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

Is there some magic left in Sehwag yet?

In many ways, it was inevitable, and yet it hits you like one of his many shots over the years. Looked at coldly, devoid of emotion and without looking at the past, Virender Sehwag's omission was predictable. The runs had dried up, the rope he had been given was long enough. But the realisation that the thrill you felt within as he walked out to bat will be absent creates a longing. Sehwag kept you on the edge of your seat, he made you look forward to the next moment. He was good for cricket and he was good for India, and we don't know if he will play for India again. He has been a mighty cricketer and he will stroll easily into a room reserved for the greats of Indian cricket. Without a doubt.

-Harsha Bhogle for ESPN

But hang on, is this starting to look like a retirement tribute? There is a part of me that wishes it isn't, and there is another that fears we may not see him again. There is much stacked against him. Over the next 24 months India visit South Africa, New Zealand and England, against each of whom he averages under 30, and Australia where fifteen months ago he scored198 in eight innings. India play away more than they do at home in this period. Of not inconsiderable importance is the fact that among the youngsters tried out in recent times, Cheteshwar Pujara, Virat Kohli, Ravichandran Ashwin, Ravindra Jadeja, Umesh Yadav and Bhuvneshwar Kumar have all shown acceptable levels of promise and performance. Now Murali Vijay has got a big hundred too. The temptation to look at a younger man has been rendered stronger.

His chances of being picked for Mohali and Delhi would have resided in the hope that India's selectors wouldn't want to change a winning combination. I have heard that thought expressed many times and, quite frankly, have been baffled each time. It suggests that if the team is winning, it should be happy to carry along those that are not good enough anymore. No team should ever be picked on such a basis, for in the course of time everyone will then be entitled to be selected, even if they aren't delivering. Sehwag had to be picked based on his performance and not on that of the rest.

I suspect this omission is also an indicator that Sehwag will not be opening the batting in South Africa this November. If he was to, he had to be retained, but quite clearly the thinking is that the next in line must feel at home playing for India before playing an away tour. In logic, it is sound. But sadly for Sehwag, it is a tricky time to be dropped because the domestic season is over and there will be little Ranji Trophy cricket by November. To force his way back he needs games and those are not available in India.

So if it seems that the opening berth is now sealed (remember Gautam Gambhir will be in line for a comeback too), is there another option? And here the picture seems a touch rosier. Sehwag hasn't ever held back from saying that he wants a spot in the middle order. A couple of years ago, when he was in peak form, I interviewed him after he received an ESPNcricinfo Award. "Surely you accept that you are now an opener?" I asked. "No, I am No. 4…" he started. "But No. 4 is not leaving in a hurry," I said with a smile, eager to see his reaction. "No problem, I will wait." he said.

We don't know how long "No. 4" will play, for fitness will become a concern as time passes, but if for some reason Sachin Tendulkar is not on the flight to Johannesburg, India may not have a single batsman in the top six who will have played more than 20 Tests (on the assumption, of course, that Dhoni will be No. 7 on those tracks). Sehwag at No. 5, below Pujara and Kohli but above Ajinkya Rahane or Manoj Tiwary or another at No. 6, might be tempting for the selectors.

Much, of course, will depend on Sehwag's will to continue; and its translation into a rigorous fitness regime. Players like Ricky Ponting, Rahul Dravid and Michael Hussey were extraordinarily fit as 40 loomed, and VVS Laxman's great discipline and skill kept him going. Can Sehwag recall the hunger, and that extraordinary ability for hard work, again?

What's with India's don't-win-but-don't-lose attitude?

The country's cricket, at all levels, is suffering because of players' reluctance to challenge themselves.

As I watched the last day of the Irani Cup unfold, completely inconsequential, and devoid of a challenge, I wondered what it is about our cricket system that encourages so many teams to play safe, to believe that getting the first-innings lead is all that matters. It bothered me - and I hope it bothers a lot of people - that a higher sporting goal, that of winning the game outright, seems to be so low down the priority of most teams.

Among the many responses I got on Twitter when I posed the question why, one came from Anand Halve, among India's foremost marketing analysts. "Do you think 'It's ok if you don't win but don't lose' is a reflection of a national mindset that goes beyond cricket?" he asked, and being the analytical sort, promptly followed it with another: "The Minimax vs Maximin criterion as a motto for living?"

