As many things in this world, it all boils down to money. Let me explain.
The recently concluded CB series between India, Sri Lanka and Australia started on the 3rd of February and concluded on the 4th of March. 33 Days. Actually, taking a potential 3rd final into account, it would have gone on for 36 days. There were 11 ODIs scheduled for this period.
If we assume that an average ODI is a 8 hour event, there was 88 hrs of cricket scheduled over 36 days, giving viewers almost 2.5hrs of cricket each day, on an average. There is no hard evidence for this, but I thought it was a little too much cricket, with each team playing 3 matches against their opponents. Typical ODI series are 5 match events over 15 odd days, still amounting to 2.7 hrs of cricket each day. The reason that I felt CB series was prolonged was that it was for a longer period of time, even if the cricket per day was marginally less.
Now consider the IPL. 40 days, 59 games. If each T20 game is approximated to 4 hrs, that comes to 5.9hrs of cricket each day, almost 6 hrs. That alone makes this a financially viable medium of entertainment, with enough breaks for commercials. The real question is, how long can the viewers take 6 hrs of cricket each day? If this trend is any indication, then the answer is "not too long". The link, for those too lazy to read through the graphs, shows the IPL scorecard on TV ratings, which were at 7.2 for the 1st game and have consistently dipped to 3.6 for match 11, one fourth way into the tournament. I don't believe average cricket consumers can take 6 hrs of cricket everyday for any significant amount of time. Once the "newness" of IPL wears down, I think the true viewership rating will come out.
Then comes the other, qualitative, drawback of IPL. Generally speaking, the games have been entertaining, but I can't remember much of what happened the day before yesterday , let alone last week. It is getting hazy very fast. People will not remember much of what happened. Its too fast paced for the events to make any significant long-term impact on people's memories.
It will be safe to say that there will not be any significant memories of IPL 2008 in, say 2010. Want to compare to test cricket? How many people remember VVS Laxman's innings from 2001 OR Shewag's Multan innings? A significant part of enjoying cricket, for me and many of the cricket fans that I have come across, is re-living some good old cricket days. I have even enjoyed replays of many games from the T20 world cup, thanks to youtube. I am yet to see a match in IPL that I would like to view again, 6 months down the road, on youtube.
Don't get me wrong, I like the entertainment. I am happy that a lot of domestic players are getting the exposure and visibility that was unavailable previously. The cricket itself has been pretty good, though I would have loved to see the Deccan Chargers doing better. The cheerleaders are a breath of fresh air. The tussel between media and IPL maken an interesting dynamic. Infusion of Bollywood, slapping, crying, hugging is all fun. I am also enjoying the corporate culture making its way into Cricket, as witnessed in Bangalore. I like the rich fighting against the rich to provide more entertainment to the consumer. Remember, Stanford started this in WI, ICL brought it to India and IPL made it bigger than anything that wew have seen. Stanford now wants to pull in ECB, ICL is getting more and more international. What will IPL do? It is entertaining. Most of all, I am enjoying the cricket. But I am afraid it is cricket that I will forget soon. Very soon. and that is very sad.
Tuesday, May 13, 2008
Friday, April 6, 2007
Numbers within numbers
I recently came across this article by S. Rajesh on cricinfo. The numbers do tell the real story.
and this is an interesting concept, as far as coaching is concerned. But that would be expecting too much from BCCI. I am not even sure Cricket, not just Indian cricket, is ready for a hierarchy of coaches.
and this is an interesting concept, as far as coaching is concerned. But that would be expecting too much from BCCI. I am not even sure Cricket, not just Indian cricket, is ready for a hierarchy of coaches.
Tuesday, April 3, 2007
Free Market Solution to Counter the BCCI Sloth.
ICL (Indian Cricket League) is here.
Read Business mogul announces new cricket league or Zee TV announces parallel cricket league.
I believe that this could be the biggest thing that has happened to Indian Cricket since 1983. Maybe since Sachin joined the team. But you get the idea.
For starterts, I am sure that this is going to get much more ugly before the beauty of free markets and competition will hit the BCCI. For those who follow the NFL in USA, this is very similar to the starting of AFL to counter NFL's monopoly over American Football.
You can read the entire story behind how the David in AFL brought the Goliath in NFL to its knees and formed the new NFL here. This also gave birth to the Superbowl, which is still the most wanted trophy in American sports (as in winning a superbowl, or getting a superbowl ring, as it is usually referred to, is considered more prestigious than any other sporting achievement, including winning the NBA, MLB, NASCAR or NHL championships). They all have pride associated with them, but a winning a superbowl is winning a superbowl.
Obviously, the ICL has just been announced and BCCI is still the most powerful (at least richest) sporting organizations in the world. This all might end in two weeks, but I hope Subhash Chandra has as much business acumen, support structure and more importantly, the guts (read as MONEY) to fight the battle as Lamar Hunt had to fight the NFL.
