Outside The Line

Forget About Champions... It's Barely Intertoto

Am I the only one, apart from the usual circle of playa-hatin' traditionalists, who thinks this Champions League idea is pretty idiotic? I guess it was bound to happen -- once the Indian Premier League became a hit, organisers would start believing that the analogy between English football and Twenty20 cricket holds to something beyond the names of the tournaments. Hence the Twenty20 Champions League.

First of all, nothing that lasts 10 days can be called a "league".

Second, the idea behind any kind of tournament pitting champions from different leagues against each other is to maximise the quality of competition and to have the greatest collection of international talent gathered in one place at one time. A cricket Champions League would do just the opposite.

The UEFA Champions League is a viable tournament because there are enough powerful, loaded teams in Europe to warrant a supranational, long-term competition on top of the domestic leagues. It's essentially a way to get Real Madrid and AC Milan to play against Manchester United and Bayern Munich. This format works because all these teams are roughly comparable in terms of talent, richness of history, infrastructure, etc.

Cricket's talent pool, however, is not nearly deep enough to sustain a handful of different domestic leagues, plus a champions league on top of that. The IPL itself was supposed to be the way to concentrate the available talent and put it the one place. That's the league's main attraction -- not the fact that it's in India or that it makes it rain sixes -- but the fact that the best players are all in it. (Or, at least,  will be in it. That's something that kept this first edition of the IPL from being even bigger than it was: the lack of English players and the departure of top-level Aussies, Kiwis and West Indians halfway through.)

I think the motivation behind it all can be found in one particular sentence in the above article:

It was also agreed, verbally, between the boards that foreign players will turn out for their local teams in the tournament. That undertaking was sought by the England and Australia boards at a meeting in Singapore. [Italics mine]

Well, of course it was. Cricket Australia and the ECB, the two other powers with any kind of pull internationally, surely realise that there's no chance in hell they'd be able to compete with the IPL's mafia money and its Bollywood starlet-whore glitz in the long run, so the best way they have to cash in on the Twenty20 explosion is to undermine the league's credentials and push for the creation of a new, "ultimate" league. A "league of champions", where they get as big a say as the BCCI or any other organisation around. (Well, except for those in Sri Lanka, and New Zealand, and Bangladesh, and Pakistan...)

And Now For Something Somewhat Different

                              

I don't know if many people outside (or even inside) India realise this, but the final of the inaugural edition of the ICL is being held today. By now, the tournament has acquired the look more of an ill-conceived tribute band than a rollicking supergroup, but one thing we shouldn't ignore is the roster of really cool players that are involved. Because of the nature of the tournament, and the struggles between the two emerging Indian leagues, the ICL ended up loaded with players of a certain mold -- the ones who for some strange reason never quite made it at the international level, or were unfairly shafted, or made into scapegoats by opportunistic upstarts, etc. In other words: all the interesting players. The journeymen; the ones with the good stories. So, yeah, you may not get your Glenn McGraths and Mohammad Yousufs... but you do get your Lance Kluseners, Marvan Atapattus, Russel Arnolds, and Abdul Razzaqs. For geeks like us who actually know and care a little about cricket, it's not too shabby an offering.

Anyway, tonight's final pits the Chandigarh Lions against the Chennai Superstars. (Which only begs the question: where are the Cheetahs, guys?! Hasn't anyone heard of alliteration?) Uncle J Rod will be delighted to hear that his darling Ian Harvey has been tearing it up for the Superstars, scoring two half-centuries so far, and going up for Batsman of the Tournament. As far as cricket man-crushes go, I'll stick with the Lions' captain, Chris Cairns, who's looking like a safe bet for league MVP, with a batting strike rate of 172, a bowling average of 22, and an economy rate of 5.9.

For anyone who's interested, you can find streaming video of the final here.

Catching Our Breath, In Bullet Form

There is little point in recapping India's win yesterday, since anyone reading this will most probably have already seen it for themselves. (The Cricket Watcher's Journal has a pretty comprehensive round-up of news and reactions from the final, in case anyone missed anything). Here, though, are some random thoughts/observations I made during the match: 

• Something that must be noted about Misbah-ul-Haq's little paddle to Sreesanth to end the match: it probably wouldn't have even happened had the game not been played in Johannesburg. The previous delivery was a straight pull for six that I'm pretty certain would have been caught inside the boundary in any other ground in the world.
  
  
• It's a little funny how, out of the entire clan of immensely gifted cricketers who have dominated Indian cricket for more than a decade, the only two who ended up victorious in an international tournament were the two biggest underachievers of the lot -- Virender Sehwag and Ajit Agarkar.
  
  
• I wonder what that final would have been like had Pakistan's best bowler not been injured. Mohammad Asif was clearly below his best yesterday, and it was obvious that there was some little niggle causing him discomfort. Would India have even gotten to 150 if Asif, Gul, and Afridi were all firing? I doubt it. (Incidentally, did Asif's injury have anything to do with his pre-tournament altercation with Shoaib Akhtar? What an interesting sub-plot it would be, if that's the case.)

