The art of cricket, when artist is Srinivasan

By John Cheeran

There is a certain kind of sporting fan in India who thrives on schadenfreude. Every time India suffers a defeat, his mood brightens up, as a vindication of his dystopian world view. He can't be blamed, for an average Indian sport fan is a cynic who envies the fortunes that successful sportsmen carry home. Oh, are you talking cricket?
Did anyone expect Mahendra Singh Dhoni's men to make South Africans grovel before them in South Africa? Did you bet on Indians to pick themselves up after the shellacking they got in the one-day series?
If ODI world champions could not match up to South Africans, what chance do they have in the longer format, the charm of which lies in its open ended nature? Very little. But in the end, that LITTLE meant a lot. Yes, India were outplayed in Durban and they lost the Test series. But the series was hardly a one-way street. This was a dignified burial for India’s hopes to be world-beaters away from home, as much as the apostle of reconciliation Nelson Mandela got in South Africa. 
So what are the year-end takeaways for Indian cricket? Cricket will continue to cocaine Indian fan despite the passing away of the age of Sachin Tendulkar. One has witnessed enough to be convinced about the grinding and gun-toting warfare of Cheteshwar Pujara and Virat Kohli. It is not just them. Ajinkya Rahane’s pluck is a lucky pointer for Indian batting. And occasionally, only occasionally, as was the case in the past, bowlers remind the opposition of their existence. In that nothing much has changed. India’s dismal record abroad remains a shabby piece of statistic. Under Mahendra Singh Dhoni’s leadership India has lost nine of the last 10 Tests.
For all that, for me, the biggest winner in Indian cricket last year has been none other than N Srinivasan. Despite the court martial by television anchors, you still have him in control as the New Year rolls in. Srinivasan, against great odds, stood his ground. He did not resign but only stepped aside when bouncers flew around him. One quality that Indian batsmen and bowlers could do with is his stubbornness, a quality once Indian cricket associated with the incomparable Sunil Gavaskar.
Even the Supreme Court did not stop Srinivasan from lording over Indian cricket. He continues to be the president of BCCI and critics have finally allowed him to ‘violate’ the game. 
And look at the way Srinivasan managed to send off Sachin Tendulkar, arranging an anodyne series against the West Indies. He forced Cricket South Africa (CSA) chief Haroon Lorgat to step aside when Indian team went on the South African tour. His ‘Chennai Super King’ continues to be Indian cricket team captain, despite losing both ODI and Test series. There is not even a murmur about unburdening Dhoni of leadership despite his atrocious away record. That’s the art of cricket, when artist is Srinivasan.

Who's a true Maharashtrian? Gavaskar or Tendulkar?

By John Cheeran
Now that Shiv Sena finds Sunil Manohar Gavaskar 'a true Maharashtrian' compared to Sachin Ramesh Tendulkar, will the original little master, who writes anodyne columns on cricket, spell out where he stands in the Marathi Manoos controversy?
Shiv Sena MP Sanjay Raut wrote in Saamna on Sunday that Gavaskar batted for Bombay and promoted cricketers from the city.
Raut writes: "There has been no instance of Sachin extending a helping hand to other Marathi cricketers. Forget others, he did not even support Vinod Kambli. In contrast, Gavaskar, when he captained India, had half the team drawn from Mumbai and Maharashtra. He gave Test caps to many Marathi players including Suru Naik and Zulphikar Parkar, at least for one match."
Raut adds: "In this context, Gavaskar is a genuine 'Maharashtrian' and the whole country loves him even now in the same way. Players like Sachin have become rich because of game of cricket. Sachin's wealth has crossed Rs 200-crore mark. We expect Sachin to be as 'proud' of Maharashtra as Saurav Ganguly is of Bengal. Rahul Dravid too is a Marathi player but he is loyal to Karnataka."
So was Gavaskar parochial during his career?
Did Gavaskar have the best interests of the nation when he pushed for players from Bombay and Maharashtra into the side?
I consider it is Gavaskar's responsibility to break his silence and explain whether he played his cricket as an Indian first, or a Bombaywallah.
And as for Tendulkar not helping fellow Mumbaikars, Raut is far from truth. Tendulkar, when he was captaining the side, did bring in cricketers from Bombay to Indian dressing room. Remember Abhay Kuruvila, Nilesh Kulkarni, Salil Ankola, Hrishikesh Kanitkar and Sairaj Bahutule. And even Vinod Kambli got a second look when Tendulkar was captain during 1996-98.
And unlike Bollywood, in cricket, you can only give people opportunities. Even a Tendulkar cannot script a Test and ODI. Every cricketer has to stand up and deliver. You can have quotas only up to the playing XI, but out there in the field, you got to earn runs and wickets on your own.
But coming back to the point, what’s Gavaskar’s take on this?
Gavaskar, I’m sure, will let this bouncer alone.