But the most interesting aspect of this fight is going to be the business strategy element, not cricket itself. This is a text book situation of an attempt to turn a monopoly into a little more competitive oligopoly, and all the answers lie in Game Theory. The idea here is simple (yet complex). Since there are only two players in this game (BCCI and ICL), it is relatively easy to predict what the next move of a player is going to be, and your current move takes into consideration your opponent's next move. The research is done, awards have been distributed and the world has seen millions of real life scenarios of Game Theory in practice. There will be an eventual equilibrium. We just have to walk through the science to see what it is.
So, let's try to predict what is going to happen in the Chess match between ICL and BCCI. The only disclaimer here is around the assumption that both the parties involved behave "rationally" (whatever that means). While ICL can be expected to be reasonably rational (given its affiliation to a private corporation that is interested in money and nothing else), BCCI could very well go out of the limits of "reasonable behaviour" to protect its monopoly. In that case, all bets are off and we wait for the Supreme Court to settle issues for us, and that is never a good idea.
I can almost hear this conversation between ICL and BCCI:
ICL: I will develop the domestic talent pool and you can pick and choose from that pool to form the national team. I will take care of scouting for talent, developing talent (physical fitness and the likes included), make a more compelling domestic cricket product, make money out of it and everyone is happy. What I need from you is to share your facilities, allow some of your contracted players to play in my league and treat me like a little brother.
BCCI: I already have a slew of younger brothers in the form of various regional entities. They have a domestic product (Ranji Trophy, Duleep Trophy). They alredy take care of their cricketers and provide me with a pool to select talent from. Maybe there are some loopholes in this "family", I agree, but we don't need to bring in an outsider to settle this issue. We will clean our house and you, my dear ICL, can to go to hell. And by the way, I am also starting a inter-city 20-20 format league. You are not bringing anything new to me.
ICL: Well, you do have your regional brethren, but they are sloths (in a hushed tone "just like yourself....hahahah"). They don't offer a compelling domestic product. You can keep your domestic cricket in the form of Ranji and Duleep trophy alive. No one watches that any way. I will introduce a 20-20 league and expand into a one day format. Mine will be more compelling and my output of cricketers will be better than yours. Given the recent performance of the team in the WC, you better accept my very well timed offer, or else you will have a lot of explaining to do.
BCCI: Well, you do make a good point. But I still believe I can solve my problems and you can still go to hell.
ICL: If you want to stick to that routine, then that's your call. I am going to start my league any way. Let's see who can manage the process better. Me, a corporation designed and developed to perform such processes or you big gorilla, who has a lot of money but cannot put forward a good team when there is a need for you to do so. You can get lost.
All this to say that ICL and BCCI are going to be competitors long before they can be collaborators.
The success of ICL depends on the following:
1. Their ability to attract talent, both domestic and international (At least in its nascency, be able to convince young cricketers that it is worth saying no to a regional team, not play a Ranji Trophy, but instead play the ICL 20-20 or one day trophy)
2. Their ability to promote a domestic cricketing product (mind you, this is going to be very difficult, but if ICL can pull this off successfully, then BCCI is in a lot of trouble. They will have to share the cash with someone else, which is not the case today)
One thing in ICL's favor is the timing. People's crazy infactuation with cricket is at its lowest levels in a long long time. Even a successful tour to Balgladesh will bring some more of this fanaticism back to life. It is like an addiction that people will never get out of. It is cyclical in nature and ICL has caught the wave at the best possible time. The issue of timing is also important from a sponsorship perspective. Sponsors are looking at alternative places to put their money, and this might be the right place for some sponsors at least.
The other thing in favor of ICL is its ownership, parenthood or lineage. Zee TV is already in everyone's house, India and abroad. They can push the ICL case as strong as anyone else. But the question is, how strong a commitment does Zee have? How much is it willing to "Invest" (read: lose) in this venture. Fortunately, Zee also has the exclusive rights to some of the neutral venue games played by the Indian team.
All said and done, the ultimate holy grail for each Indian cricketer (each potential cricketer born in India, I should say) is still to play for the national team, and unfortunately, BCCI has the final say in that. Money can change this player mentality to some extent, but I don't believe that domestic cricket will be THAT POPULAR any time soon.
That leaves BCCI with a lot of clout. What if the BCCI says:
1. No player on contract with BCCI can play for ICL or any other league for that matter. (well, this BCCI will say for sure)
2. For national selection, BCCI will give preferential treatment to players who have never signed with any other league (while BCCI may not be able to say this explicitly, they can easily convey the message and implement it as well)
3. It is a prerequisite to play in doemstic cricket under the BCCI aegis to be eligible for national selection
This is like Intel telling Dell that if you use AMD chips on your computers, then the next time we release a new chip, HP will get preferential treatment / "quota".
