Build Cricket Centers not Stadiums.

The city of Ranchi now has another reason to feel happy about apart from being the home state of India's captain, MS Dhoni. The newly built Jharkhand State Cricket Association Stadium in the city, the country's 42nd international venue, saw a full house when the Indian team walked onto the ground for the first time, for the third ODI against England. Crowds thronged the stadium not just to cheer the local star but also to set their eyes on the facility, which seemed next only to the captain in popularity, at least on that day.

If the lush green of the outfield wasn't striking enough, the pitch too was ideal for a good contest. The Himachal Pradesh team played a Ranji Trophy game at this venue about a month ago and I can vouch for its services, which are first-rate. The dressing rooms are not only spacious but also very comfortable, with a provision for ice- and steam baths in the bathrooms attached. The practice facilities, at the back of the stadium, are of good quality (about eight practice pitches), while a small field in the premises comes in handy for fielding drills and open net sessions. There's also an indoor cricket academy and a residential facility. All of this in a stadium in one of the smaller cities is pleasantly surprising.

Fortunately, though, stadiums like this aren't an aberration in India anymore. All the new ones are equipped with state-of-the-art facilities, at least for the players. While there's still some scope for improvement in terms of the services extended to spectators, players are no longer complaining about makeshift dressing rooms and dirty loos.

It's a huge shift from the long-prevalent practice of providing only basics to sportspersons, but the fad of building such stadiums is getting to be a bit of an obsession. How else does one explain the presence of more than one international stadium in a state? In Maharashtra, Nagpur has two, Mumbai three. Madhya Pradesh and Andhra Pradesh have two each. In a country that has 27 teams (two of these 27 teams are not funded by the BCCI, and hence don't have an international stadium) in its national domestic tournament, there are as many as 42 international stadiums.

I can almost hear you say that there can never be enough top-class infrastructure for sport, especially in India, and that it can only be good if every city has such a facility. While there's no denying that if put to good use, these stadiums can be breeding grounds for the Dhonis and Cheteshwar Pujaras of the future, it's important to find out if the investments involved, usually in excess of Rs 100 crore (approximately $18 million), are yielding the right results. These stadiums must make both financial sense, with regard to the revenue they generate by hosting international and IPL games, and practical sense, in terms of the access players enjoy to the facilities at these grounds through the year.

A closer look at the average number of days a Test centre is busy for annually might make these investments look like a colossal waste of money, for most of these stadiums are in use not more than 60-70 days a year. While stadiums like Mohali, Wankhede, Chepauk and Kotla (the ones that host IPL games) are busier than the rest, hosting games from September till May, other stadiums, like the two in Nagpur, are less occupied. Even the busiest stadium hosts only a handful of first-class matches (four or five), age-group tournaments (not more than four or five matches again), and a few IPL games (eight or nine).

The square and outfield in these stadiums are looked after, but most other parts, except the indoor practice facility and the gym - if there is one - remain under lock and key. At most grounds, the training facilities are adjacent to the main stadium and are put to good use throughout the year, but the main outfield is completely out of bounds.

	Till not long ago, cricket was a game played in maidans. While the state associations are busy erecting stadia, the maidans have started to disappear. Buidling a world-class stadium might be a good way to justify the funds provided by the BCCI, but does it promote cricket as it should?

In fact, most groundsmen are so finicky, they don't even allow the home Ranji team to have fielding and training sessions on the main ground during the preparatory camps ahead of the season, let alone permitting them to play on the square before matches. They view the ground as a showpiece, which must be unveiled only when the arc lights are on and the world is watching. At times like these you wonder if calling a stadium a team's home is even partially correct, for you are as much an outsider as your opponent is.

If that's what happens with first-class cricketers who represent the state team, I need not mention how accessible the facilities are to players lower down the ladder.

For the longest time Rajkot had only one turf pitch in the city, and that was at their old cricket ground. Since there weren't regular practice sessions at the ground, most players, including the likes of Pujara, had to make do with playing on jute matting at little known cricket academies.

