Why the IPL can't be much more than a launch pad?

In recent days I have had the opportunity to watch Ashish Reddy, Hanuma Vihari, Manan Vohra, Rahul Shukla and some others whose existence television only sporadically acknowledges. If you've looked at scorecards of domestic cricket, you know the names, but you probably only know them merely by the numbers they generate. The IPL allows you to see them, it gives them a platform, and that is one of the reasons I look forward to it every year.

A couple of years ago Saurabh Tiwary told me that he scored a lot of runs for Jharkhand but nobody knew him. He made a couple of thirties for Mumbai Indians and suddenly he was being talked about. It put him in the Indian squad and in the IPL auction. He may have had a financial windfall but it didn't do too much for his future in Indian cricket; he remains, at best, a fringe player. At least at this stage. It tells you a bit about the IPL.

What the tournament does give you, and give you better than anything else in international cricket at the moment, is a stage and an opportunity. It doesn't give you too much more, but if you are a young man, you should be willing to give anything for that much. Some take the opportunity, others don't. Some believe the opportunity is the pinnacle of all they ever wanted to do, others think it is the beginning of life in another world. But it doesn't guarantee you anything, often not even a spot in the Ranji Trophy, as Paul Valthaty and Manvinder Bisla discovered. And as Tiwary now knows, the reputation you acquire in the IPL doesn't count for too much in the Ranji Trophy either.

And an IPL match is like an episode in a long-running soap. You don't want to miss the action as it unfolds, but people remember only bits and pieces thereafter. You can therefore trend on Twitter for a day, maybe be talked about for another week, but that is it. Arun Karthik knows it well. A six off the last ball for the Royal Challengers in the Champions League made him an overnight hero but that was it. It isn't like being in a feature film, where a blockbuster performance is remembered for years - that is the equivalent of a Test hundred.

The reason I am saying this is that people either give the IPL way too much importance or seek to get noticed by trying to knock it off its pedestal. Neither is right. The IPL is not a certificate of performance in other forms of cricket. We saw that with Swapnil Asnodkar, with Valthaty, with Manpreet Singh Gony, with Siddharth Trivedi. It is merely an opportunity that you have to take again and again. It doesn't make you a good first-class cricketer - that is a different game. It makes people look out for you, but that is about the only advantage, even if a significant one.

It helped cricketers liked R Ashwin and Ravindra Jadeja, because they used the stage to draw attention towards themselves. They didn't make it in first-class cricket, and thereafter in Test cricket, because they were good in the IPL. They did it because they bowled hundreds of overs when very few people were watching, and perfected their craft. They became ready elsewhere and used the IPL as an opportunity to announce themselves to the world.

That is how I believe the IPL must be seen. As an event that celebrates a specific ability and at a specific moment in time. People who cannot, or are unwilling to, put in the hard yards in four-day or five-day cricket remain IPL specialists. This isn't only true of those like Mayank Agarwal or Bisla but of others like Tirumalasetti Suman, and for that matter, Munaf Patel.

As the IPL gets a greater share of national sporting attention, and as sponsors eye the various price points available to them to claim association, I hope young players don't look at it as the only cricket in their lives. They could do that if, like European football leagues, the IPL ran for six months. But it doesn't and so I hope they use it to draw attention to their skills. If they play four-day cricket, I believe they will extend their T20 career. If the shortest form is all they play, it could lead to a short career.

-Harsha Bhogle for ESPN

Mr Cricket-N Srinivasan

Well,I'm not talking about MSD, Mr.Cricket here is referred to Narayanswami Srinivasan, the President of the BCCI(Board of Control for Cricket in India), and also the owner of India Cements which owns the most successful team in IPL.After Srini was appointed the President,Within seven months, the BCCI constitution was amended to change the clause that had stipulated that no administration or member should have any commercial activities of the board..Chennai Super Kings has performed exceptionally well in the past tournaments, 4 of India's National team also represent CSK.The captain of the indian team is the vice president of india cements. The owner of CSK and the President of BCCI is the same person,this makes the scenario smell fishy.