• So my pre-World Cup predictions ended up, not surprisingly, being completely wrong: I initially had both India and Pakistan going out early. However, I wasn't as far off as it would seem. My reasoning was mostly correct -- I said I didn't expect teams with bad fielding to get very far. And they didn't, really. Except India and Pakistan were actually great fielding teams, all tournament long. (That's right, kids... it's a brave new world we live in.)

• My buddy George has a simple, yet brilliant suggestion for any cricket played in the future: keep the stumps as loose in the ground as they were throughout the World Cup. Seeing them fly off the  and almost decapitate the keeper every time someone was bowled had to one of the coolest enduring images of the past two weeks.
  
  

It Almost Feels Like An Understatement

So, is there a chance that, all in all, we have just experienced the best international tournament in the history of sport? Think about it. I will, and I'll get back to you.

A Tiebreaker System That His Nan And Her Mates Couldn't Win

India are floundering in the middle of their innings at the moment, and will be lucky if they reach 150. (Then again, their last encounter ended up with both the teams on 141... though that was in Durban, not the high altitude, short-boundaried Wanderers stadium they are playing in now.)

And speaking of that first round match just ten days ago, here's J-Paul's take on what we should do about that idiotic tiebreaking scenario we have at the moment. I think his idea is perfect, but I'm a lot more skeptical than he is on the frequency of its usefulness. To me, it almost seems like coming up with a brilliant, exciting new way to get the ball back into play in a game of basketball after it gets stuck between the rim and backboard. But its brilliance is undisputed:

"After the India V Pakistan twenty20 group game that ended with a tie and a ridiculous bowl-out, I decided to get to work and do what I do best: Imagine that I was the omnipotent head of world cricket  with no agenda except a thirst for quality cricket, and get to fixing things. I decided to create my own tiebreaker method. The cartoon-like simplicity of the bowl-out seemed to have been created by five year olds, in about 5 seconds (seriously, some people need to be fired). It's never a good idea to base a tiebreaker on a 'game' that, frankly, my Nan and her Bridge buddies would be competitive at, on the world stage.

The new and improved breaker that I have invented is called a 'hit out'. It encompasses most of the aspects that make up cricket. Its only drawback is that the brilliance of it will be seen only in the games that end in a tie. But man, those one or two times a year that it would happen... I get willow just thinking about it. Hold on to your hats people, and read this:

• First we have a toss. The winner gets to choose to bat first or bowl first (of course bowling first is a massive advantage in the 'hit out', but I'm sure that many a shitty captain will still opt for the 'old adage').

• Team A chooses a batter, and team B chooses a bowler, but neither of them know who the corresponding player will be, before they choose. This will rule out any advantage from a team that would otherwise be able to choose second, and match up a batter/bowler to exploit individual player weaknesses.

• Team B takes the field, and the Team A batter heads out, with a non-striker, who will be the batter in the next round (should they run 1, 3, 5 or the striker is caught and they cross),if need be. Team B sets a field, then bowls one ball. If it is a no-ball or a wide, another ball must be bowled, and the penalty is added on to the score.

• The bowler and batter selection happens again, with the roles reversed. Note: Once you have bowled, you can't bowl again, and once you have batted, you can't bat again (but you still field).

• With the roles being reversed, Team A is now fielding. The Team B batter now tries to beat the Team A score. If he scores more, they win, and if he scores less, they lose. If he scores the same amount of runs, the second round begins.

• Round 2, if necessary, begins with team B batting first. This is to avoid the unfair advantage of a Team being able to bat second every round. Team A then try and beat the score.

• The rounds continue until you have a winner. Each round the team batting first is alternated. If it goes past 11 rounds (not gonna happen) it goes back to the first round again.

• Getting out is of no consequence, except for the fact that you won't get any runs (unless the batter is run out, going for the second, third, or fourth run). So players will be getting run out most of the time. The fielders will usually have to run the batters out to finish the play."
  
  

A Glitch In The Matrix

Not a good time to experience technical difficulties, I guess. Maybe that serves me right, and all of us who griped and bitched about the other World Cup's excessive length... this time, instead, we get a competitive, storybook tournament that just whooshes by in a whirl. I mean, an India v. Pakistan final? You're kidding me, right? And that after a full fortnight of tight, lively games, one of which just happened to be a farcical tie-and-bowl-out between the very same two teams that are playing in the final? That sounds so spectacularly like some crooked bookie's wildest morphine wet dream that I'll discount any sinister motives; it's just too good to be true.

If anyone out there still had any doubts that Twenty20 was destined to sweep through and change the entire cricket landscape in mere months, the events of the last couple of weeks should surely convince them otherwise (well, it should eventually -- I'm sure there will be some denial in many at first). 50-over cricket is a thing of the past, and if the traditionalists want to salvage anything, I suggest they focus on the Test game. It's not untouchable.

