick for this position alongside Ganguly, but the abject lack of form makes me waver on his choice. Going by the same yardstick I am not considering Laxman an automatic pick. So the choice of opener would be between Sehwag and Laxman (since he is the only one among the other non-automatic picks to have opened the batting) with one of the two finding a place at the top of the order and the other fighting for a place in the middle order with Gavaskar and Dinesh Karthik. Lets put off this decision till we figure out the choices for the other spot. Now coming to the question of inclusion/non inclusion of Karthik. I am all for it, because this is a good time to experiment with minimal chances of negative results upsetting our chances in the tournament. So Karthik would ideally get the 8th automatic spot, with Dravid hanging up the gloves. So this is my team of eleven - Ganguly, X, Kaif, Dravid, Yuvraj, Karthik, Pathan, Balaji, Harbhajan, Kumble, Y, where X is a choice between Laxman and Sehwag while Y is a choice between Nehra and Agarkar.

This is not exactly my idea of a Dream Team. But it is unfortunate that Laxman and Sehwag are in the same level form wise that I have to choose between them. It is also imperative that India employ a full time wicketkeeper as an investment for the future. It is unfortunate that Parthiv Patel does not merit a place in this team even after a year or so as Dravid’s understudy (in the ODI squad). Though I was gung-ho about his selection in 2002 and I thought he would make a good understudy to a older wicket keeper, soon I realised he was not going to get games and when he did, his mistakes while battting at the age of 18 were going to be held against him.
If Karthik gets a chance to play (regardless of my choice, I don’t think he will) and does well, I hope he gets persisted with, because after a point, it is imperative that we come to terms with the fact that in a couple of years Dravid is going to be gone and we need a strong ODI keeper. Our choices are to either go with an experienced hand (the search for which will probably end with Ratra and if you ask certain people, Dasgupta) or shuffle between Karthik and Patel till one of them proves to be the man for the job. It is going to take a year or two, but I think this wait would be worth it. But it is also frightening that even before Karthik gets to play his second or third game, people have started talking about his replacement in the India A squad - Dhoni. It is always natural that someone or the other always scores runs or has a hand in dismissal. But only after we let them play for sometime can be decide whether those performances were merely flashes in the pan or not.

Coming back to Rediff’s team. I picked Ganguly, Sehwag, Kaif, Yuvraj, Dravid, Pathan, Balaji, Karthik, Harbhajan, Kumble and Nehra. And I find that apart from people rooting to have just four bowlers and include both Laxman and Sehwag at the expense of Kumble, my team seems to be what everyone chose too. But I would consider going with four bowlers a logical mistake given that our batsmen seem to be in the worst of form. For once, it seems our bowling is our strong point. Let us use it to our benefit!

After reading Cricinfo’s All Today’s Yesterdays column on the 16th of June, I sent in a question to Steven Lynch, who writes the Ask Steven column that appears every Tuesday. That question was related to one of the factoids of that day that was featured - to a 555 run partnership between Herbert Sutcliffe (313) and Percy Holmes (224 not out) for Yorkshire against Essex in 1932.

I was once across a question related to the Sutcliffe-Holmes 555 run partnership on a quiz. The question was: “Which famous brandname resulted from the (then) world record partnership between Herbert Sutcliffe and Percy Holmes for Yorkshire against Essex on June 16, 1932?”. The answer given by the quiz master (because no one could answer the question) was “The 555 brand of cigarettes”. I have always wondered if this was true or was a kitchen question cooked up by the quiz master, given the obvious numerical connection. I was wondering whether you could throw more light into this.

And Steven Lynch (after conferring with David Firth, eminent cricket historian) replies to my question in his column dated today!

On an interesting note, David Firth was the editor of Wisden in 1983 when India won the World Cup. Now during the World Cup, just after India had beaten the West Indies in their first league game, he had written that he would eat his words (not literally) if India won. And when India did win, he was asked by N.K.P Salve (the then BCCI President and later Union Minister for Power under Narasimha Rao, who was at Lords that eventful day) asked him cheekily whether he was planning to keep his word. David Firth responded by eating a cake that had been baked in the shape of the Wisden magazine.

In 1999, when The Week was running a series of special issues just before the World Cup, they had a picture of Firth eating the cake with this story. I had wanted to make a photocopy of that particular page, with the intention of using it as a visual on a quiz at college, but somehow never did it. Does anyone have that issue or the picture?

Well, Shoaib thinks so. Mebbe he was joking, but the hullabullao over a marriage is making me sick. Prime culprit - that wash rag of a newspaper, TOI. At the last count, TOI has at least a dozen peices that pass for articles - all devoted to the wedding of the (triple) century! And its making me sick. In fact, this very moment, the biggest headline on TOI’s home-page goes - Man of the match Viru gets hooked in style.

The TOI seems to be sinking to new lows everyday that I think a few years from now, even my marriage will be covered with a size 5 font headline. Hmm… Now what would that headline be? Any guesses?