There is a new twist to the Darrell Hair incident. He is suing the ICC of discriminating against him on the basis of his race. First some background. Darrell Hair is an Australian and is one of the elite umpires employed by the ICC to officiate on international cricket matches. A few months back, he was officiating a match between Pakistan and England. In the midst of the match, he accused the Pakistan team of ball tampering. Inzimam Ul Haq, the then captain of the Pakistan team, got offended and decided not to take the field after the lunch break. That led to a showdown between Hair and Ul-Haq which eventually resulted in Pakistan forfeiting the match. As it turned out, there was no evidence of ball tampering.
Since then, the Pakistan Cricket Board appealed to the ICC to not select Hair to officiate in Pakistan cricket matches. The ICC Board (consisting of members from Pakistan, Zimbabwe and New Zealand) met some time later and decided not to select Hair to officiate on any other matches. There are many sources on the internet that describe this saga in great detail but here are some observations that are not usually made in the media:
Firstly, it can be easily established that Hair was biased against Pakistan - apparently he was not the only one. Another elite umpire Rudy Koertzen also seems to think that Pakistanis were cheaters and he let his opinions known to Hair. There is some evidence that Hair also had some back room conversations with Chris Broad (the match referee of the game in question) where Broad shared his "views" with Hair. All this may have raised Hair's suspicions. So with this mind set, Hair goes onto the field and accuses the Pakistan team but without any evidence. Further, he exacerbates the problem by not apologizing to the Pakistan captain after finding that the ball was not tampered with.
Secondly, to say that there was umpiring bias against Asian teams is to state the obvious. Everyone including non-Asians have made this observation. The only debate is whether this bias continues even now. Be that as it may, it is obvious from what has already been said that Hair was biased.
Thirdly, just for the record, many English, South African and Australian players have cheated in the game (Atherton and Cronje are two that come to mind right away). But to date, no umpire has accused the entire team of anything let alone ball tampering.
Lastly, an interesting dynamic in this whole saga is that many of the countries that were former "bosses" of cricket are ruing the fact that India is emerging as the "super-power" of world cricket. The former bosses of course are England and Australia.
So, even though on the face of it a white man suing an organization for discriminating against him on the basis of race could only be described as being Kafkaesque, with the preceding observations, we can start to make sense of Hair's actions vis-a-vis the law suit.
For one, Hair cannot fathom the fact that his bluff has been called. Further, it is clear that a lot of people in the establishment must be supporting him - I call these people the "Establishment Junta." It is obvious that they feel the power slipping from their hands and their tired old machinations of tipping the scales against Asian teams is coming to an end - the victim has woken up so to speak and he is not going to take it anymore. To digress a little, what is more than gratifying to see about the victim is the way he is wearing this new found power - proudly without a chip on the shoulder (to borrow a phrase from another observer of the sport whom I admire) - admittedly with a few notable exceptions. Thus, the establishment junta is bringing a law suit against the ICC is one of the first salvos in a battle that will be fought for a long time coming. The intent is clearly to scare the Asian countries into submission into towing the party line - rather not to disturb the power balance.
This conclusion is supported by the fact that Hair is not just accusing the ICC and Pakistan but the ICC and the entire Asian bloc. Interestingly, India the power-house of cricket has not been involved in this issue at all. So, why drag its name into the midst? Further, why is the New Zealand bloc or the Zimbabwean bloc (if there are even such things) not named since two out of the three board members involved in the decision to sack Hair were from these countries respectively.
I hope the ICC, even though it is still primarily run by the Establishment Junta, prevails in this case. I am actually dismayed that this case has come to trial (it should have been thrown out in the first place). It sets a dangerous precedent - any biased individual when faced with the consequences of his actions can claim discrimination. On the field, in the game of cricket, the umpire has a lot of power and there is room for abuse. The ICC did the right thing by curbing Hair's power when he abused it. In some ways this is a case of "too little too late." Many an umpire should have been banned from the sport and as we say in these parts of the world: "Good riddance to bad rubbish."
Wednesday, October 3, 2007
Sunday, August 19, 2007
Sid and the Id
Superego, ego and id were the names that Freud gave to the three driving forces that motivate human behavior, psychologically speaking. I am no expert on psychology or Freud, so I explain these three concepts in my own words. Super ego consists of all the rules and norms that society and authority figures impose on one's psyche. Ego is the selfish and self-interested part of one's psyche and Id is the playful and childlike part of one's nature. By now you may be wondering what this has to do with Cricinfo or cricket. I believe, this Freudian structure of psychology can be used to explain much of what goes on in the reporters minds writing for Cricinfo.
