Archive for the 'Cricket' Category

This was going to be part two of my Calcutta trip, but certain events in the past days have made the city and its people a laughing stock. Once again Calcuttans have proved—not that given their (un) sporting history any evidence was necessary—their insularity.

“No Ganguly, no cricket,” claimed supporters of dethroned Indian cricket captain Sourav Ganguly days before the one-day international between South Africa and India was to be played at Eden Gardens. And when Ganguly was indeed selected in the Test squad, ostensibly as an “all rounder”, you didn’t have to be a seasoned cricket analyst to realize that it was more a political than a cricketing move.

While India went on to suffer a humiliating defeat in Eden Gardens, the partisan Calcutta crowd were seen and heard to be enthusiastically cheering South Africa on! Though I do not subscribe to the “you should support India out of patriotism” view—sport is an entertainment; support whoever makes you happy!—this was a little bit extreme as well!

For some reason, the media attributes great sporting knowledge and fair behaviour to Calcutta’s sports fans! Perhaps it has something to do with the fact that Bengalis in general consider themselves—and are considered by some, it has to be admitted—to the be intellectuals of the country! Yet history says otherwise. Calcutta has a reputation of pettiness and petulance when it doesn’t have its way.

1983: India lost to the West Indies, and the team bus was pelted with stones and such. Sunil Gavaskar documents the incident in its full “glory” in the second part of his autobiography, Runs and Ruins. Even the wives of Gavaskar and Kapil Dev were not spared!

(1985: I am not sure why this happened, but the behaviour of the crowd was so bad that Gavaskar refused to play in Calcutta ever again. Two years later, when a Test match was scheduled here, he sat out!)

1996: Semi-finals of the World Cup, India versus Sri Lanka. India were getting the thrashing of their lives, and the result was a foregone conclusion, when the Calcuttans decided if India couldn’t win, there wouldn’t be any cricket. They started throwing missiles and setting fire to banners, which escalated to setting fire to the stands! The match couldn’t be played to the finish and was awarded to Sri Lanka.

1999: After India and Pakistan had resumed cricketing relations following a long gap, a Test match was scheduled at Eden Gardens. But disheartened fans started chucking missiles at the fielders when India were getting stick. It got so bad that the stadium had to be emptied and the match played to empty stands.

This is, by no means, a comprehensive list of the times the red mist has hijacked Calcuttan fans’ better judgement. The city is and always has been the most volatile and partisan of cricket crowds in the country. Their knowledge of the game—and its spirit, for “cricket” is synonymous with fairplay—is as shallow as a puddle in a pothole.

~PD

On…er… popular… demand, here’s a quick post on demystifying cricket.

Well, cricket, when it’s not a loud and annoying insect, is a rather simple game. Okay, I jest a tiny bit: it’s a horrifically complicated game, and needs a big ground and lots of equipment—to start with, a ball (generally a hard leather ball with a raised seam), at least two bats and two sets of stumps (protective gear is also recommended).

Cricket is played on a big ground, with a pitch in the centre that is 22 yards long. There are three sets of stumps at each end. The two teams (of eleven players each) decide who bats or bowls first by the toss of a coin. The batting team send their batsmen (some people like to say batswomen if they are women, but that sounds so awful!) out in twos. Each batsman defends one set of stumps at a time.

All eleven members of the bowling team come out and place themselves in various positions in the field. They are called the fielders. Of these, some players are bowlers, who have to bowl at the batsmen. Only one bowler can bowl at a time, and will attempt to dislodge the stumps that are protected by the batsmen. Each bowler has to deliver six balls (called an “over”) from one end of the pitch. When he (or she) finishes, a different bowler must take over and bowl from the other end. If the ball dislodges the stumps of the facing batsman or if it flies off his bat to be caught by a member of the fielding side, the batsman is out.

The on-strike batsman must face each delivery and bat it away into the gaps in the field. With the ball safely away, he and the non-striking batsman run up and down the wicket. Each time they cross over from one end of the pitch to the other, a run is made. If the ball rolls over the boundary, the batting side gets four runs. If the balls sails over the boundary without touching the ground, six runs result.

If the ball is fielded and thrown back, and the stumps are broken before a batsman makes his ground at either end, he is out, and must go back to the pavilion. The next batsman in the line-up will then come out to replace him. (There are 10 ways to get a batsman out.) And so it goes on till:

• Ten batsmen get dismissed, leaving the last man without a partner.
• The batting side are confident that they have enough runs and declare the innings closed.
• In case of a limited overs match (that, is a match where the number of overs have been pre-decided; it is generally 50 in one-day international games), the overs run out.

Each turn at batting by a team is known as an innings. If a team makes 50 runs and loses no wickets, the score is “50 for no loss”; if they have lost two wickets and made 200, it is “200 for 2″; and so on. In the simplest form of the game, the team that bats first sets a target for the fielding team, who must then overhaul it in the given number of overs.