In reality, there may not be much ICL can do to directly attack that clout, but build the league in such a way that
1. Players are willing to play for ICL for life, knowing that there is more money in it than in other domestic cricket (and hence I give up on their international cricketing aspirations) or
2. The talent pool is so high that ICL can continuously demonstrate that ICL players are better than BCCI players
No matter how the saga will end, I am sure that if ICL can exist for 3 to 6 years, it will improve the Indian team. I strongly believe that a product coming out of a competitive market is bound to be better than one that is an outcome of monolopy.
All power to free markets.
I want ICL to be able to compete with BCCI to the extent that we believe an ICL team representing India has a better chance for success than what BCCI can deliver.
Let's all wait for the drama to unfold.
Read Business mogul announces new cricket league or Zee TV announces parallel cricket league.
I believe that this could be the biggest thing that has happened to Indian Cricket since 1983. Maybe since Sachin joined the team. But you get the idea.
For starterts, I am sure that this is going to get much more ugly before the beauty of free markets and competition will hit the BCCI. For those who follow the NFL in USA, this is very similar to the starting of AFL to counter NFL's monopoly over American Football.
You can read the entire story behind how the David in AFL brought the Goliath in NFL to its knees and formed the new NFL here. This also gave birth to the Superbowl, which is still the most wanted trophy in American sports (as in winning a superbowl, or getting a superbowl ring, as it is usually referred to, is considered more prestigious than any other sporting achievement, including winning the NBA, MLB, NASCAR or NHL championships). They all have pride associated with them, but a winning a superbowl is winning a superbowl.
Obviously, the ICL has just been announced and BCCI is still the most powerful (at least richest) sporting organizations in the world. This all might end in two weeks, but I hope Subhash Chandra has as much business acumen, support structure and more importantly, the guts (read as MONEY) to fight the battle as Lamar Hunt had to fight the NFL.
But the most interesting aspect of this fight is going to be the business strategy element, not cricket itself. This is a text book situation of an attempt to turn a monopoly into a little more competitive oligopoly, and all the answers lie in Game Theory. The idea here is simple (yet complex). Since there are only two players in this game (BCCI and ICL), it is relatively easy to predict what the next move of a player is going to be, and your current move takes into consideration your opponent's next move. The research is done, awards have been distributed and the world has seen millions of real life scenarios of Game Theory in practice. There will be an eventual equilibrium. We just have to walk through the science to see what it is.
So, let's try to predict what is going to happen in the Chess match between ICL and BCCI. The only disclaimer here is around the assumption that both the parties involved behave "rationally" (whatever that means). While ICL can be expected to be reasonably rational (given its affiliation to a private corporation that is interested in money and nothing else), BCCI could very well go out of the limits of "reasonable behaviour" to protect its monopoly. In that case, all bets are off and we wait for the Supreme Court to settle issues for us, and that is never a good idea.
I can almost hear this conversation between ICL and BCCI:
ICL: I will develop the domestic talent pool and you can pick and choose from that pool to form the national team. I will take care of scouting for talent, developing talent (physical fitness and the likes included), make a more compelling domestic cricket product, make money out of it and everyone is happy. What I need from you is to share your facilities, allow some of your contracted players to play in my league and treat me like a little brother.
BCCI: I already have a slew of younger brothers in the form of various regional entities. They have a domestic product (Ranji Trophy, Duleep Trophy). They alredy take care of their cricketers and provide me with a pool to select talent from. Maybe there are some loopholes in this "family", I agree, but we don't need to bring in an outsider to settle this issue. We will clean our house and you, my dear ICL, can to go to hell. And by the way, I am also starting a inter-city 20-20 format league. You are not bringing anything new to me.
ICL: Well, you do have your regional brethren, but they are sloths (in a hushed tone "just like yourself....hahahah"). They don't offer a compelling domestic product. You can keep your domestic cricket in the form of Ranji and Duleep trophy alive. No one watches that any way. I will introduce a 20-20 league and expand into a one day format. Mine will be more compelling and my output of cricketers will be better than yours. Given the recent performance of the team in the WC, you better accept my very well timed offer, or else you will have a lot of explaining to do.
BCCI: Well, you do make a good point. But I still believe I can solve my problems and you can still go to hell.
ICL: If you want to stick to that routine, then that's your call. I am going to start my league any way. Let's see who can manage the process better. Me, a corporation designed and developed to perform such processes or you big gorilla, who has a lot of money but cannot put forward a good team when there is a need for you to do so. You can get lost.
All this to say that ICL and BCCI are going to be competitors long before they can be collaborators.