For them, Cricinfo the company they work for, establishment teams (particularly England and Australia) and ICC form their superego. The ego is perhaps the easiest to explain - their interest in the sport (watching it, writing about it, meeting the sports' stars) while getting paid to do it must be the motivation. Well this raises the question - what could their Id be, since they don't actually participate in the sports they write about and after all this is a job for them (so they cannot seem to have too much fun at it)? The answer is: bashing the Asian bloc cricket teams in general and the Indian team in particular.
In this respect, they have no compunction in pulling all the stops even if it means hitting below the belt (excuse the mixed metaphor). Let's take the latest article by Siddhartha Vaidyanathan (goes by the name Sid amongst the cricinfo circles and for brevity I will do the same henceforth). Sid writes this article right after India registered an emphatic victory over Scotland in a one off ODI. To be sure, Scotland is not a major league team but this is hardly newsworthy and all followers of cricket know this. Further, it is also a well known fact that India will be playing an ODI with the England Lions (the secondary English team) and 7 ODIs with the main English team.
Sid starts off by stating that India will not be playing its senior players against the England Lions (in effect resting them). Then he goes on and on about how the England Lions are fielding a strong team. Mind you the England Lions consists of players who have not been selected for the main England side. On the face of it, one would conclude that the match with England A cannot test India's mettle since India is not fielding its strongest side. But that does not deter our Sid's Id from playing the game even further. He goes on to say that India will have to use its resources carefully (given the massive workload that lay ahead) leaving aside so many facts that it makes ones head spin. (Incidentally, such advice can be had from any one of the billion people who support India - such is the obviousness of it.) For example, would it not be true that England would have to conserve its resources as well since it will be playing 7 ODIs against India? Would England not have to apportion its bowling talent appropriately so that it could be used most efficiently against a much touted Indian batting lineup? Does England (which lost the recent test series) not have the issue of which wicket keeper to use (given its keeper Prior failed miserably in the tests)?
In fact, one could make the argument that England had more to worry about than India. The only advantage that Sid mentions is the fact that the cold weather may benefit the English players and certainly there is some truth to that - but that would hardly qualify as a huge advantage given that the Indian players have been in England for months now and should be acclimatized to English weather by now (if one can actually do such a thing).
Mr. Sid, then switching roles from his Id to his Superego, now offers advise to the Indian players. India needs to spruce up its fielding skills apparently. India also needs to try out different bowlers in the practice games, else they may not know whom to turn to when the need arises. Further, apparently India is very rigid about using its part-time options thus opting to play five bowlers. And on an on it goes.... Sid the master strategist and captain par excellence knows it all. The wisdom of Cricinfo, ICC, England and Australia have all bestowed upon Sid the crystal ball to see through what India needs to do and what it needs to avoid. Of course, Sid in his superego mode has no advice for the English side.
Lest we forget, Sid, as far as I know has never played cricket at any competitive level. His knowledge of the game is superfluous at best. To appoint himself the judge of Indian cricket is bombastic at best. But there is an insidious motive at work here. There can be only one reason to write such a condescending article just before the start of the series - to cast doubt amongst the Indian team members and demoralize the Indian fan base. Before you dismiss the allegation as baseless let me remind you that such an article is one in a series - a concerted attack no less. I have written at some length about the bias of cricinfo writers on this blog and the article in question by Sid is just another example of the same muckraking that goes for journalism these days.
It is hard (almost foolhardy) to predict who is going to win the ODI series. To paraphrase Dravid (my favorite Indian player and Indian captain), "the one who plays good cricket on a given day will win." This begs the question, does India have what it takes to play good cricket. The answer is a resounding yes. Similarly, does England have what it takes to play good cricket and the answer to that is yes as well. In the final analysis, India have many advantages (I will not focus on disadvantages since the rest of the "journalist" seem to do it):
- they will be playing with a test win against England thus riding the confidence wave as it were
- they have tremendous talent that has delivered consistently for years (particularly in this decade with a few notable exceptions)
- they do not have a coach in the form of Chappell who singlehandedly destroyed the team
- from all accounts, they seem to have great team morale and great team spirit
- four of their premier batsmen will probably be touring England for the last time as representatives of their country and all four seem to be hungry, fit and eager to perform
- they have many match winners in the likes of Sachin Tendulkar, Zaheer Khan, Saurav Ganguly, Rahul Dravid, Ajit Agarkar, MS Dhoni and Yuvraj Singh.