The stadium in Cuttack has been hosting international matches for decades, but, appallingly, it has the only turf pitch in the entire state of Orissa. Even players living in Bhubaneshwar, the capital, have to travel to Cuttack for training or practice on concrete or jute matting surfaces. Unfortunately, there are many similar stories across the country.

The point I'm trying to make here is that instead of investing hundreds of crores on state-of-the-art stadiums with all the bells and whistles, it would be a good idea to start using that money judiciously to build more cricket grounds with decent practice facilities, which in turn would attract more talent.

How about acquiring pieces of land in the interiors of every state, developing basic grounds and running cricket academies (open and free for all) through the year? Such a move would ensure that anyone who wants to play the sport, irrespective of how far from the big cities he lives, has access to a ground and a good coach. State associations could run these academies using merely the interest generated from the vast sums they spend in building big stadiums.

Till not long ago, cricket was essentially a game played in maidans. While the state associations are busy erecting stadia, the maidans have started to disappear. Building a world-class stadium might be a good way to justify the funds provided by the BCCI for "promotion of sport", but does it promote cricket as it should? It will be interesting to know how many state associations would take up such ambitious projects if they had to raise the funds themselves. Right now the money is provided by the BCCI, and so the states don't think twice about the utility or otherwise of such expenditure.

Some state associations - Karnataka and Himachal Pradesh among them - have set an example by opening many cricket centres funded and/or run by the state association across the state throughout the year. Others must consider following suit.

Building a few more stadiums is unlikely to produce another Sachin Tendulkar or Kapil Dev, but opening cricket centres might just put India on the right track to unearth talent.

Source: Aakash Chopra, ESPN Cricinfo

In Defence of Shah Rukh Khan

Bites the hand that feeds him – screamed the headline on Firstpost.in on Shah Rukh Khan, reminding me of Sholay. Had discussed the film with my class this morning, and the film was kind of fresh. The introductury scene of Gabbar, he is ranting at his 3 men for losing to those two. In the most chilling part of the scene – Gabbar pulls out a gun and plays Russian Roulette with his defeated men. He asks of one of them (Kalia)
“ab tera kya hoga kalia?”

Kalia squeeks – “Huzoor meine aapka namak khaya hai”

“ab goli kha” say Gabbar, shooting him.

This entire concept of namak khana, biting the hand that feeds them – is so incredibly – how does one put this nicely ? – feudal.

——–

The fact that the author loathes SRK is fairly evident, what is more is that this loathing seems to have overcome any half decent form of accuracy. Hey, i know opinion pieces are meant to be opinion, but even opinion is based on a modicum of fact. Some samples :

More importantly, he was embraced by a generation of Indians who were evidently so swayed by his looks (or whatever else they saw in him) that they readily overlooked his vacuous performances, blessed him with fame and fortune – and even went on to crown him ‘King Khan’.

(embraced across generations – not preteens anymore – but pretty much the rest, and especially women)

At the peak of his career, Shah Rukh was spoken of in the same breath as the Shahenshah of Bollywood, Amitabh Bachchan. That comparison may have been valid in terms of the box-office appeal that both held, but a certain indefinable element of classy refinement that Bachchan exuded even when the cameras were not whirring remained forever out of reach of SRK.

subjective – and therefore one will not comment on it. biases are allowed. I have mine, am sure the author has his. Except that in the last year – SRK was the highest earner in Bollywood, not someone past the peak of his career.

In his eternal quest to be the ageless Peter Pan of Bollywood, Shah Rukh appears not to have come to terms with the fact that while once he may have commanded a forgiving fan following, he is well past his prime. Like the Norma Desmond character that Gloria Swanson essayed in Billy Wilder’s Sunset Boulevard, he is only clinging on to the memories of a happier day when the arclights were turned on him and the adulation of fans enveloped him in a warm, glowing embrace.

good lord, this person obviously neither watches Hindi films nor follows box office reports. Norma Desmond, incidentally, is the lead character in Sunset Boulevard,  a silent era star, and who, in the film, hasn’t been seen since the coming of sound. SRK’s last film – the unintentionally funny – Jab Tak Hai Jaan – was one of the 8 films that crossed the 100 crore mark in theatrical revenue in India & twice that in overseas territories - (that means that many tickets were sold).

