How to name it?

Naming cricketing trophies after two greats from the respective countries has become a fad over the last few years. Australia plays India for the Border-Gavaskar trophy and their trans-Tasman rivals for the Chappell-Hadlee trophy (Don't ask me which Chappell and Hadlee, as I can remember at least 3 of each kind donning their national colors). Sri Lanka and Australia recently realized that they didn't know what they were playing for and decided to name their trophy after their two most popular (controversial?) cricketers. A little northwest of there, bitter rivals battle it out for an anonymous trophy, while one of them faces an emergency in their country. Some battles are definitely more interesting and important than a constitutional emergency. (Will the cricketers end up spending a month in the Mumbai Airport a la Tom Hanks in The Terminal?).

Isn't it high time that the rivalry that arouses the most extreme of emotions in the game got a name for its battles. Even the most one sided of them all has one. Yeah, I meant The Ashes.

Let's think through the various combinations of names that could rightfully adorn a trophy of this stature.

1. Imran - Kapil: two of the greatest all rounders ever and world cup winning captains.
2. Qadir - Kumble: two great tweakers, one who kept the art alive amidst towering fast bowlers in the 80s and the other who took all 10 pins down in a bowl.
3. I could be tongue in cheek and call it Manmohan - Musharraf trophy; after all what is cricket in these countries without politics. But then you will have to rechristen it every now and then to reflect the volatility of the governments.
4. Talking of politics, a political way of settling it could be calling it the Kashmir trophy - didn't Imran Khan once openly suggest that the Kashmir issue should be settled over a game of cricket, knowing fully well that for the best past of the 80's and 90's Pakistan had a much superior team.
5. A dark horse could be Khushwant Singh- Zia ul Haq for their contribution to numerous "sardarji" jokes in their respective countries.

I could think of numerous such pairs, for cricketing or humorous reasons, but if there was one moment that turned India-Pakistan cricket by its head- it wasn't Kumble's perfect 10, wasn't Imran or Kapil's exploits with the red cherry, wasn't Sachin's towering six over point off Shoaib Akhtar or the latter's twin strikes at Kolkatta - it has to be Miandad's last ball six off ChetanSharma at Sharjah . That moment marked the dominance of Pakistan in Indo-Pak encounters for nearly a decade and a half until India became more competent - India just couldn't recover from that momentary lapse of reason. More importantly, the two sides graduated from playing out dull draws to dishing out edge of the seat nail biters - a trend that has continued on till the recent 20/20 WC final. For the sheer impact of the moment on the rest of the games between the countries, the trophy should be named the Chetan - Miandad trophy.

Nevertheless, I am pretty sure that at least in the near future, the trophy will continue to be named after Pepsi or Samsung or whoever the sponsor is since neither board cares beyond what the sponsors bring to the game - money.

Fast and Furious...

...two adjectives that would aptly describe the recently concluded 20/20 Cricket World Cup. Some might say "too fast, too furious", but I think the speed was just about right. This was the best cricket tournament since '99 World Cup - the last such one where at least 2 other teams (SA & Pak) were as good as the Aussies before the men in gold and green surged ahead to leave the rest of the world languishing in doldrums.

It is a common business transformation strategy to change a company's focus from its products and revenue to its consumers and many leading companies have turned around losing businesses by successfully implementing it. Cricket over the last 10 years had become a game run by lawyers/politicians for lawyers/politicians with focus on its product (ODIs) and revenue (broadcasting revenue). Along the way the needs and pulse of the consumer was forgotten. While on the verge of alienating the fans from the game, serendipitously or not, the ICC has just implemented one such successful transformation.

Despite numerous experts questioning the purity of the concept (Articles 1, 2 & 3), I am convinced that the game has received the perfect dose of caffeine to keep it going. While it definitely doesn't tamper with the purity and position of the more pristine form of the game that is test cricket, it certainly marks the beginning of the end of the 50 over game and nothing highlighted that more than the contrasting nature of the two world cups staged over the last 6 months - one whose winner was obvious 4 years before it started and the other whose winner was unknown until the last 4 balls were bowled!