- they have excellent young talent in the likes of Robin Uttappa, Gautam Gambhir, Piyush Chawla and Dinesh Karthik
- they seem to have excellent strategic and tactical thinking behind them in the senior players (Dravid, Ganguly, Tendulkar)
With all this behind them and a billion people rooting for them, success will most assuredly be there for their taking. I hope they do take it. I hope they do play well on the seven given days.
GO INDIA.
For them, Cricinfo the company they work for, establishment teams (particularly England and Australia) and ICC form their superego. The ego is perhaps the easiest to explain - their interest in the sport (watching it, writing about it, meeting the sports' stars) while getting paid to do it must be the motivation. Well this raises the question - what could their Id be, since they don't actually participate in the sports they write about and after all this is a job for them (so they cannot seem to have too much fun at it)? The answer is: bashing the Asian bloc cricket teams in general and the Indian team in particular.
In this respect, they have no compunction in pulling all the stops even if it means hitting below the belt (excuse the mixed metaphor). Let's take the latest article by Siddhartha Vaidyanathan (goes by the name Sid amongst the cricinfo circles and for brevity I will do the same henceforth). Sid writes this article right after India registered an emphatic victory over Scotland in a one off ODI. To be sure, Scotland is not a major league team but this is hardly newsworthy and all followers of cricket know this. Further, it is also a well known fact that India will be playing an ODI with the England Lions (the secondary English team) and 7 ODIs with the main English team.
Sid starts off by stating that India will not be playing its senior players against the England Lions (in effect resting them). Then he goes on and on about how the England Lions are fielding a strong team. Mind you the England Lions consists of players who have not been selected for the main England side. On the face of it, one would conclude that the match with England A cannot test India's mettle since India is not fielding its strongest side. But that does not deter our Sid's Id from playing the game even further. He goes on to say that India will have to use its resources carefully (given the massive workload that lay ahead) leaving aside so many facts that it makes ones head spin. (Incidentally, such advice can be had from any one of the billion people who support India - such is the obviousness of it.) For example, would it not be true that England would have to conserve its resources as well since it will be playing 7 ODIs against India? Would England not have to apportion its bowling talent appropriately so that it could be used most efficiently against a much touted Indian batting lineup? Does England (which lost the recent test series) not have the issue of which wicket keeper to use (given its keeper Prior failed miserably in the tests)?
In fact, one could make the argument that England had more to worry about than India. The only advantage that Sid mentions is the fact that the cold weather may benefit the English players and certainly there is some truth to that - but that would hardly qualify as a huge advantage given that the Indian players have been in England for months now and should be acclimatized to English weather by now (if one can actually do such a thing).
Mr. Sid, then switching roles from his Id to his Superego, now offers advise to the Indian players. India needs to spruce up its fielding skills apparently. India also needs to try out different bowlers in the practice games, else they may not know whom to turn to when the need arises. Further, apparently India is very rigid about using its part-time options thus opting to play five bowlers. And on an on it goes.... Sid the master strategist and captain par excellence knows it all. The wisdom of Cricinfo, ICC, England and Australia have all bestowed upon Sid the crystal ball to see through what India needs to do and what it needs to avoid. Of course, Sid in his superego mode has no advice for the English side.
Lest we forget, Sid, as far as I know has never played cricket at any competitive level. His knowledge of the game is superfluous at best. To appoint himself the judge of Indian cricket is bombastic at best. But there is an insidious motive at work here. There can be only one reason to write such a condescending article just before the start of the series - to cast doubt amongst the Indian team members and demoralize the Indian fan base. Before you dismiss the allegation as baseless let me remind you that such an article is one in a series - a concerted attack no less. I have written at some length about the bias of cricinfo writers on this blog and the article in question by Sid is just another example of the same muckraking that goes for journalism these days.