Tamil Nadu Government has banned SriLankan cricketers in Chennai.So instead of moving home games away from Chennai, no SL player will play in Chennai.Chennai have just two SL players who are not their lead players, but for other teams SL Players are very important.
No Malinga vs MI, No Mahela vs DD, No Dilshan vs RCB, chennai will have pretty easy home games.This decision will affect other franchises more than Csk.Let us not forget, the actual problem is of CSK but other teams will suffer. This is pure injustice and maybe it is the Srinivasan effect?

You need the Kumbles and Dravids, not just the Tendulkars.

In a country of over a billion people, talent ought to be as common as table salt. Why fuss over it? Especially talent in cricket - synonymous with sport in India, and hence intensely followed and widely played.

Clearly, though, that isn't the case, for had talent been so common, India would have been churning out prodigies all the time, sitting secure as Test No. 1, and ruling the other ICC rankings tables for decades together. Perhaps that's why talented cricketers are so revered - and rightly so. Rohit Sharma finds himself in this hallowed club, protected and persisted with to fortify his "god-gifted talent", as MS Dhoni puts it.

In a sense, Rohit's talent has even superseded the intangible yet highly consequential yardstick of form, the lack of which is often responsible for a player being dropped from a team.

But isn't talent as intangible and indefinable as form? Talent means a special natural ability or aptitude, but who is to judge if that ability is special or everyday? Wouldn't the answer be highly subjective? Our judgement of talent is often based on preconceived notions of what constitutes it, and thus of who is "talented".

For instance, Sachin Tendulkar has been widely recognised as talented, but in comparison, but not many would say the same for Anil Kumble - at least they wouldn't say that he was talented in the same measure as Tendulkar. Does that make him less talented?

From the beginning Tendulkar displayed special skills to successfully deal with all kinds of challenges thrown at him. He could do things others couldn't. He always seemed to have enough time to play the fastest bowlers on the fastest pitches. He had more than one stroke for every delivery. His timing and balance were superior to those of his peers, and above all, he had the ability to keep the good balls out and punish the bad balls consistently.

He had more time because he could pick the ball a fraction earlier, which allowed him to get into the right positions before the ball arrived. He had more strokes because he had supreme control over his bat's movements, and the extra time he had made that possible. His timing was also a gift, for he always knew precisely when to bring the bat down at the desired speed and angles. His ability to keep the good balls out, though, was not natural but nurtured.

On the other hand, Kumble, who made his debut a year after Tendulkar, was first considered the antithesis of what a talented player should be. Unlike Tendulkar, who was marked as a "special talent", Kumble fought a constant battle to prove people wrong, for legspinners of his type were not supposed to succeed beyond a point. The preconceived notions about talented legspinners were to do with their natural ability to get loop, drift in the air and vicious turn off the surface. Kumble ticked none of these boxes, for his height and high-arm action didn't allow him to create loop, nor did he spin the ball off the surface. He relied on unbelievable accuracy and subtle variations to create deception.

	In Kumble's or Dravid's case, not only did we fail to assess their talent fairly but we were also as quick to discredit it. What they possessed didn't match our understanding of talent

The jury could be divided on whether Kumble qualified as talented or whether his success was the result of sheer hard work. Even Rahul Dravid was rarely considered talented in his early days, for our notions about talented batsmen often have to do with flair and panache. The dogged approach to blunting an attack for sessions on end isn't what talent is all about - or so we are made to believe.

This is not about whether Rohit is talented or not. That, again, is a personal perception. The point I am making is simple - whether someone is permitted to or prohibited from making the cut shouldn't solely depend on our understanding of his talent, for our judgement of it could be skewed.

Tendulkar, the most gifted of cricketers, also became one of the most successful through hard work, not talent alone. An abundance of talent cannot automatically discipline the mind to be selective, which is a crucial quality.

While greatness can have a touch of predictability and boredom to it, because it can't be achieved without a little bit of self-denial, talent is seldom boring, because it allows you to do things others can't fathom.

Not only that, Tendulkar, with all his talent, needed to keep evolving as a batsman to remain one step ahead of the opposition. He wasn't the most technically correct player when he started out. He used to lean on his bat in his stance, which resulted in his head falling over and made him play across the line. He knew that to complement his talent and make the most of it, he needed to keep working on those little chinks in his game.

Over a period of time, the most talented batsman also became the most technically correct batsman. Talent put Tendulkar on the right path and his discipline took him to his destination.