While the purists correctly argue that test cricket is the true test of skills, truly close contests of the highest quality are too far and few in between to attract anyone but purists to the game. Over the last 10 years there have been only 2 mindblowing test series (Aus vs. India 2001 & Aus vs. Eng 2005) to satisfy the non-purist. Steve Waugh and his fearless Aussies revolutionized the game by scoring at an unheard of rate of 4 an over in tests, but few other teams could consistently match them to make things interesting. Arguably, the shorter version levels the field for a more even contest where ephemeral brilliance rather than sustained genius is sufficient to win games. But in doing so, it has unearthed the the key to closer contests and tighter finishes that has become a rarity in the game. Also, the average cricket fan does not have 5 days to watch the game in stadiums and appreciate the purity of the game. He prefers the luxury of Cricinfo to give him the executive summary. 20/20 has truly brought the fan back to the grounds.

And finally, to critics who site that the version may not produce a Sachin or a Lara, the counter argument is that Sachins and Laras are supreme talents that will show up and shine irrespective of the format of the game. It might be worthwhile to remember that SRT first announced his talent to the cricket world by taking the life out of Abdul Qadir (described by none other than Viv Richards as the toughest bowler he had faced) in an exhibition match in Pakistan before he went on to greater deeds and bigger stages. Hence the argument is moot.

Twenty Twenty is victory for the cricket consumer and hence I rest my case!

Criticism of Greatness

Is imitation the highest form of flattery? I think criticism is an equally exalted form and it seems to be the more attractive option when it comes to journalism.

I read two articles yesterday, one from The Guardian and the other from The Telegraph and I was surprised to find that the central topic of debate in both articles is the same - Tendulkar, his failure at Lords and the loss of his once brilliant armory of strokes, apparently replaced by a fear of the short ball and failure in general.

Interestingly both articles use success at Lord's as a measure of greatness, a huge flaw considering the fact that the single most stellar batting performance at Lord's is by a batsman, definitely not considered to be amongst the cream of all time greats (333 and 123 against India in 1990 by Graham Gooch). The last Indian name to make it to the Lords honors board is the person so affectionately named "Bombay Duck" and "Olympic Rings" (in honor of his 5 consecutive ducks against Australia) and I can bet the last dollar in my wallet that Ajit Agarkar will not feature in your all time cricketing XI. Also, given the number of grounds Sachin has played in, there are bound to be ones where he has a bad average; he averages a monumental 249 runs at Sydney, which certainly highlights the triviality of the argument.

The article in the Telegraph points to Sachin's meticulous preparation before a series as an evidence of his fear of failure. I find it amusing that, ironically, both articles also refer to the preparation that the genius made in 1998 to counter Shane Warne's bowling around the wicket and the 155 n.o that resulted out of it (an innings that I had the fortune of witnessing live from the pavilion at Chepauk courtesy of an umpire cousin). To me, what is evident is the will to succeed and not the fear of failure. I still remember watching the game and listening to Ian Chappell on the microphone pointing out to the moment when Warne came around the wicket for the first time in the match as the turning point. Sachin slightly opened up his stance, marched down the wicket and majestically lofted the first ball over midwicket for a six, dictating the tone for that series, at the end of which the spin wizard proudly admitted to having nightmares of Sachin dancing down the pitch. Admiration, it seems, is an even greater form of flattery.

Though the author correctly notes the decline in Sachin's game by referring to the fact that in the last three years, Sachin has scored only one century against a notable opponent (Sri Lanka), he fails to mention that the period was interspersed by serious injuries, often limiting his participation to one or two games followed by a long layoff. Every great sportsman goes through a patch of mediocrity but they often bounce back with minor technical changes to the surprise of the world. Tiger Woods did that by changing his swing a couple of years ago after a 3-year lean period. Whether Sachin follows suit - only time will tell.

Finally, whether Sachin Tendulkar scores a test hundred at Lords or not, whether he is addressed "Sir Sachin" in the near future or not, his greatness has diminished or not, is immaterial; I and more than a billion others will always remember the man as an entertainer par excellence, who gave good value for their time and money.