So, by every verifiable metric, it’s fair to say that Shah Rukh Khan has enjoyed more success – and earned more fame and fortune and fan-love – than he arguably deserves. Which is why it’s difficult to account for the victimhood chip – rooted in his identity as a Muslim – that he bears on his shoulders.

Who decides who deserves what ? He doesn’t deserve this on what parameter ? Has the author seen other super stars – desi and hollywood and their performances ? Does a Tom Cruise deserve success ? Superstars bring people to the theaters, they create value all down the value chain.

And, the author’s grouse :

In an interview that he gave to an overseas publication, Shah Rukh Khan is quoted as saying that he “sometimes become(s) the indvertent object of political leaders who choose to make me a symbol of all that they think is wrong and unpatriotic about Muslims in India.”

Now, which part of inadvertent does the author want explained ?

this is a translated version of what was written in Samna after SRK suggested that Pakistani cricketers play in the IPL (for the record, i don’t support that or indeed them being cast in films or tv shows)

Shiv Sena chief Bal Thackeray on Saturday said Kolkata Knight Riders co-owner Shah Rukh Khan should be given Pakistan’s highest civilian award, the Nishaan-e-Pakistan, for supporting the inclusion of Pakistani cricketers in the IPL.

Thackeray said in his party mouthpiece Samna that the ‘Khan’ inside Shah Rukh Khan must be crushed by the ‘Har Har Mahadev’ war cry.

The author goes on

It’s true, of course, that your films have had their problems with Shiv Sena leader Bal Thackeray, who kicked up a shindig by protesting against your film My Name Is Khan on specious grounds.

The Shiv Sena did not have a problem with the film “My Name is Khan”, they had a problem with SRK statement regarding IPL and wanted to take it out on My Name is Khan in retaliation (btw i have seen the film and it is mawkishly sentimental)  And this is what SRK said , that got him into trouble

“They are the champions, they are wonderful but somewhere down the line there is an issue and we can’t deny it. We are known to invite everyone. We should have. If there were any issues, they should have been put on board earlier. Everything can happen respectfully,”

And, incidentally this is what Shilpa Shetty (another team owner, whose name is not Khan) had to say about the same issue:

“If you ask an Indian whether he would like to see Shahid Afridi play in our country, he would say yes. But you must look at it pragmatically and see that we have had these people who are constantly threatening.It’s not something we hold against the Pakistani players. We completely understand the situation but as franchise owners are we willing to take that risk? If something happens to the Pakistani players, the onus lies on us and who is going to take responsibility for a situation like that,”

And this is what Preity Zinta (another team owner, whose name is also not Khan) had to say about the Pakistani Players in IPL

”We would have loved to have the T20 world champions in our teams to bring real joy to the extravaganza but what can we do if we have certain threats about not only our own safety, but the safety of the Pakistani players too, with no official quarter assuring us of foolproof security of players during the tournament,’

Therefore, given the same event IPL, to be held post 26/11, with three star owned teams – if you eliminate all other factors – the only one left is that they picked on SRK because he is a Muslim. (it could also be because he is a man, but i dont think that he SS would eliminate 50%+  of their voters)

And it continues,

So, grow up, Shah Rukh, and learn to take it on the chin like a man. Don’t bite the hand that fed you – and made  you who you are – by running off to an overseas publication and crying your heart out, thereby providing the space for low-life terrorists like Hafiz Saeed to take potshots at India.

On SRK Being resposnible for Hafeez Saeed’s comments, it would be good to read the whole piece and figure where that comment came from. I daresay it was from mangled  headlines from the MSM. In which case, i wonder who is responsible for Hafeez Saeed’s comments. Also, what is this with treating Hafeez Saeed’s statement as being important, instead of dealing with it with the contempt it deserves – what do people expect from Hafeez Saeed -  Kudos for India?

