How much is too much?

After lots of threatening by some members country and constant redrafting ICC board managed to agree on future program of International cricket for next 6 years. Tim may, head of FICA charged ICC with bypassing players’ interests and expectedly ICC rubbished his claims. So where lays the truth?

The shout of too much cricket is in the air since Wills World Cup 1996. Sharjah used to be only regular non test playing venue in the world to host international games, until than. Immediately after the world cup Singapore hosted a triangular tournament and since than places like Toronto, Amstelveen (Holland), Ireland, Scotland and Tangier (Morocco) have made entry in the grounds list that has hosted ODIs. Sharjah has now hosted test matches too for Pakistan’s home games.

1996 was the first calendar year with over 100 ODIs (127 to be precise). Compare it with previous year when only 60 ODI were played world wide. 1994 though came very close to host 100 matches (98 in all). Since that pivotal year of 1996 the least number of matches were played in 2005 with number dropping to 107. And another world cup year, 1999 ended up seeing this figure being crossed 150 for the first (and so far only) time. With more teams having earned ODI status, this number is only going to reach new limits in next few years.

Of course this is a commutative look at numbers and what matters most is how much a single team (and hence a player potentially) plays in a year/season. Australia played 37 in 1999 while India played 43 that same year. Pakistan and South Africa played 41 matches each the following year. Barring England every major team is constantly playing ODIs in the range of 30 every year.

Number of test matches too has gone up over the years with as many as 49 tests being played last year world over. Injuries to players especially to fast bowlers are so common that you start to fear when a bowler lasts uninjured for 10-12 months. You know it must be coming any time soon. Even batsmen are regularly hurt and miss important games. Gone are the times when some one like Gavaskar could play 100 tests on the trot for his country. Today more players are playing 100 tests (Justine Langer being the latest, reaching the mark this morning) and lot faster but by no means on the trot. You hear news every few months that a player is retired from a particular form of the game. Sanath Jayasuriya just announced his retirement from test cricket (only).

Who really minds it, that’s the most important question? The rotation policy, first introduced by Steve Waugh, is a direct outcome of amount of cricket played. The positives are more players get to experience top class cricket and the great players still able to play more matches and earn more money despite dealing with injuries. A Jason Gillespie is naturally injury prone and probably still needed to see a stretcher many times in any other era. A Sachin Tendulkar on the other hand, clearly carrying a body, over used. So how do you compare two eras? If Sachin was playing in 70s or 80s could he scored 50 test centuries because he wouldn’t have sustained frequent injuries? Most likely not since he wouldn’t have had chance to play many more matches anyway.

A question I always ask what if Bradman was playing in modern times with one day cricket sandwiched between test cricket? Could he still be so successful? Didn’t he have advantage of never to worry about switching style to suite different formats? Didn’t he have the advantage of spending months playing warm up games before occupying the crease in a test match? And doesn’t it help someone when you only play at 10 or 12 test ground all your life instead of say 40? Before any Australian readers feel like hitting me, I admit that I don’t think Bradman would have performed differently in any other era. He would have still be the giant of his times. To me great players will still be great despite the times, conditions and opposition life throws at them. They were not so good because things were easy for them; they are great because they were the best equipped to meet the demands of their time.

So the question takes a slightly different form now. Are we ready to enjoy a Tendulkar scoring his 25,000 international runs in 17 years or rather over a longer period of 22 years? A human body can take only so much and how quickly you want to reach that limit is the question.

Too much cricket is a reality of time whatever the driving factors are. Commercialism shown by ICC and member countries might well be seen quite differently in coming decades. This may well make cricket a truly international sport. You will still be looking forward to an Ashes series but a France versus England test might invoke its own charm. So I think onus today fall on the team management about how they prepare a pool of 20 players capable of playing top class cricket, how to keep your best performers fresh and ready for all major clashes such as world cup. As a coach or captain and may be even as a national selector you ought to plan a season as a whole, and not just series by series, keeping in mind who the oppositions are, when you want your best 11 players taking the field and when you can rest them without loosing the prime objective of winning.

Cricket is changing again and soon international teams will find ways to be very comfortable with the schedule thrown on them without risking players’ careers as well as quality of cricket being displayed on field.

Where Were You?

This is a question going to be asked for years to come. You ought to answer ‘where were you’ when greatest one day game ever was played on March 12th, 2006 at that magnificent sports auditorium known as New Wanderers in Johannesburg. I know I’ll be talking about this Sunday morning for quite some time.

I woke up rather early for a Sunday around 8.30 am US Eastern Time since I had plans to go for a drive as weather was just awesome in Washington DC this weekend. As I usually do, my first act in the morning was to get online and check latest scores. I was most interested in learning the news from Mohali where India was playing England. Fourth day of that Mohali test was a great advertisement for test cricket. A test that had lost so much time and most likely heading towards a draw suddenly turned in to a result oriented one and Indians were eyeing a certain victory on final day. But what caught my attention was that Australia had scored 434 in another continent and I just couldn’t believe it. It wasn’t against a Kenyan attack like Sri Lankan did in 1996 when they nearly scored 400. A South African attack even without Shaun Pollock has enough teeth in it. Invariably it reminded me of 2003 world cup final when this modern day murderer of bowling attacks called Ricky Ponting and Damien Martyn had fun with very impressive (until that final) Indian bowling line up.