The success of ICL depends on the following:
1. Their ability to attract talent, both domestic and international (At least in its nascency, be able to convince young cricketers that it is worth saying no to a regional team, not play a Ranji Trophy, but instead play the ICL 20-20 or one day trophy)
2. Their ability to promote a domestic cricketing product (mind you, this is going to be very difficult, but if ICL can pull this off successfully, then BCCI is in a lot of trouble. They will have to share the cash with someone else, which is not the case today)
One thing in ICL's favor is the timing. People's crazy infactuation with cricket is at its lowest levels in a long long time. Even a successful tour to Balgladesh will bring some more of this fanaticism back to life. It is like an addiction that people will never get out of. It is cyclical in nature and ICL has caught the wave at the best possible time. The issue of timing is also important from a sponsorship perspective. Sponsors are looking at alternative places to put their money, and this might be the right place for some sponsors at least.
The other thing in favor of ICL is its ownership, parenthood or lineage. Zee TV is already in everyone's house, India and abroad. They can push the ICL case as strong as anyone else. But the question is, how strong a commitment does Zee have? How much is it willing to "Invest" (read: lose) in this venture. Fortunately, Zee also has the exclusive rights to some of the neutral venue games played by the Indian team.
All said and done, the ultimate holy grail for each Indian cricketer (each potential cricketer born in India, I should say) is still to play for the national team, and unfortunately, BCCI has the final say in that. Money can change this player mentality to some extent, but I don't believe that domestic cricket will be THAT POPULAR any time soon.
That leaves BCCI with a lot of clout. What if the BCCI says:
1. No player on contract with BCCI can play for ICL or any other league for that matter. (well, this BCCI will say for sure)
2. For national selection, BCCI will give preferential treatment to players who have never signed with any other league (while BCCI may not be able to say this explicitly, they can easily convey the message and implement it as well)
3. It is a prerequisite to play in doemstic cricket under the BCCI aegis to be eligible for national selection
This is like Intel telling Dell that if you use AMD chips on your computers, then the next time we release a new chip, HP will get preferential treatment / "quota".
In reality, there may not be much ICL can do to directly attack that clout, but build the league in such a way that
1. Players are willing to play for ICL for life, knowing that there is more money in it than in other domestic cricket (and hence I give up on their international cricketing aspirations) or
2. The talent pool is so high that ICL can continuously demonstrate that ICL players are better than BCCI players
No matter how the saga will end, I am sure that if ICL can exist for 3 to 6 years, it will improve the Indian team. I strongly believe that a product coming out of a competitive market is bound to be better than one that is an outcome of monolopy.
All power to free markets.
I want ICL to be able to compete with BCCI to the extent that we believe an ICL team representing India has a better chance for success than what BCCI can deliver.
Let's all wait for the drama to unfold.
Monday, April 2, 2007
Australia, South Africa, Sri Lanka and New Zealand, In That Order
Can the West Indies or England replace any one of these teams to get into the semi-finals?
West Indies has already failed against Australia, New Zealand and Sri Lanka. I don't believe they have a chance against South Africa either. As I mentioned in one of my earlier posts, hosts are toast. A pretty low key farewell to Lara is on the cards. Mark your calendars. Saturday April 21st 2007. They may also get a consolation victory against the Brits.
I predict England is on its way out as well. Will know for sure in a week.
That leaves us with the questions of ranking. I believe the SL Vs NZ game on the 12th of April will decide that for us. I predict SL will win and take on SA for the semi and NZ will have to face Aus for the other semi final. From that point on, I predict it could go any way. Bond and Murali can take a game away and SA and Aus, may enter the semis as facorites, but from my side, all bets are off.
It will be a pretty bland set out outcomes of Aus beats SA in the final. The games themselves may end up pretty thrilling. I am rooting for some ups and downs, not just through the course of the games, but in the results as well.
West Indies has already failed against Australia, New Zealand and Sri Lanka. I don't believe they have a chance against South Africa either. As I mentioned in one of my earlier posts, hosts are toast. A pretty low key farewell to Lara is on the cards. Mark your calendars. Saturday April 21st 2007. They may also get a consolation victory against the Brits.
I predict England is on its way out as well. Will know for sure in a week.
That leaves us with the questions of ranking. I believe the SL Vs NZ game on the 12th of April will decide that for us. I predict SL will win and take on SA for the semi and NZ will have to face Aus for the other semi final. From that point on, I predict it could go any way. Bond and Murali can take a game away and SA and Aus, may enter the semis as facorites, but from my side, all bets are off.
It will be a pretty bland set out outcomes of Aus beats SA in the final. The games themselves may end up pretty thrilling. I am rooting for some ups and downs, not just through the course of the games, but in the results as well.
Saturday, March 31, 2007
Changing Game
I suppose it is time to look at India's debacle and offer suggestions. Certainly anyone who has seen the WC matches or had a chance to look at some of our cricketers (Sehwag's physique jogging thoughts in Adnan Sami's mind, if it is not too late for him to take up cricket and rescue India) will not hesitate in saying that physical fitness is the biggest factor for us not being competitive.