The silence of cricketers

By John Cheeran
Does it surprise you that Indian cricketers, the current and former lot, have kept their distance from the simmering Bal Thackeray-Sachin Tendulkar controversy on the great divide between Mumbai and India?
I'm not. Sunil Gavaskar and Ravi Shastri, who both played their cricket in Bombay and continue to live there, never uttered a word on the Saamna editorial while doing commentary for Neo Cricket in the ongoing three Test series against Sri Lanka.
No player from the current Indian squad came forward to say that though they hail from different regions of the country, for them India comes first and no one should pillory Sachin Tendulkar for saying that "he is an Indian first."
Had this bunch of players were playing for India, and not for the BCCI XI, such a reaction would have been most natural. Nor did the band of former players castigate Thackeray for taking a swipe at Tendulkar. Who are they afraid of?
It is too silly to argue that cricketers are not interested in politics and they should be allowed to remain outside the murky world of politics. All actions are political. From fixing cricket matches to planting stories against a team mate to feigning injuries to playing a cracking cover drive.
Yes, politicians did make some noise about the Thackeray statement. But I'm yet to read a remark from Sharad Pawar, the Maratha chieftain, and union minister for agriculture, who is also the President of the Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI). Pawar, who knows a thing or two about the Marathi Manoos, let his dummy Rajeev Shukla issue a vapid statement.
There is not even a purr from the highly political Sourav Ganguly, who the other day was showering praise on Tendulkar.
So much for the people, who can spot the tricolour fluttering on the shoulders of Sachin Tendulkar, every time he walks out to bat.
Long live India.

175 vs 175? Did Tendulkar play his finest innings (175) in Hyderabad?