My Sunday morning had more to come for when I noticed South African score at that stage. Graeme Smith was playing on 90 on mere 50 odd balls and I was like can they? Realistically I knew it’s a matter of one or two wickets and South Africans will be soon bundled out somewhere around 280 or so with 10 overs still remaining. Just than Smith lost his wicket on same score and I admired my understanding of one day game. Hundreds of times we have seen teams batting second crumbling under pressure of huge score despite a great start (mainly thanks to fielding restrictions) and this match was following same pattern.

Hold on. Experts have said for ages that only fools make predictions in cricket. But this is world record 434 isn’t? And isn’t best team of past 10 years, Australia, that is defending this score? And against whom may I ask; the perennial chokers of game of cricket, South Africans. What followed though wasn’t based on a script written ever before. A score of 300 was reached in just 33rd over and I knew anything can happen today. I was ruing my inability to watch the match live and just manage with live scores. No matter, I still couldn’t stop following ball by ball scores.

By the 40th over I had doubts if 1999 world cup semifinal will still be called greatest game ever. And by the time it all finished whole world knew what just happened was almost surreal. I ran down to tell my roommate if he was interested in ‘news of the day’ and shocked him. There were so many moments in the game, when I skipped a breath. I thought Justin Camp can do it but he didn’t do much. Van Der Wath came and started hitting like he was an Afridi or a Sehwag or a Gilchrist. I was surprised how come a bowler is doing it knowing not much about him. I instantly checked his records and I realized he was a big hitter. He didn’t stay too long either. Telemachus didn’t waste any time. By now I was thinking a tie might be ideal result. When Andrew Hall gave away his wicket I could see it happening. Boucher though threw away the tag of chokers from face of South African cricketers for ever, next ball.

I was not at Wanderers, I wasn’t even in front of a TV screen watching it live, and I wasn’t holding a radio close to my ears listening to running commentary either. Still I lived the tensions of this greatest game with all those lucky souls who saw it happening. I am grateful it was a Sunday, I am grateful for internet and not the least I am grateful for lovely Washington weather but for which I wouldn’t have woke up early on March 12th, 2006.

An omission & a selection

An Omission

First test of series between India and England started today. As happened so many times in last few months Sourav Ganguly is once again not in the Indian team. He has been dropped few times from the team but this might be the last time we heard a news on selection or non selection of most successful Indian skipper ever. Ganguly’s dropping raise some disturbing questions. He was not selected despite absence of Yuvraj Singh, the man who replaced him. This indicates that outside pressure was the real reason for his selection on Pakistani tour. I guess it’s time then to be happy that selection committee could do its job independently?

There is nothing new in what I said above but there is another question we should be asking with the board. Only recently when contracts were handed out for 2005-06 season, Mr. Ganguly was awarded a ‘Group A’ (top category) contract with a retainer fee expected to be in the range of Rs. 8 millions (approx US $180,000) to Rs. 10 millions (approx US $220,000). If selectors had made up their mind about Ganguly why he was given this contract? Personally I don’t have any problems with a cricketer like Ganguly making money as his contribution to Indian cricket will always be highly regarded. But if it’s time for him to move on, the money must also move on to those who are present and future of Indian cricket or for those who are in need.

A Selection

Don’t be surprised seeing a Sikh bowling to Indian batsmen in Nagpur. Monty Panesar is first Sikh ever to play test cricket for England. This is a selection worth writing a few words about. No doubt it’s a great ask for Panesar to do well against best batting line up in the world on their home soil in first asking. He might impress but there is even greater chance that he’ll get hammered around the park by the Indians. Hopefully this tour will not set him back by few years. Irrespective of what happens he has already secured his places in Cricket history. I am sure his name will be answer to some trivia questions down the years.

Somehow his selection reminds me Nassir Hussain’s asking of Asians living in UK to support English cricket team instead of subcontinent's teams. One thing is sure no one will have to ask Panesar to give his best for English team and support them when he is not playing. Being an asian (though not living in UK) Nassir’s call made me think at that time. I asked a cousin of mine living in England whom does he support? And he told me, first India and next England whenever they are not playing India. I thought it was a fair sense of loyalty. In some ways Nassir's call was akin to asking a Yorkshireman now living in Durham but still rooting for Yorkshire sitting in the stands of Sophia Gardens. Thankfully nobody questions loyalties within national boundaries.

For past five plus years living in USA I think of having a better understanding of how it feels to be away from home and how loyalties switches or held intact. Someone like me who spent a major part of my life in India it’s never going to be possible to not support India. At the same time I do feel for USA too since if India is my motherland, presently USA is the land that feeding me and shaping my life. But even for those who grow up outside their motherland it may not always be possible to shift loyalties especially if their parents were migrants and rooted in their culture.

Probably what makes it difficult for immigrants to completely feel at home is inability to celebrate life in the way they could at home. Just to give an example, they might not be able to have a national holiday on important religious occasions like Christmas in UK. So naturally it takes couple of generations before immigrants start to feel completely belonging to the land they were born and raised on.

I do have suspicion that British Sikh community might actually be praying for young Panesar rather than say Harbhajan Singh. And hopefully Mr Nassir will never have to make his call again.