On his being inebriated and badly behaved – sure – he is human. And,a flawed one at that. Where he attacks people who cannot fight back – like the security guard in Wankhade, please take him to task. When it is with other, equally successful,  members of the film  industry, let them sort it out.

I can criticize India, the armed forces, decisions on hanging terrorists or not, Pakistani Players or actors in India, peace with Pakistan and the rest of it – and not once (mabye once) there will be calls for me to move next door. People may question my logic, my intellect, my wisdom, my credentials – but not my right to be in India and make those comments. SRK has those rights too. He is a citizen and like all citizens has the right to critcize the system without having to prove his love for the country every time he does so.

Finally this is neither about the Indian state, nor the people of India, nor the great Indian paying audience – couldn’t care who was what religion so long as they sell tickets.  It is not even about political parties, apart from those  like the Shiv Sena – whose stock in trade this is. People from across the political spectrum came out to support SRK, when the Shiv Sena went on that blistering attack on him.

“We do not consider it correct to use such terms for Khan. His contribution to Bollywood and as a cultural ambassador is immense,” Ravi Shankar Prasad of the BJP, contradicting their ally in Maharashtra to defend SRK. .

This is rather a comment on the Indian media, who takes things out of context to raise passions, then when those passions are raised – whether it was in terms of misquoting SRK on IPL or in this current case, or indeed anyone else – use those raise passions to attract more eyeballs. Am not sure that this is meant to be the role of the media – to stir the pot and wait for people to get at each others’ throat.

Source:  http://calamur.org/gargi/2013/01/29/in-defence-of-shah-rukh-khan/

Who after Fletcher?

In the past Indian coaches have been appointed based on what they achieved in their playing careers; the current team cannot have one of those.

Nearly two years ago, when Duncan Fletcher replaced Gary Kirsten as the coach of the Indian team, he must have thought that a success similar to Kirsten's would improve his coaching CV exponentially. After all, there is no bigger test as a coach than taking charge of one of the world's most influential set of cricketers. But at the back of his mind would have been the case of Greg Chappell, who was booted out by a vociferous Indian public and an unhappy bunch of senior cricketers.

No points for guessing where Fletcher stands today. The last 18 months have been horrendous for him and India.

Wasn't it supposed to be one of the easier assignments? India were No. 1 in Tests and World Cup winners. All Fletcher had to do was consolidate. But that's where most of us, and Fletcher, got it wrong, for coaching and mentoring aren't so much about preservation as about fortification.

His contract will soon come to an end. So who will be the right person for the job now, especially with India on a downward spiral?

There have, as usual, been calls for an Indian coach. This reminds me of a training session Jonty Rhodes, then South Africa's fielding coach, conducted for his players before a friendly match against Delhi years ago. He placed different coloured cones at various angles in different parts of the field, and the South African players went on to display how a professionally run international unit carries out a fielding drill.

While South Africa went about practising in a meticulously planned manner, we, the Delhi players, did a few laps and some very basic fielding practice. One such drill was reminiscent of how cricket was played nearly a century ago. Our coach, a former India player, got us to stand in a semi-circle around him. One of us would throw a ball at him and he would deflect it with his hands back towards us, trying to change the direction of the ball regularly to catch us by surprise. It was Mickey Mouse stuff for first-class cricketers. The South African players couldn't resist a chuckle looking at our archaic fielding drill.

The only criterion the Delhi association considered while assigning this former Indian player the role of coaching a first-class team was his experience in international cricket. To be fair, his resumé was inspiring, loaded with many cricketing achievements over a long career, but it wasn't appropriate for this job, because he hadn't upgraded his knowledge with the changing times.

Another coach, also a former India player of repute, would typically respond to any cricket-related query with, "Jigar se khelo" ("Play with your gut"). Since he had been a very good cricketer in his heyday, we often asked him for tips, and invariably his advice was this statement.