The Other Bush Doctrine

Even though my prognosticating skills so far (1 , 2) have been about as accurate as those of the neoconservative movement in geopolitics, let me just make one more prediction, and let posterity judge it as it may:

 The 50-over international game of cricket will seize to exist in less than a decade. (The 2011 World Cup will most likely be the last major global event that will be staged in that format.) Twenty20 will eventually absorb the entire limited-overs spectrum.

That's it.

Wrong-Footed Henchmen, Aging Youth, and 'Pulling A Diddy'

As I watched them dominate Australia earlier today, I suddenly realised how much the Pakistan team has changed in the past few months, and how much I need to catch up on regarding their new look, new attitude, etc. Some random observations:

• I can’t believe I’m saying this, but Pakistan did a very nice job in the field. (No, don’t laugh, I’m being serious.) They really have helped their cause immensely with some good hustle and a selfless effort from their fielders. (Stop it, really. It’s not a joke.) They have saved their batsmen at least 20 runs through their efforts containing the Australian batsmen. (Yes, I did mean Pakistan. For real! You’re not gonna believe me, are you? Fine.)
  
  
• Sohail Tanvir is a very interesting bowler – it’s nice to see some more idiosyncratic players rising onto the scene. At times during his spell he was variating his pace better than anyone in world not named ‘Daniel Vettori.’ I wonder if it’s just his unorthodox, wrong-footed action (described by my buddy George as, “a fast-medium Paul Adams”) that had the Australian batsman so confused, or if there’s something else lurking behind that deceptively gentle run-up and that cavernous, henchman-to-an-early-Bond-villain visage.

• When did Younis Khan change his name to Younus Khan? And why wasn’t I informed of this? After the Youhana/Yousuf switch a couple of years ago, these are the things I need to be made aware of… Oh and by the way, Ponting better not be serious about dropping the –y from his first name. I didn't accept the 're-monikerisation' from Puffy at the time, and I will certainly not accept it from you now, R-I-C-K-Y.

• Andrew Symonds is throwing the ball. Yes, that’s right -- he’s a chucker. No one will ever mention it, of course, since he is Australian. (I suppose he also seems like a nice enough guy. And besides, who wants to ban a wobbly part-timer from bowling, really?)
  
  
• Memo to Slater, Chapell, and co.: ‘Inexperience at the international level’ ≠ ‘Youth’. Misbah-ul-Haq has been around for quite a while now; do your research. His name always pops up in discussions during periods of renovation and reconstruction for Pakistani cricket, when the selectors feel they need to re-arrange their shop front and apply a few surface coats for the public. Give it two years or so, and he'll be right back to captaining that 'A' squad with little hope for the future.

• Here's a guarantee: Pakistan will never get anywhere in world cricket as long as their worst three batters also happen to be their first three batters. Choose one of those top three and go with him -- cut the other two a cheque, thank them for their services, and send Youn?s Khan up the order to open with the winner.
  

 

If Only He Sucked A Little More

If someone can explain to me why Imran Nazir (a player just good enough to really suck at an international level) is in Pakistan's World Cup squad and Abdul Razzaq isn't, I'd be more than grateful.

This One's For The Pasty Ones

In last week's cricket geekfest The Numbers Game column, S Rajesh looked at the nascent international Twenty20 game and tried to discover some trends from the limited data we have of the format. Most of his conclusions are hardly surprising:

• Teams chasing a score in Twenty20 win games more often, but not by a great margin (54%).
  
  
• There are no lulls in batting (as opposed to what we see in the 50-over variety) with a steady rate of about 7 runs/over from the start of the innings, until the last 5 overs, when the rate catapults to 8.5.
  
  
• The most successful batters fall into two categories -- all-round great players that would excel in any format (e.g. Kevin Pietersen, Andrew Symonds, Sanath Jayasuriya), and those perennial underachievers whose sporting gifts have never been in doubt, but who are always one or two steps away from fulfilling their potential (e.g. Mohammad Ashraful, Marlon Samuels, Shahid Afridi).
  
  
• Chris Gayle is probably set to become the best Twenty20 player in the world; he is the only player who ranks in the top-10 in batting strike rate (he's 7th) and bowling economy rate (10th). That should not come as a surprise to anyone who has ever seen Gayle bat or has ever taken a look at his career ODI bowling stats (140 wickets at 32.73. Economy rate: 4.65 r/o. His bowling average and strike rate are actually better than Daniel Vettori's).

The one thing that did surprise me a little was how negligible an effect Powerplays have in Twenty20. In fact, the average strike-rate during the first 5-over period is the lowest for all comparable periods (7.05 r/o). Some of this could be on account of the higher quality of opening bowlers, except that the first 5-over period also yielded the least amount of wickets overall. Should we just put that down as an anomaly due to a small sample size, or is there something more to it?