The definition of Minimax in game theory, simplified, is (courtesy Wikipedia): "… each player minimises the maximum payoff possible for the other - since the game is zero-sum, he also minimises his own maximum loss (i.e. maximises his minimum payoff)."

At the start of day five of the Irani Cup, Rest of India were 413 ahead with 90 overs left in the match. Remember, it was a last-day pitch, and except on day one, a run rate of four an over hadn't been reached. You would have thought 4.5 runs per over would have been not only a safe enough challenge but also one that would have given their bowlers the best opportunity to take ten wickets. Instead, they batted on and set Mumbai 517 from a maximum of 67 overs.

When I asked Harbhajan Singh, the Rest of India captain, if he had contemplated a declaration overnight, he suggested that on a track like that, they didn't want to offer the opposition a chance. He was minimising the maximum payoff possible for the opposition (to win the game by chasing 413 on the last day) but also maximising his minimum payoff (to win on first-innings lead). In this case, aiming for his maximum payoff, winning outright, would have been excellent for cricket, would have given his bowlers something to play for on the last day, and would have thrown the gauntlet down for the Mumbai batsmen, who would have had no choice but to go for the target, since otherwise they had lost the game on first-innings lead.

And so we had another day of low-pressure, low-challenge cricket, which, as it turns out, is ingrained in India's domestic structure. The idea of challenging yourself to discover how good you can be is unfortunately considered outdated, unfashionable or just stupid. Which is such a pity.

To go back to Halve's question: is this a national trait, to effectively do just enough to get a favourable but sub-optimal result? And is this reluctance to take pressure reflected in a fragility that is manifest when pressure is inevitable? It is for the social scientists to examine whether this is a national trait, but on the evidence of a little bit of research, I have to conclude that it is an overwhelming feature of Indian cricket.

Let's start at the top and the now infamous Test in Dominica in 2011. India, leading the series 1-0, had to make 180 from 47 overs to win. Their worst-case scenario, a defeat, was remote. By the time they moved to a target of 86 from 15 overs, with seven wickets in hand, it had disappeared. India could either draw or win. They chose to draw rather than challenge themselves to win. The result was favourable (a series win) but sub-optimal (1-0 instead of 2-0). It suggested India didn't want to be pushed.

One level lower, we saw the mindset in the Irani Cup. Even more unfortunate was Mumbai's approach in their Ranji Trophy match against Gujarat. Needing 135 from a minimum of 41 overs to seal an outright win, Mumbai opted to dawdle to 65 for 1 from 27 overs, with opener Kaustubh Pawar scoring 15 not out from 88 balls. If you love bright, attacking cricket, you would have been particularly pained by the statement by the Mumbai coach: "It wasn't really going to matter eventually - whether we went for the target or not. The fact is, we have achieved the objective of qualifying." Mumbai allowed themselves to play dull, purposeless cricket instead of challenging themselves for a superior cause.

Go lower and at Under-16 level you have a similar attitude. It is inevitable, for youngsters to be looking at what senior cricketers do. Sample this from Mumbai v Jharkhand in the Vijay Merchant Trophy quarter-final. Mumbai made 360 and bowled Jharkhand out for 46. Facing a seemingly inevitable innings defeat, Jharkhand found themselves fielding again while Mumbai made 440 for 9, a lead of 754. They then left Jharkhand around 33 overs of batting. The moment Mumbai's lead went beyond 450 or 500, there was no competitive interest left in the match, and the only purpose was generating numbers - statistics that would look good on paper, batting averages. What you didn't get was a contest that would make those numbers relevant.

Worse still by batting on, you are looking at generating batting numbers rather than allowing bowlers to win the match in the fourth innings. By the time the bowlers are given their shot, there was no competitive element left in the game. How do you produce attacking bowlers who can win you a game in a 50-50 situation on the last day if they don't get the practice to do so? By minimising the maximum payoff possible for the opposition, teams, and therefore Indian cricket, lose out much more in the long run.

From time to time, the technical committee of the BCCI has tried to make winning outright more attractive than winning by merely achieving a first-innings lead, but committees cannot change mindsets that have been ingrained over generations. Till the mindset changes to one that rewards winning, India will have to live with batsman-dominated-but-largely-uncompetitive cricket.

Minimax might be a good concept in some business situations, even in some sports, but it is harming Indian cricket.

By Harsha Bhogle for ESPN.

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

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