We are aware that there are no short-term fixes. The right approach would be to put more focus on domestic cricket, do away with regionalism, no deference to established names etc. etc. However anyone familiar with India will tell you that this is a very distant dream at best. The thing that will work in India are rules, if we can implement them. A change in mindset driven by change in philosophies and approach in evaluating candidates. Australia by its own admission has improved its cricket by learning from Baseball's approach to defense (or fielding as we term it in cricket). However in India it is too late to emphasize these virtues on cricketers who have already "made it" to the big stage. They have become succesful a certain way and it is impossible to change this. For example a guy who has scored tons of runs with noodle arms will blame his recently developed muscles if he fails in a inning or two. The way to do this is prevent these guys from even making it to the India team without the fielding and physical fitness.
I believe that India will benefit by copying the base ball philosphy of identifying players by thier fielding position much like the wicket keeper. I think too much emphasis is laid on batting and too little on the fielding. My suggestion would be to identify 7-8 fielding positions that are critical to the team and fill in these places with capable batsmen and all rounders. So, right from domestic cricket these guys are slotted into one or two fielding spots and these are fixed. These players will be referred by thier fielding position e.g. mid-on, mid-off, square-leg etc. The batting order is more fluid and can be tinkered with more ease than the fielding positions in my mind similar to base ball. Dravid's philososphy of "smart fielding" is asinine thinking at best. Certainly being a great fielder does not eliminate the need to bat well but certainly unmistaken emphasis is laid on the fielding and physical fitness aspect. For e.g. I would like Sehwag or Tendulkar be evaluated against a young lad at the same fielding position alongwith the batting prowess which can fit anywhere from 1-7. What are thier specialist fielding positions anyway ??
I eliminate bowlers as they in my mind are specialists and I am yet to see a pure bowler who is an outstanding fielder esp. in the infield. They just have a different responsibility when they are on the field and thier goal would be to take wickets and commit as few mistakes as possibe.
I know there is a lot more detailed thinking that needs to be done on this front but there is no question in my mind that too much is made of the batting position than needed and there is none on the fielding position. This way I beleive Kaif and Raina or some other young kids would have made teh side and avoided this embarassement.
Let me get back to my drink ....
We are aware that there are no short-term fixes. The right approach would be to put more focus on domestic cricket, do away with regionalism, no deference to established names etc. etc. However anyone familiar with India will tell you that this is a very distant dream at best. The thing that will work in India are rules, if we can implement them. A change in mindset driven by change in philosophies and approach in evaluating candidates. Australia by its own admission has improved its cricket by learning from Baseball's approach to defense (or fielding as we term it in cricket). However in India it is too late to emphasize these virtues on cricketers who have already "made it" to the big stage. They have become succesful a certain way and it is impossible to change this. For example a guy who has scored tons of runs with noodle arms will blame his recently developed muscles if he fails in a inning or two. The way to do this is prevent these guys from even making it to the India team without the fielding and physical fitness.
I believe that India will benefit by copying the base ball philosphy of identifying players by thier fielding position much like the wicket keeper. I think too much emphasis is laid on batting and too little on the fielding. My suggestion would be to identify 7-8 fielding positions that are critical to the team and fill in these places with capable batsmen and all rounders. So, right from domestic cricket these guys are slotted into one or two fielding spots and these are fixed. These players will be referred by thier fielding position e.g. mid-on, mid-off, square-leg etc. The batting order is more fluid and can be tinkered with more ease than the fielding positions in my mind similar to base ball. Dravid's philososphy of "smart fielding" is asinine thinking at best. Certainly being a great fielder does not eliminate the need to bat well but certainly unmistaken emphasis is laid on the fielding and physical fitness aspect. For e.g. I would like Sehwag or Tendulkar be evaluated against a young lad at the same fielding position alongwith the batting prowess which can fit anywhere from 1-7. What are thier specialist fielding positions anyway ??
I eliminate bowlers as they in my mind are specialists and I am yet to see a pure bowler who is an outstanding fielder esp. in the infield. They just have a different responsibility when they are on the field and thier goal would be to take wickets and commit as few mistakes as possibe.
I know there is a lot more detailed thinking that needs to be done on this front but there is no question in my mind that too much is made of the batting position than needed and there is none on the fielding position. This way I beleive Kaif and Raina or some other young kids would have made teh side and avoided this embarassement.
Let me get back to my drink ....
Friday, March 30, 2007
Too Tempting Not To Strike Back
Ian Chappel, while not very famous for thorwing his mouth, has come close to that task by writing this article, asking Tendulkar to retire and telling us lesser mortals that Lara is a better cricketer.
I don't think Sachin should retire. I wanted to write a long drawn argument about that one, but I found it better captured here (along with many commets made under that article). To summarize, it is a ridiculous argument. He can still add value to the team. The team is better with him than without him. He is physically fit enough to play. He wants to play.
My 2 cents regarding this issue is this: Yes, he may not be as good as he used to be. That is no reason to retire. In fact, if he retired because his glory days are behind him and not because of his position relative to the team, that would be a very selfish decision. Even out of prime, he holds a spot in the team.