By John Cheeran
India lost.
Again, the winner was Sachin Tendulkar, arguably the greatest batsman in modern era. Tendulkar not only completed 17,000 runs in One-Day internationals, but played a truly magnificent innings of 175 (141 balls) in Hyderabad against Australia.
Now that we cannot debate about the outcome of the match, we are left with discussing whether the innings Tendulkar played in Hyderabad on Thursday night was his best effort in 20 years of international cricket.
Let's look at a few things.
First, let's take Tendulkar's reaction. Last night he said the knock was one of his best innings. Yes, it was. One of his best, I agree.
There are people, including Sunil Gavaskar, who, I believe, knows a thing or two about cricket, comparing Tendulkar's 175 to his 136 against in the fourth innings of a Test against Pakistan, which India lost after the great man fell.
And then there are pundits who compare Tendulkar's 175 with Kapil Dev's 175 against Zimbabwe in the 1983 World Cup, an innings that few have seen.
Everyone is entitled to his or her opinion, but while putting an innings in context you have to look at the conditions in which it was played.
Why is it that no one is talking about how weak the Australian bowling attack was in Hyderabad? Without Brett Lee, Peter Siddle and Mitchell Johnson, this attack was far from penetrating. Clint McKay, the man who took three Indian wickets, was playing his first ODI. And over and above, pitch was perfect for batting, a fact that has been underlined by the mere fact that Aussies posted a total of 350 in the first place. When you look at the Australian scorecard, you immediately notice that each one of the batsman -- Shane Watson (93), Shaun Marsh (112), Ricky Ponting (45) and Cameron White (57) excelled with the bat.
And about the consequence of India losing this match?
The seven-match series is still alive, though India trails 2-3.
So, the impact of Tendulkar's innings, assuming that he had taken India to victory, would have been hardly unsurpassable.
But Tendulkar played his role well, though not to perfection. I would have used the word perfection, had he remained there till the end, and struck home the winning run. Yes, cricket is a team game, others too have a role to play but we venerate Tendulkar for his innate genius and for the fact that at five feet two (5ft 5in) inches, he towers above the rest.
Regrets will be a few when Tendulkar finally walks into twilight, and not having won the fifth one-dayer against Australia in Hyderabad would not be among that list.
Yes, not having scored a triple hundred in Test cricket will rankle, though having played the most number of Test innings ever. Not having won a World Cup will blot his reputation, something that Tendulkar seems to be determined to achieve in 2011, in front of his adoring home crowd.
But 175 in Hyderabad, his greatest knock?
It was, no doubt, great entertainment. But not the best of the master batsman.
And I'm outraged when Gavaskar entertains thoughts of comparing Tendulkar's 136 against Pakistan in Chennai with the 175 in Hyderabad.
You cannot compare the oranges of one-dayers with the apples of Test cricket. By now we should realise that Test cricket, one-dayers and Twenty20 are different songs requiring different timbres, though some sing all three of them with ease and elan.
And now, the question of 175 vs 175.
Kapil Dev's 175 was not just Kapil's best innings in a long career but when it was played (1983) it stretched the possibilities of counter attack in a 60-over one-day international. For sheer impact, no innings in international cricket comes closer to Kapil's 175, since that innings led to India's World Cup triumph, an achievement unparalleled in Indian cricket.
And to know that Tendulkar would have quit playing the game by now, had he lifted a World Cup to kiss!

When Gavaskar knows it better…

By John Cheeran
Sunil Gavaskar, always, has an interesting take on cricket. He tells viewers of CNN-IBN that Indian captain Mahendra Singh Dhoni's innings of 124 in Nagpur was reminiscent of Kapil Dev's 175 against Zimbabwe in 1983 World Cup in Tunbridge Wells.
Really?
To start with Kapil's knock came in a 60-over-a-side confrontation. There were plenty of overs when Kapil came in at No.6 but India had lost four wickets for a mere 9 runs as total. India had to win that match to retain its chances of advancing from the group stage.
When Dhoni began his innings in Nagpur India was comfortably placed at 97 for three in 16th over with the run rate exceeding 6 runs per over. Hardly a crisis situation. And how can you compare a World Cup encounter with a inconsequential seven-match series, even though its is against the once formidable Australians?
Yes, Gavaskar should know better since he was on the ground that day, opening the Indian innings, and during his two-ball innings he could not disturb the scoreboard.
Yes, there is no doubt that both players, as captains, had a responsibility to pull their side out of trouble.
Dhoni did a brilliant job, but for the moment let's leave it there.