But now comes the tricky part. Cricket an be played over a period of one to five days. In its classical form, there are no restrictions on the number of overs bowled. One teams goes bats till they are all out or till they think it is safe to declare. Then the second team bats. Then the first team has another chance to bat, leaving a consolidated total for the second team to overhaul.

For instance, imagine that England (the people who must be blamed for inventing this dastardly game that I love so much!) and Australia (the dastardly people who are better than everyone else at it!) are playing a Test match (in other words, a five-day international). Say, England bat first.

• England are bowled out for 200.
• Australia bat and make 250 for five and decide that’s enough.
• England bat and this time put on 300 for six before declaring.
• This leaves Australia to make 251 runs to win. For England to win, they will have to get all 10 wickets before Australia reach their target.
• If Australia are all out for 250, the scores are level and the game is a tie. If Australia are unable to get 250 and England unable to get 10 wickets in the time left, the game is a draw (no result; honours shared).

It may sound silly—why bat twice?—but it leaves more options open for strategizing and planning. Test cricket, which is the five-day international form so far played only by 10 countries around the world, is played this way. Traditionalists, including myself, much prefer this type of cricket. If you see international cricket being played in white clothing, you can be pretty sure it is Test cricket. If the teams are wearing garish uniforms, it’s one-day cricket.

Now, if anyone understood all that, I will give them a trophy!

If not, go here. Wikipedia explains it so much better. Sigh.

~PD

So brilliantly predictable—that’s Indian cricket for you! Not that we needed any confirmation, but the people who control the game have once again proved that the inept jokers tag they carry is absolutely spot on. But why am I complaining, did I—or anyone else, for that matter—really expect anything different?

Well, perhaps, yes. Hope is not a crime, is it? The allegations the coach made against the captain, all six pages of them, were serious. These are not ten-year-olds that they can be told to kiss and make up—they are grown men with egos the size of… well… BIG things. Who do the BCCI think they are fooling by telling Chappell and Ganguly to ‘work things out’ among themselves? And who believes that it was ‘all a misunderstanding’?!

Greg Chappell has a reputation of being a right hard bastard—remember, this is the man who asked his brother to bowl underarm!—and he is unlikely to be fazed by the so-called aura of Indian superstars. His allegations against Ganguly are nothing that cricket followers did not know or suspect:

1. Suspect fitness: Not just Ganguly, most other Indian players seem to be unfit to play. The captain, though, is another story altogether. His running between the wickets is a horror and the less said about his fielding the better. While he could have been forgiven for being naturally clumsy, what is unforgiveable is the fact that he shows a marked reluctance to work. Which brings us to the second allegation—
2. Shirks training: Yawn! Well, seriously, look at his game. I remember Ganguly as a debutant in Australia (was it?), quaking in his boots, facing some twenty-odd balls for the three unlikeliest runs in one-day cricket. Today, he has learnt to glare, but he still backs away from fast bowling. His fielding is as bad as ever, as is his running between the wickets. Yet he is reputed to treat training sessions in rather cavalier manner and points to his record if anyone raises a query. (Records are all very well, but they do not show the times he has put self before team.)
3. Fakes injuries: Though Chappell specifically referred to an even in the Zimbabwe tour, there have been other times when the captain has got out of facing up to a tough situation by a injury mysteriously cropping up—one incident that comes to mind is his sudden discovery of an injury after spotting grass on a wicket! Make of that what you will.
4. Plants discord in team: Ganguly is known to play off people against each other and there are some blue-eyed boys of his who can do no wrong. He is known to ‘play politics’ within the team and also with the media. He has a few ‘pets’ in the fourth estate for whom the sun shines out of the captain’s posterior.
5. Unfit to captain: Leading by example has never been a concept Ganguly has subscribed to. His discipline is suspect and it is doubtful if he commands much respect in the side. In fact, he has been accused of creating discord. As recent TV coverage of matches clearly shows, there have been open slanging matches between captain and players—hardly a healthy sign. Remember, this was the man they called Maharaj even before he came into the national side, not because of his regal batting style but because of his snootiness, which included resenting carrying drinks for his teammates! Even now, it is alleged that he refuses to stay with his state team during domestic games—in the rare event that he does play domestic cricket—preferring to put up in more luxurious accommodation. Ganguly has also been hauled up for indiscipline on the field, including being banned for slow over rates and misconduct.

Clearly, the BCCI’s hearing was nothing more or less than an eyewash. Given the seriousness of the coach’s allegations, that the board decided to keep the captain sends out the message that Chappell is a liar. And if Chappell is a liar—and for the moment we leave aside speculation of what he thought he would gain—then the fact that he stays as well just proves that the hearing was only a media circus.

The world’s richest cricket board remains as toothless and aimless as ever. They never cared about the game, and it seems nothing has changed. Only money matters.

~PD