In the same article, Chappel also re-kindles the age old debate between Lara Vs Tendulkar, and it seems that his conclusion is that Lara was, is and will always be the better one. I have no problem with Chappel's conslusion. He is entitled to his wrong opinion.
But I would like to look at it a little more more objectively. How about some stats?
I know I know, statistics are lies. Well, they are lies only is the reader is brain dead or if we draw ridiculous conclusions from them. Let's try and stay away from the crazy conclusions.
"No no no, you can't do that. Sachin has already won the stats game, especially if it comes to one days." you might say. Well, let me know if there is a better way to compare two players whose career has spread over a cpouple of decades with lots of ups and downs. Can't do it on a game by game basis.
Also, I am limiting all these stats to one day internationals. Will do the tests after India loses to Bangladesh in the test series in May.
So I am a finance guy. For me, the better asset to invest in is the one that generates better overall value. If I had to pick between one thats lasts longer and generates value (runs, in this case) at a faster rate (average) and entertains more in the process (4s and 6s) vs some other asset that works lesser time (matches) and delivers relatively lower value and so on and so forth, then I would pick the former. Oh, I forgot to mention, Sachin bowls as well.
"Tendulkar has been a very selfish and building up his stats while his team was going down the dump, but Lara has been winning more matches while accumulating fewer stats", you might say.
I say look at the number of Man of the Match awards. SRT = 48, Lara = 30 (I counted them on Cricinfo StatsGuru page). Implying that SRT was the MoM for 12.5% of the games he played whereas Lara was MoM for 10.2% of the games Lara played. Talk about match winning performances.
Also, SRT has 190 wins in his career Vs 138 for Lara. Normalizing against the number of games played, SRT has won 49.5% of the games he played whereas Lara has won 46.8%.
"Forget the overall wins, India played a lot more games and many of those wins are against minnows" you may say.
First of all, I say "ignore the minnow at your own risk". Then I say, lets look at the statistics for "finals" of tournaments. Thanks to StatsGuru, we should be able to nail that sucker as well.
Wallah, we can. Tendulkar has played 47 (12.2% of his games) finals as opposed to Lara's 27 (9.2% of his games). SRT has won 22 finals (46.8% of the finals he played) vs Lara's 12 (44.4%). Added to that, SRT scored 1954 runs (13.2% 0f his overall runs) in finals Vs Lara's 866 (8.4%).
I could have looked into semi finals, but after a while, it would be like beating a dead horse, so I give up.
Well, in spite of all the numbers, I don't say that SRT us unequivocally a better cricketer than Lara. All I want people to understand is that Chappel has reached an incorrect and hasty conclusion. Even the health issues that Chappel talks about do not hold water. SRT started before Lara and was utilized a lot more by his country and has at least two to three more years of solid cricket under him (irrespective of what Chappel thinks!!). So there goes the fitness discussion.
Ian Chappel has probably forgotten more about cricket than I can ever know. However, in this case, either he has forgotten a lot more than I credit him with, or he just wanted to say something outrageous to elicit such a response from a strong fan base.
I don't think Sachin should retire. I wanted to write a long drawn argument about that one, but I found it better captured here (along with many commets made under that article). To summarize, it is a ridiculous argument. He can still add value to the team. The team is better with him than without him. He is physically fit enough to play. He wants to play.
My 2 cents regarding this issue is this: Yes, he may not be as good as he used to be. That is no reason to retire. In fact, if he retired because his glory days are behind him and not because of his position relative to the team, that would be a very selfish decision. Even out of prime, he holds a spot in the team.
In the same article, Chappel also re-kindles the age old debate between Lara Vs Tendulkar, and it seems that his conclusion is that Lara was, is and will always be the better one. I have no problem with Chappel's conslusion. He is entitled to his wrong opinion.
But I would like to look at it a little more more objectively. How about some stats?
I know I know, statistics are lies. Well, they are lies only is the reader is brain dead or if we draw ridiculous conclusions from them. Let's try and stay away from the crazy conclusions.
"No no no, you can't do that. Sachin has already won the stats game, especially if it comes to one days." you might say. Well, let me know if there is a better way to compare two players whose career has spread over a cpouple of decades with lots of ups and downs. Can't do it on a game by game basis.
Also, I am limiting all these stats to one day internationals. Will do the tests after India loses to Bangladesh in the test series in May.
So I am a finance guy. For me, the better asset to invest in is the one that generates better overall value. If I had to pick between one thats lasts longer and generates value (runs, in this case) at a faster rate (average) and entertains more in the process (4s and 6s) vs some other asset that works lesser time (matches) and delivers relatively lower value and so on and so forth, then I would pick the former. Oh, I forgot to mention, Sachin bowls as well."Tendulkar has been a very selfish and building up his stats while his team was going down the dump, but Lara has been winning more matches while accumulating fewer stats", you might say.