It is hard (almost foolhardy) to predict who is going to win the ODI series. To paraphrase Dravid (my favorite Indian player and Indian captain), "the one who plays good cricket on a given day will win." This begs the question, does India have what it takes to play good cricket. The answer is a resounding yes. Similarly, does England have what it takes to play good cricket and the answer to that is yes as well. In the final analysis, India have many advantages (I will not focus on disadvantages since the rest of the "journalist" seem to do it):
- they will be playing with a test win against England thus riding the confidence wave as it were
- they have tremendous talent that has delivered consistently for years (particularly in this decade with a few notable exceptions)
- they do not have a coach in the form of Chappell who singlehandedly destroyed the team
- from all accounts, they seem to have great team morale and great team spirit
- four of their premier batsmen will probably be touring England for the last time as representatives of their country and all four seem to be hungry, fit and eager to perform
- they have many match winners in the likes of Sachin Tendulkar, Zaheer Khan, Saurav Ganguly, Rahul Dravid, Ajit Agarkar, MS Dhoni and Yuvraj Singh.
- they have excellent young talent in the likes of Robin Uttappa, Gautam Gambhir, Piyush Chawla and Dinesh Karthik
- they seem to have excellent strategic and tactical thinking behind them in the senior players (Dravid, Ganguly, Tendulkar)
With all this behind them and a billion people rooting for them, success will most assuredly be there for their taking. I hope they do take it. I hope they do play well on the seven given days.
GO INDIA.
Friday, August 10, 2007
Two views of the same day (India vs. England 3rd Test, Day 1, 2007)
Today was the first day of the third and deciding test match between India and England. Rahul Dravid (India's captain) having won the toss decided to bat on a seemingly good batting track. As it happened the pitch had something for the seam bowlers, particularly with the new ball. The Indian batsmen, all six of them (India are 316 for the loss of 4 wickets at close of play) batted well, putting their heads down, getting a measure of the pitch, defending solidly and putting away the bad balls. A few indiscretions were there to be sure (some of which cost them wickets) but all in all India are in a comfortable position. But, it is still day 1 of course.
Interestingly though, you would not get that impression reading cricinfo's coverage of the day. Of course they report on the facts but their editorials on what happened today is interesting to say the least. One by Dileep Premachandran reporting from the Indian perspective: "Will India step up?" and "Time to drive well and sleep carefully." The other by Andrew Miller reporting from the English perspective: "Win still within England's ken" and "Adjusting the sight." The respective titles say it all: the Indian perspective is tentative, cynical and defensive whereas the English perspective is positive and full of hope.
Mr. Premachandran goes on to list some of the famous wins that India have had in the past (mostly from this century) and how they were all based on "defining innings" and also lists all the opportunities that India lost. His main point of course is that India need to post a big total for the first inning. With two specialist batsmen at the crease and only one more to go before the tail starts to bat, it will be up to these three batsmen to do the job. In this context, he does not talk about the third batsman at all (in this case Dhoni) and he summarily dismisses Laxman being up to the task at hand. He then rests the whole task on Sachin Tendulkars' shoulders.
After this he regales us with all the times England had come back from behind even after the opposition had posted an imposing first innings total and how India had too often stumbled after laying a solid foundation.
If this could be construed as reporting and not psychological warfare then words have no meaning and epistemology can be studied by birds. I have these questions of Mr. Premachandran:
1. Why don't you mention the positive attitude that was displayed by the Indian batsmen (one and all) at the beginning of the article instead of mentioning it as an afterthought at the end and that too restricting it to Karthik and Dravid? Jaffer played a positive game until in the heat of the moment he played a bad shot. Ganguly was also very positive until he was wrongly given out by another bad umpiring decision (at least four and counting in the last three matches). In fact, I submit to you that this should have been the title of your article: "Positive batsmen put India on top" or "Batsmen gain the edge for India."
2. Why is it a pre-condition that one of the batsmen has to play a massive innings? Is the previous test not an example of how India could achieve a good total without anyone getting a century or a massive inning?
3. Why express so much doubt and cynicism about India's players when they are doing their best and the results are there to show for it? Is this some sort of convoluted tough love syndrome?
4. Why do you write off Laxman so easily. He has been called one of the greatest batsmen of his time by none other than Australia. Admittedly, he has not been in form lately but he has also been mistreated by the selection committees. It is quite possible, nay probable that he will play a "defining" inning.
5. Oh! Did you forget Dhoni? Need I say more here.
Needless to say I am not predicting what will happen tomorrow but Mr. Premachandran is discussing the preconditions for an Indian victory and thus playing the predictions game with much cynicism and trepidation.
On the other hand, read Andrew Miller's article. He starts off with a positive attitude about how England still have a chance to win. Then he goes on to recollect the events of 2003 where England pulled off a miracle win against South Africa, mentions that the toss was crucial to win (implying that India is doing well not because of ability but chance) and how England bowled really well to restrict India to 316 for 4. He then mentions that India bowled well in the second test (particularly their left arm seamers) and uses that to point out that the English bowlers will have to emulate the Indian ones -- all this in a day where India batted.