Unfortunately this sort of coaching isn't an aberration in India. The history of coaching in the country is littered with many such oddities and incidents, which aren't limited to players of the past.

Many Indian coaches, for instance, have shied away from taking on the responsibility of correcting a player's technical flaws. One coach, now associated with an IPL franchise and a Ranji team, didn't know how to fix a fast bowler's no-ball problem. To correct an overstepping issue you only need to measure the run-up with a tape, or mark the point of the jump and put something close to the popping crease that works as a deterrent. The coach in question simply scolded the erring bowler every time he overstepped.

Many former India players have tried their hand at coaching, considering it the easiest option after retirement. While playing cricket at the highest level for a reasonable amount of time does teach you to deal with many issues in the game, and involving a team's needs, it doesn't always teach you how to pass on that knowledge to others, especially the finer nuances of individual play.

The difference between learning and teaching is the difference between a player and a good coach. A player can point out a fault, but a good coach will come up with solutions to rectify that fault without tinkering too much with the existing strengths of the player. It helps if you have played cricket, for it allows you to understand better and quicker, but only having played the game is not a good enough qualification for a coach.

	While playing cricket at the highest level for a reasonable amount of time does teach you to deal with many issues in the game, and involving a team's needs, it doesn't always teach you how to pass on that knowledge to others

Some of the best players of the game have made poor coaches, because it's unimaginable for them to fathom why what was so easy for them seems so difficult for another. For instance, why should a player have trouble releasing the ball with an upright seam or playing an on-drive without falling over? These things come naturally to great players and they don't have the ability to understand the difficulties less-talented players confront.

I remember the story of a young player who asked Brian Lara for a few tips while practising against the bowling machine. Lara spoke to him about the importance of getting the front leg out of the way while playing on the front foot, but the player was unable to grasp the explanation. Lara decided to show the kid how it was done. He asked the feeder to increase the pace, walked in to bat without leg guards, and put on a scintillating display of high-class batting for 20 minutes, in which he played all the inswinging balls through the covers and the outswingers through midwicket. The kid admired every shot from the master but remained at sea about his problems, just as he had been before speaking to Lara.

Now that Fletcher seems out of favour more or less, and the Indian board might be likely to be looking for an Indian coach to salvage the team's lost pride, the question is: should a candidate's credentials as a player, and his nationality, be kept in mind, or should his qualifications and body of work as a coach be considered over them?

While the idea of India having an Indian coach is definitely plausible, we must not forget why the BCCI chose, more than a decade ago, to pick a foreign coach over an Indian one. In the days before then, Indian coaches were chosen not for their coaching skills but for their past contributions as players. These former cricketers didn't acknowledge the seriousness of their new assignment and didn't pursue it with as much diligence. They failed to realise that to do justice to a new job, they had to start from scratch and educate themselves. Playing for the country gave them an advantage, but only just, for they still needed to learn how to pass on their knowledge efficiently.

The other problem most cricketers had with Indian coaches was their affiliations to their respective states and zones. Indian coaches of the past wouldn't think twice before talking to a player in a shared regional language. While there was nothing wrong in doing so in private, doing so publicly led to a feeling of discord.

If we were to look for an Indian coach to replace Fletcher, we must look at the ones who have taken NCA coaching courses to acquire theoretical knowledge of how to identify and rectify players' mistakes and have handled assignments with Ranji and India A teams. There are a few of them.

The next India coach will be taking over a young team that is going through a crucial transition, so he will need to have a lot more than game sense and man-management skills. He won't only be required to make plans but also to get personnel ready to execute those plans.

While there's a case for having an Indian coach, it's naïve to believe that anyone who has played a lot of cricket and is Indian will automatically resurrect the team.

Courtesy: Akash Chopra,ESPN Cricinfo

Saurashtra reaches the final of Ranji Trophy after 75 years.

Ranji Trophy is named after the cricketer from Saurashtra, Ranjit Sinh, but it took 75 years for Saurashtra to reach he finals of the Ranji Trophy.