I say look at the number of Man of the Match awards. SRT = 48, Lara = 30 (I counted them on Cricinfo StatsGuru page). Implying that SRT was the MoM for 12.5% of the games he played whereas Lara was MoM for 10.2% of the games Lara played. Talk about match winning performances.
Also, SRT has 190 wins in his career Vs 138 for Lara. Normalizing against the number of games played, SRT has won 49.5% of the games he played whereas Lara has won 46.8%.
"Forget the overall wins, India played a lot more games and many of those wins are against minnows" you may say.
First of all, I say "ignore the minnow at your own risk". Then I say, lets look at the statistics for "finals" of tournaments. Thanks to StatsGuru, we should be able to nail that sucker as well.
Wallah, we can. Tendulkar has played 47 (12.2% of his games) finals as opposed to Lara's 27 (9.2% of his games). SRT has won 22 finals (46.8% of the finals he played) vs Lara's 12 (44.4%). Added to that, SRT scored 1954 runs (13.2% 0f his overall runs) in finals Vs Lara's 866 (8.4%).
I could have looked into semi finals, but after a while, it would be like beating a dead horse, so I give up.
Well, in spite of all the numbers, I don't say that SRT us unequivocally a better cricketer than Lara. All I want people to understand is that Chappel has reached an incorrect and hasty conclusion. Even the health issues that Chappel talks about do not hold water. SRT started before Lara and was utilized a lot more by his country and has at least two to three more years of solid cricket under him (irrespective of what Chappel thinks!!). So there goes the fitness discussion.
Ian Chappel has probably forgotten more about cricket than I can ever know. However, in this case, either he has forgotten a lot more than I credit him with, or he just wanted to say something outrageous to elicit such a response from a strong fan base.
Wednesday, March 28, 2007
Let's Kick Back & Relax
The previous post was on the 12th of March, and today is the 28th. Just a little over a fortnight's worth of world cup is behind us, and a lot has happened in the mean while.
Pakistan and India have been dealt ignominous exits from the world cup and Pakistani coach Bob Woolmer was murdered after the debacle.
I have been doing a decent amount of reading regarding the extra curricular events casting their shadow on the world cup and a little bit about the cricket involved as well. I have no clue who killed Bob Woolmer. I may have a theory or two, but they are not worth the bytes they consume, so I will not talk about them.
There are two things that I will talk about, both today and in the near future.
1. The high quality cricket that we have been witnessing and that we should be focusing our attention on
2. What can be done with the Indian cricket team. Well, the true question is not just the team, but Indian cricket itself.
I will concede that India's loss to Bangladesh was not a normal event. Even with the current team, India is a superior team compared to Bangladesh, no matter what one game tells you. I will start and stop my accolades to the Indian team right there.
The loss to Sri Lanka was shocking. Sri Lanka are a very good team, especially with Vaas and Murali in the squad. But even against that line-up, the target was achievable, and we screwed up, much similar to the 1996 world cup semi finals in Eden Gardens.
Well, now that the dust has settled (at least in the minds and hearts of the fan base), what needs to be done next?
The agnostic sceptic in me tells me that "what needs to be done" doesn't really matter, as it will not be done. Even if we went into the super eights by beating Bangladesh and losing to SL, our performance there would have been pathetic. Australia and South Africa are in a completely different league here. Fanaticism and patriotism aside, anyone who watched the Australia Vs South Africa game can easliy see that India doesn't even play the same game. We did not stand a chance against either of them. Between the hosts and India, I would have put my money on West Indies, not just because they have home court advantage but because we are pretty bad outside the sub-continent and we would have succomed to them rather meekly. New Zealand has been playing amazing cricket in the recent past and they still have a good shot entering into the semi finals. That would have left us with one win against Ireland and maybe one against England and pretty far from the semi finals.
This article list five reasons, just five reasons, but I am sure there are more. So, I ask myslef again, what is the problem with India. I have heard several theories and I will list them, in not particular order:
1. Physical Fitness, or the lack there of
2. Lack of bowling talent
3. Lack of application among the batsmen
4. Age (maybe this is related to #1 above)
5. Politics/regionalism in Indian cricket
6. Match Fixing
7. Domestic Cricket
8. Fanaticism among cricket followers, with mercurial emotions
9. Lack of ruthlessness among the selectors (sticking to names rather than performances)
10. Players being paid too much, leading to lack of application in the game
11. Pure lack of talent
12. Bad coach
I guess there may be another reason or two, but the list seems pretty comprehensive to me.
I really liked this article by Jayaditya Gupta, comparing current cricket to Hockey a couple of decades ago, explaining how the basics of the game changed and India was not able to cope up.
The comparison is scary and far fetched at the same time. Cricket has more money and resources than Hockey had during those days, and that will help us not fall behind the curve too much. However, money will not help us get to the top. We need to do other things for that to happen.