Of course, one could read into Mr. Miller's article and take heart in the subtle compliments that he is paying to Indian team's performance but that would require too much of "reading-between-the-lines" as it were. A casual reader would recount that England played brilliant cricket (except for the occasional dropped catch) but were unlucky and India were lucky to win the toss.
If one were to play mind games (cricket and other sports are all about mind games as much as they are about talent, physical ability and skill), one would conclude that India are on the back foot and England not when the contrary is the case.
No one knows what is going to happen tomorrow. All that can be said is that, with some measure of luck, the team that holds it together (in the emotional, mental and physical compartments) and comes out to play good cricket will win. I believe India has everything it needs to win this historic series and make it a memorable one. It certainly demonstrated it in the second test and has done it so far in the third. GO INDIA.
Interestingly though, you would not get that impression reading cricinfo's coverage of the day. Of course they report on the facts but their editorials on what happened today is interesting to say the least. One by Dileep Premachandran reporting from the Indian perspective: "Will India step up?" and "Time to drive well and sleep carefully." The other by Andrew Miller reporting from the English perspective: "Win still within England's ken" and "Adjusting the sight." The respective titles say it all: the Indian perspective is tentative, cynical and defensive whereas the English perspective is positive and full of hope.
Mr. Premachandran goes on to list some of the famous wins that India have had in the past (mostly from this century) and how they were all based on "defining innings" and also lists all the opportunities that India lost. His main point of course is that India need to post a big total for the first inning. With two specialist batsmen at the crease and only one more to go before the tail starts to bat, it will be up to these three batsmen to do the job. In this context, he does not talk about the third batsman at all (in this case Dhoni) and he summarily dismisses Laxman being up to the task at hand. He then rests the whole task on Sachin Tendulkars' shoulders.
After this he regales us with all the times England had come back from behind even after the opposition had posted an imposing first innings total and how India had too often stumbled after laying a solid foundation.
If this could be construed as reporting and not psychological warfare then words have no meaning and epistemology can be studied by birds. I have these questions of Mr. Premachandran:
1. Why don't you mention the positive attitude that was displayed by the Indian batsmen (one and all) at the beginning of the article instead of mentioning it as an afterthought at the end and that too restricting it to Karthik and Dravid? Jaffer played a positive game until in the heat of the moment he played a bad shot. Ganguly was also very positive until he was wrongly given out by another bad umpiring decision (at least four and counting in the last three matches). In fact, I submit to you that this should have been the title of your article: "Positive batsmen put India on top" or "Batsmen gain the edge for India."
2. Why is it a pre-condition that one of the batsmen has to play a massive innings? Is the previous test not an example of how India could achieve a good total without anyone getting a century or a massive inning?
3. Why express so much doubt and cynicism about India's players when they are doing their best and the results are there to show for it? Is this some sort of convoluted tough love syndrome?
4. Why do you write off Laxman so easily. He has been called one of the greatest batsmen of his time by none other than Australia. Admittedly, he has not been in form lately but he has also been mistreated by the selection committees. It is quite possible, nay probable that he will play a "defining" inning.
5. Oh! Did you forget Dhoni? Need I say more here.
Needless to say I am not predicting what will happen tomorrow but Mr. Premachandran is discussing the preconditions for an Indian victory and thus playing the predictions game with much cynicism and trepidation.
On the other hand, read Andrew Miller's article. He starts off with a positive attitude about how England still have a chance to win. Then he goes on to recollect the events of 2003 where England pulled off a miracle win against South Africa, mentions that the toss was crucial to win (implying that India is doing well not because of ability but chance) and how England bowled really well to restrict India to 316 for 4. He then mentions that India bowled well in the second test (particularly their left arm seamers) and uses that to point out that the English bowlers will have to emulate the Indian ones -- all this in a day where India batted.
Of course, one could read into Mr. Miller's article and take heart in the subtle compliments that he is paying to Indian team's performance but that would require too much of "reading-between-the-lines" as it were. A casual reader would recount that England played brilliant cricket (except for the occasional dropped catch) but were unlucky and India were lucky to win the toss.
If one were to play mind games (cricket and other sports are all about mind games as much as they are about talent, physical ability and skill), one would conclude that India are on the back foot and England not when the contrary is the case.