Dhoni Drop Out: Gavaskar forgets his own words

By John Cheeran
Sunil Gavaskar is a one-man circus show in cricket. Gavaskar’s adroitness to perform breathtaking u-turns and somersaults should give Nadia Comaneci blushes.
This morning I read Gavaskar’s column in Hindustan Times where he has dwelled on Mahendra Singh Dhoni’s decision to take a break from the international game. The Mumbai oracle finds Dhoni a brave man.
Let me quote Gavaskar from his column.
“The reaction to Dhoni's decision looks a lot more mature. They seem to have appreciated Dhoni's honesty in not playing on if he is mentally and physically tired.”
But what about SMG’s own reaction?
That is less forthcoming.
Gavaskar, however, dwells a great deal on what happened in 1978 when he was captain but is happy that the BCCI has accepted Dhoni’s decision to stay away from the action.
All that is fine.
But in his column Gavaskar does not refer to his own reaction two years ago, on April 18, 2006, on the same subject. When players all over the world complained there was too much cricket, as the head of the cricket committee of the ICC, Gavaskar fulminated against them.
Let me quote Gavaskar’s statement he made on April 17, 2006.
“I can't see the problem, these players are turning out for their countries, it's an honour to represent your country. I would be willing to sweat 365 days in a year for India. Those who can't stand the heat should stay out."
Yes. Dhoni has heeded Gavaskar’s words.
Now why has Gavaskar fallen silent on ‘honour and playing for his country’?
But rather tactfully Gavaskar has held back himself on the big questions – is there too much cricket?
Is the BCCI the villain by flogging its hired cricketers?
It was a delight to watch Gavaskar on back foot at the crease during his hey days.
But not now.

Men in White; Men in Black

By John Cheeran
I enjoyed reading Mukul Kesavan’s Men in White, a book of essays. It took me almost a year to get hold of the book and then last month, I read through it.
Being an irregular reader of Kesavan’s columns’ at The Telegraph, Calcutta, these offering was far from satisfying. I did not understand the hype regarding a book which is essentially a compilation. In fact to sell his book, Kesavn wrote a blog with the same name at www.cricinfo.com and after the publication of the book he stopped it.
And unfortunately when I was in Delhi in April, an acquaintance’s blog watch column in a tabloid, bemoaned the end of the blog! It is indeed good to have such friends.
I, however, want to salute Kesavan for coming up with some bold statements regarding the nature of cricket journalism in India.
Kesavan rightly points out how cricket journalists in India, and that includes former cricketers-turned-writers, fail to look facts at their faces.
And this opinion too one has read before at Wisden Asia cricket magazine. Kesavan writes that even guys such as Sanjay Manjrekar puts Barry Richards, who played only FOUR Tests, much higher in order when they make a list of batting greats, and ignores someone like Sunil Gavaskar, who was the backbone of Indian batting close to two decades. And Manjrekar at least should have watched Gavaskar in action many times over, being a Mumbai-based cricketer.
Kesavan rightly attacks the servile attitude of Indians for blindly holding onto the indexes supplied by the white cricket establishment. And immediately he refers to Graeme Hick, and how the player was exposed in the international arena for what he is worth. He would have been another Barry but for playing for England and coming a cropper.

It is observations such as these that make Kesavan’s writing a pleasure to read. But as Kesavan accuses some of the leader writers of English newspapers, who had an uncharitable view on Sourav Ganguly, as being failed intellectuals, Kesavan himself can be classified as a failed novelist. And a failed novelist is any day better than an average Indian cricket journalist.

Kesavan quotes Christopher Isherwood of having said that he occupies the front of the second grade novelists, an admission of reality, I have a feeling that same can be said of our history teacher at Jamia Milia in Delhi.

How many average Indian cricket journalists have had the educational and family background that Kesavan has enjoyed? But that Kesavan is an elitist should not take away from the worth of his arguments.
And Kesavan comes across as someone who is irreverent when he berates AFS Talyarkhan, a highly rated sports journalist and commentator based in Mumbai, as an old windbag. I have read only a few columns Talyarkhan wrote for Sportsweek in the fag end of 80s. I haven’t listened to more than a couple of AFS T’s broadcasts. So I can’t make judgment on them. I’m sure Kesavan is correct in his criticism of AFST. But what’s the point of pointing finger at someone who is dead and buried in this case?
Can Kesavan criticize today’s windbags?
How does he rate Arun Lals, Harsha Bhogles?
Would he dare to criticize anyone of these jokers?