I don't think we could have selected a significantly different team going to the world cup. People might make an arguement about Kaif, Raina and maybe Gambhir, but that would not have had a material impact on the team's capabilities. We have to develop a stronger bench and that means the solution is long term. There is no short term. A knee jerk reaction to scak a bunch of people and fill those spots with younger, less experienced players is not a long term strategy. The players will at best become as good as we are today, but we would still be significantly below par.
As to sacking the coach, that is going to happen and it is utterly useless. Based on what I could get from John Wright's book (Indian Summers), the Indian coach has a very small role to play and even the best of coaches, in the Indian context, cannot do much. The way I see it, this is a lost opportunity for Chappel to write his own book.
So I end with a question to you. What would you do in the short term and in the long term if you were the head of BCCI and were allowed to make any and all the decisions you wanted to make?
While we get some of those thinking gears churning, lets kick back with a beer, relax in a confortable chair (or couch) and follow what will be a great world cup.
PS: While India's exit hurt, this made it all the more miserable.
Pakistan and India have been dealt ignominous exits from the world cup and Pakistani coach Bob Woolmer was murdered after the debacle.
I have been doing a decent amount of reading regarding the extra curricular events casting their shadow on the world cup and a little bit about the cricket involved as well. I have no clue who killed Bob Woolmer. I may have a theory or two, but they are not worth the bytes they consume, so I will not talk about them.
There are two things that I will talk about, both today and in the near future.
1. The high quality cricket that we have been witnessing and that we should be focusing our attention on
2. What can be done with the Indian cricket team. Well, the true question is not just the team, but Indian cricket itself.
I will concede that India's loss to Bangladesh was not a normal event. Even with the current team, India is a superior team compared to Bangladesh, no matter what one game tells you. I will start and stop my accolades to the Indian team right there.
The loss to Sri Lanka was shocking. Sri Lanka are a very good team, especially with Vaas and Murali in the squad. But even against that line-up, the target was achievable, and we screwed up, much similar to the 1996 world cup semi finals in Eden Gardens.
Well, now that the dust has settled (at least in the minds and hearts of the fan base), what needs to be done next?
The agnostic sceptic in me tells me that "what needs to be done" doesn't really matter, as it will not be done. Even if we went into the super eights by beating Bangladesh and losing to SL, our performance there would have been pathetic. Australia and South Africa are in a completely different league here. Fanaticism and patriotism aside, anyone who watched the Australia Vs South Africa game can easliy see that India doesn't even play the same game. We did not stand a chance against either of them. Between the hosts and India, I would have put my money on West Indies, not just because they have home court advantage but because we are pretty bad outside the sub-continent and we would have succomed to them rather meekly. New Zealand has been playing amazing cricket in the recent past and they still have a good shot entering into the semi finals. That would have left us with one win against Ireland and maybe one against England and pretty far from the semi finals.
This article list five reasons, just five reasons, but I am sure there are more. So, I ask myslef again, what is the problem with India. I have heard several theories and I will list them, in not particular order:
1. Physical Fitness, or the lack there of
2. Lack of bowling talent
3. Lack of application among the batsmen
4. Age (maybe this is related to #1 above)
5. Politics/regionalism in Indian cricket
6. Match Fixing
7. Domestic Cricket
8. Fanaticism among cricket followers, with mercurial emotions
9. Lack of ruthlessness among the selectors (sticking to names rather than performances)
10. Players being paid too much, leading to lack of application in the game
11. Pure lack of talent
12. Bad coach
I guess there may be another reason or two, but the list seems pretty comprehensive to me.
I really liked this article by Jayaditya Gupta, comparing current cricket to Hockey a couple of decades ago, explaining how the basics of the game changed and India was not able to cope up.
The comparison is scary and far fetched at the same time. Cricket has more money and resources than Hockey had during those days, and that will help us not fall behind the curve too much. However, money will not help us get to the top. We need to do other things for that to happen.
I don't think we could have selected a significantly different team going to the world cup. People might make an arguement about Kaif, Raina and maybe Gambhir, but that would not have had a material impact on the team's capabilities. We have to develop a stronger bench and that means the solution is long term. There is no short term. A knee jerk reaction to scak a bunch of people and fill those spots with younger, less experienced players is not a long term strategy. The players will at best become as good as we are today, but we would still be significantly below par.
As to sacking the coach, that is going to happen and it is utterly useless. Based on what I could get from John Wright's book (Indian Summers), the Indian coach has a very small role to play and even the best of coaches, in the Indian context, cannot do much. The way I see it, this is a lost opportunity for Chappel to write his own book.
So I end with a question to you. What would you do in the short term and in the long term if you were the head of BCCI and were allowed to make any and all the decisions you wanted to make?
While we get some of those thinking gears churning, lets kick back with a beer, relax in a confortable chair (or couch) and follow what will be a great world cup.
PS: While India's exit hurt, this made it all the more miserable.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)