No one knows what is going to happen tomorrow. All that can be said is that, with some measure of luck, the team that holds it together (in the emotional, mental and physical compartments) and comes out to play good cricket will win. I believe India has everything it needs to win this historic series and make it a memorable one. It certainly demonstrated it in the second test and has done it so far in the third. GO INDIA.
Monday, August 6, 2007
Psychological Pressure
Recently, England lost the second test in the three Pataudi trophy cricket series (the first test was a draw). The win by India was comprehensive and emphatic. India outplayed England in all areas of the game: batting (147 run first wicket partnership between Wassim Jaffer and Dinesh Karthik, 91 runs by Sachin Tendulkar, 77 by Saurav Ganguly and all told over 5 batsmen got over 50 runs each); bowling (Zaheer Khan the man-of-the match getting 4 for 59 and 5 for 75); excellent fielding and good captaincy by Rahul Dravid. In contrast, England were bowled out for 198 in the first innings and even though they staged a revival by scoring 355 in the second innings, their two innings total was no match for India's first innings total of 481 thus requiring India to score only 73 runs in the second innings to win the match -- which India did with much ease.
Instead of praising India for their superior performance, most of the media focussed on some of the extra-curricular incidents that took place on the field. One was Sreesanth's on field behavior
where he nudged Michael Vaughan and for bowling a bouncer to Kevin Pieterson and the other was a dangerous prank played by the English fielders by placing jelly beans on the pitch when Zaheer Khan came to bat.
As I have written before, very little was made of the jelly bean incident (even though it was hazardous and against the rules of cricket) -- it was dismissed as a childish prank. Only one commentator, Ian Chappell, the Australian great, commented on the prank's hazardous nature. Whereas, Sreesanth was vilified, to the point that the Rahul Dravid (India's captain), Venky Prasad (bowling coach) criticized Sreesanth's behavior publicly and committed to having a chat with him. Sreesanth himself has apologized to Vaughan and was fined 50% of his match fees.
Nudging a batsman's shoulder is not acceptable but is part and parcel of the game - while it does not happen routinely, it does happen occasionally. In these circumstances, the captain or the umpire intercedes and the game continues as normal once the tempers cool down. Nothing much is made of such incidents
But in this case, it has been made into a huge mountain. Whereas, the jelly bean incident (a match banning offense) has been conveniently excused.
Dravid, the ever conciliator, has made nothing of the jelly bean incident and neither has the Indian team management or the match umpires. The most vocal critic has been Ian Chappell (another testimony to his impartial and down-to-earth nature and his love of the game). The English press (while condemning the English team for the jelly bean incident and for losing the match) have been party to the "dump-on-Sreesanth" parade with cricinfo.com being the foremost amongst them.
The latest to join the muckraking is the ever-hypocritical Mike Atherton. Atherton, a former English captain, in the past, has been on record defending Brett Lee, who was criticized for bowling too many bouncers that are aimed at the batsman's bodies. Atherton's argument, then, for defending Lee was that Lee was a nice guy and would apologize right away to the batsman in question. Now, for the record, Sreesanth also apologized right away and by all accounts Sreesanth is a darling loved by all his fans and is considered somewhat of a character (a lovable one at that). Atherton's can have only two reasons to treat Sreesanth differently: either he stands to gain in some way (financially or otherwise) by defending Lee and chastising Sreesanth or he doesn't like Indians much. Neither of these are defensible reasons. Athertons' criticism of Sreesanth has taken on some untoward proportions, heretofore unknown in the world of cricket - he is advising the opposition team's captain to drop Sreesanth from the next match -- his reason for ask Dravid to do this -- the umpires have not penalized Sreesanth enough.
By the same token, Atherton, in his new angelic goodness should ask Michael Vaughan to drop Kevin Pieterson, Alastair Cook (the alleged perpetrators of the jelly bean prank) and Matt Prior (whose on-field sledging skills are better than his wicket-keeping skills). And finally, Atherton should drop himself from the commentator's job where one of the prerequisites is to be neutral (or at least not show overt bias) and join the English coaching staff - he will make good company to the English coach Peter Moores (who wanted the stump mics to be turned down so Matt Prior's sledging will not be heard by the rest of the world). The stench of Atherton's mendacity is not good for the game of cricket.
All this is designed to pressure India into capitulating in the third test. The writing is on the wall though. All India has to do is not lose the third test - even a draw will earn them the trophy and the series (the first that England will lose on its soil since the 2001 ashes loss). There is only one way for India to respond to this psychological pressure from the English team and media: win the third test.