The popular judgement of talent, in Tendulkar's case, was accurate, and fortunately he proved us right too. But in Kumble's or Dravid's case, not only did we fail to assess their talent fairly, we were also quick to discredit it. What they possessed didn't match our understanding of talent. They didn't have the flair (though they had the ability to concentrate for long hours). They didn't have two shots for the same ball, or a delivery that turned a lot, but they had the ability to be consistent in their approach. That is talent too.

I grew up with many cricketers who were considered far more talented than I was, but most of them didn't even get to first-class level, let alone don the India colours. You might be justified in giving more opportunities to players at the junior level who are perceived to be talented, but we must acknowledge that talent doesn't always translate into success and that our understanding of talent can be slightly warped at times.

One may be tempted to give talented players a longer rope, but there's no guarantee that they'll turn out to be successes. Vinod Kambli, at one time, was considered more talented than Tendulkar.

It's imperative to ensure, especially in a team sport, that players who are considered less talented aren't given a rough deal in order to promote a talented player. It's tempting to find another Tendulkar, but that shouldn't mean that the Dravids and Kumbles aren't given a fair run.

Source: Akaash Chopra, ESPN Cricinfo

India vs Australia 2013: Dhawan could open the innings with Sehwag and Rahane could come at No 6.

India’s squad for the first two Tests against Australia: MS Dhoni (captain), Virender Sehwag, Shikhar Dhawan, Cheteshwar Pujara, Sachin Tendulkar, Virat Kohli, Ravindra Jadeja, Ravichandran Ashwin, Pragyan Ojha, Bhuvneshwar Kumar, Ajinkya Rahane, Ashok Dinda, Murali Vijay, Ishant Sharma and Harbhajan Singh.

the selectors have gone in with a total of four openers – two of them being back-ups. There is a three-way tussle to decide who Sehwag’s opening partner will be. Dhawan, Vijay and Rahane have put forward their cases with strong performances in the Irani Trophy game. Vijay seems to be front-runner because of his recent hundred and the fact that he has played Test cricket. However, he had a very ordinary season and Dhawan’s returns were much better. Wasim Jaffer misses out yet again despite scoring tons of runs this season, including a hundred in the Irani Trophy. Through all that, Rahane’s case is interesting because there is a buzz that he might be considered for the No 6 spot.

Keeping Rahane on the bench isn’t doing him any good. In fact, it is denting his confidence big time. Giving him a shot at No 6 may be a good option in the long run and he can be promoted up the order when he settles in the line-up. But, standing in the way is the all-rounder Ravindra Jadeja, who gives Dhoni options in both departments. What Jadeja’s inclusion does is that it acts as a back-up to the frontline bowlers – should one of them have a bad game. Also, Dhoni can then come up to six and Jadeja can bat at seven – a strategy adopted during the Nagpur Test against England.

Raina’s fantastic outing in the Irani Trophy didn’t bear fruit and perhaps questions remain over his technique against the short ball. A fantastic talent like him is suffering because of that one fatal flaw. If he can correct it and return, Test cricket would watch him in full flow.
The race for the No 6 spot may also have its implications on the spin department. Ashwin’s form has dropped and Harbhajan’s past record against Australia may tempt a switch. Ojha should get in as his left-armers can provide variety to the attack. The wicket would also determine which of the three would play and if Jadeja also merits a place. Piyush Chawla, who did well at Nagpur against England, might feel a little hard done by as he isn’t in the side.

It was surprising that the selectors did not recall a fit again Shanthakumaran Sreesanth. India are now going to field a very young pace-attack, led by Ishant Sharma. Bhuvneshwar Kumar’s swing bowling has helped him into the side, while Dinda has also been given the green signal. Thus, India would have debutant fast bowler in this crucial series to partner Ishant, who has been a bit of an enigma. Sreesanth could have merited a call-up in this scenario.

Sehwag, Pujara, Tendulkar, Kohli and Dhoni are the real certainties in the line-up and there would be a lot of focus on the other spots.

This is a very important series for Tendulkar as he gears up for the Australian challenge. This should be the last time he faces Australia in India and an encore of those memorable battles is what a nation prays for.
There is an interesting setting at large – with several intriguing sub-plots to the script.

Courtesy: Nishad Pai Vaidya, Cricket Country