I, for one will not pretend to advise the great Rahul Dravid and the senior Indian players planning the next contest but if I were them, I would continue to put the team's collective heads down, focus and play hard to win. Good luck India.
Instead of praising India for their superior performance, most of the media focussed on some of the extra-curricular incidents that took place on the field. One was Sreesanth's on field behavior
where he nudged Michael Vaughan and for bowling a bouncer to Kevin Pieterson and the other was a dangerous prank played by the English fielders by placing jelly beans on the pitch when Zaheer Khan came to bat.
As I have written before, very little was made of the jelly bean incident (even though it was hazardous and against the rules of cricket) -- it was dismissed as a childish prank. Only one commentator, Ian Chappell, the Australian great, commented on the prank's hazardous nature. Whereas, Sreesanth was vilified, to the point that the Rahul Dravid (India's captain), Venky Prasad (bowling coach) criticized Sreesanth's behavior publicly and committed to having a chat with him. Sreesanth himself has apologized to Vaughan and was fined 50% of his match fees.
Nudging a batsman's shoulder is not acceptable but is part and parcel of the game - while it does not happen routinely, it does happen occasionally. In these circumstances, the captain or the umpire intercedes and the game continues as normal once the tempers cool down. Nothing much is made of such incidents
But in this case, it has been made into a huge mountain. Whereas, the jelly bean incident (a match banning offense) has been conveniently excused.
Dravid, the ever conciliator, has made nothing of the jelly bean incident and neither has the Indian team management or the match umpires. The most vocal critic has been Ian Chappell (another testimony to his impartial and down-to-earth nature and his love of the game). The English press (while condemning the English team for the jelly bean incident and for losing the match) have been party to the "dump-on-Sreesanth" parade with cricinfo.com being the foremost amongst them.
The latest to join the muckraking is the ever-hypocritical Mike Atherton. Atherton, a former English captain, in the past, has been on record defending Brett Lee, who was criticized for bowling too many bouncers that are aimed at the batsman's bodies. Atherton's argument, then, for defending Lee was that Lee was a nice guy and would apologize right away to the batsman in question. Now, for the record, Sreesanth also apologized right away and by all accounts Sreesanth is a darling loved by all his fans and is considered somewhat of a character (a lovable one at that). Atherton's can have only two reasons to treat Sreesanth differently: either he stands to gain in some way (financially or otherwise) by defending Lee and chastising Sreesanth or he doesn't like Indians much. Neither of these are defensible reasons. Athertons' criticism of Sreesanth has taken on some untoward proportions, heretofore unknown in the world of cricket - he is advising the opposition team's captain to drop Sreesanth from the next match -- his reason for ask Dravid to do this -- the umpires have not penalized Sreesanth enough.
By the same token, Atherton, in his new angelic goodness should ask Michael Vaughan to drop Kevin Pieterson, Alastair Cook (the alleged perpetrators of the jelly bean prank) and Matt Prior (whose on-field sledging skills are better than his wicket-keeping skills). And finally, Atherton should drop himself from the commentator's job where one of the prerequisites is to be neutral (or at least not show overt bias) and join the English coaching staff - he will make good company to the English coach Peter Moores (who wanted the stump mics to be turned down so Matt Prior's sledging will not be heard by the rest of the world). The stench of Atherton's mendacity is not good for the game of cricket.
All this is designed to pressure India into capitulating in the third test. The writing is on the wall though. All India has to do is not lose the third test - even a draw will earn them the trophy and the series (the first that England will lose on its soil since the 2001 ashes loss). There is only one way for India to respond to this psychological pressure from the English team and media: win the third test.
I, for one will not pretend to advise the great Rahul Dravid and the senior Indian players planning the next contest but if I were them, I would continue to put the team's collective heads down, focus and play hard to win. Good luck India.
Selective use of the past
As you are all aware, I am sure, a historic series is being played in England by India. Equally significant is the fact that this may well be the last tour for four of India's great batsmen of the last decade: Sachin Tendulkar, Rahul Dravid, Saurav Ganguly and VVS Laxman. Further, this is also India's first Test series against a non-minnow country after the WC07 debacle, and the "retirement" of the infamous Greg Chappell as India's coach.
That's all for today. Next, my take on Sambit Bal and his editorial skulduggery and more episodes of the Daily Dump from Cricinfo.
In light of this, Cricinfo decides to publish a whole article about India's 1936 tour which was total disaster. You can read the details here.
The contents of the article are not of dispute here (I wasn't there and have no other information to judge the article's veracity), but the article itself. Why this article now? Why do it just after India had a comprehensive win over England?
How about writing an article on the 1971/72 series where Wadekar and his men trounced the mighty England on their own soil with BS Chandrashekar taking 6 wickets for 38 runs in the second innings of the third test to seal the test and series for India? Or how about the 2002 series where Ganguly and his boys came back after a defeat in the first test to even the series (with Sachin, Dravid and Ganguly all scoring centuries)? The 1971/72 series has not been mentioned on Cricinfo for a long time and the 2002 series is only mentioned in passing. Yet, the 2002 series would be the most relevant to discuss and analyze, since many of the players who participated in that series (on both sides) are still playing.
An article about a debacle (Indian or otherwise) is not necessarily out of place but its mention to the exclusion of all the others that could have been written indicates bias.
The motivation for doing so is not unfathomable. It is to create a mindset where it does not really matter how well India does, it will not be given the same prominence as its failures. Don't get me wrong. The bias is not so overt that the veneer of impartiality will be obvious and be called just that - a veneer. It is more insidious since the veneer is protected and polished. Let me explain.
For example, there is some coverage given to Zaheer Khan and his superior bowling performance however more attention is paid to Sreesanth and his failings to control his emotions. Another example, the jelly bean incident is labeled a childish prank rather than a flagrant violation of cricket rules which should have resulted in the banning of the perpetrators. If the ball had landed on those jelly beans and deviated from their normal course, at best it would have gotten the batsman out and at worst caused bodily harm to a tailender ill-equipped to handle it.
That's all for today. Next, my take on Sambit Bal and his editorial skulduggery and more episodes of the Daily Dump from Cricinfo.
Purpose and mission statement
Cricinfo is the most widely read site on all things related to Cricket and it is extremely biased against Asian countries in general and India in particular. To those not familiar with the modern Cricket world, it may help to know that India generates the highest amount for revenue in the sport of cricket. Further, most Indians are crazy about cricket and that any media outlet reporting on cricket stands to gain huge amounts of advertising revenue from the Indian fan. Normally, one would expect this to generate a bias towards Indian cricket and favor Indian cricketers. But in the peculiarly Indian mentality of the post-colonial era, there is a tendency among Indians to demean themselves.
Cricinfo (based in England and India) while enjoying the benefits of millions of Indian eyeballs (most advertisements on the site are targeted to Indians), is a major practitioner of the craft of demeaning Indian cricket.
Cricinfo was until recently owned by Wisden (a UK based corporation) and recently acquired by ESPN but most of the advertisers on that site are Indian companies. If one observed the history of Cricinfo though, it was started by a few Indians as a IRC channel to report live scores of cricket matches around the world. Wisden saw an opportunity and acquired the company. The major asset that cricinfo has are the historical records of most of the cricket matches played in the past century. They use this to great advantage to lambaste Indian cricket and Indian cricketers.
The fact that Cricinfo is biased is not a controversial issue and is a forgone conclusion - I being one of several people who have made this observation in the past, backing it with up mountains of evidence. Further, any feedback to the authors of the site (through postings on their feedback page) is usually greeted with hostility and dismissal.
This blog is an attempt to increase awareness of this bias and point out the hypocrisy of the writers and commentators on Cricinfo's web-site.
Cricinfo (based in England and India) while enjoying the benefits of millions of Indian eyeballs (most advertisements on the site are targeted to Indians), is a major practitioner of the craft of demeaning Indian cricket.
Cricinfo was until recently owned by Wisden (a UK based corporation) and recently acquired by ESPN but most of the advertisers on that site are Indian companies. If one observed the history of Cricinfo though, it was started by a few Indians as a IRC channel to report live scores of cricket matches around the world. Wisden saw an opportunity and acquired the company. The major asset that cricinfo has are the historical records of most of the cricket matches played in the past century. They use this to great advantage to lambaste Indian cricket and Indian cricketers.
The fact that Cricinfo is biased is not a controversial issue and is a forgone conclusion - I being one of several people who have made this observation in the past, backing it with up mountains of evidence. Further, any feedback to the authors of the site (through postings on their feedback page) is usually greeted with hostility and dismissal.
This blog is an attempt to increase awareness of this bias and point out the hypocrisy of the writers and commentators on Cricinfo's web-site.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)