Random IPL thoughts

Some character called Lekha Washington was doing a "Mandira Bedi", cricket commentary wise, except that she proved even more idiotic than the aforementioned. In the game of the famous power cut, she walks up to Asad Rauf at the boundary edge (during the blasted power cut) and asks him "who do you think is going to win?". Her momentous gaffe covered up the fact that she even got his name wrong. Seriously, as if Mandira Bedi wasn't enough. Where do they get these characters from.

As is well known, the BCCI is undertaking the biggest witch hint since Salem, WA, circa 16th century, against the ICL. All players, officials, administrators, umpires, even sponsors and broadcasters from the ICL are "banned" from "main stream" cricket by the BCCI. But amusingly. that didn't stop 2 Russian cheerleaders from the ICL from being hired to "cheer" at the IPL. Wonder how that slipped under the BCCI's nose!

Two concerns I had before the IPL (relating to its success) was a) would fans really relate to a "home" side where they had to cheer, maybe Symonds against Bhajji, or cheer against Tendulkar for instance. This fear seems to have been put aside comfortably now, with crowds more than getting behind their home sides, perhaps to a far greater extent than anyone thought possible. When Sehwag scored his quick fire 50 in Hyderabad, he actually had to exhort the crowd to give him some applause!

The other concern was whethe rany away support could be drummed up at all, the way football fans travel with their side. That concern largely remains unsolved. In games in Bangalore and Mumbai, the 2 cities are cosmopolitan enough for enough people to turn up and cheer for the away side too. But I expect the crowds in Mohali and Jaipur to be very partisan, bordering on boring.

IPL thought for the day

I was just thinking: sometime during the ongoing India South Africa test series, if Jacques Kallis and Dale Steyn are bowling in tandem, and any 2 of Dravid, Jaffer or Kumble are batting, we could have a situation where all five people on the pitch (Two batsmen, two bowlers and wicket-keeper) are all from the same club (being Bangalore Royal Challengers of course).

I wonder if there has ever been any parallel to this in any form of international cricket.

Royal Challenge

Some quick thoughts on Bangalore Royal Challengers.

1. If this was a first class premier league and not a T20 one, Bangalore would have begun as outright favorites.

2. The name "Bangalore Royal Challengers" is pretty shady. I'm glad they didn't call it "Bengaluru Royal Challengers", which sounds shadier.

3. Bangalore did reasonably well to buy 6 foreigners and no more as opposed to the big spenders who went with 7 or 8, and almost seemed to forget the 'not more than 4 foreigners in the starting 11' rule while bidding. Of course, this means that Chanderpaul and Cameron White will still be spending a lot of time warming that bench.

4. To bring a footballing analogy into this (Damn, I seem to do a lot of this), I think Bangalore Royal Challengers will begin the IPL like Liverpool in the EPL. Lots of talent but will eventually falter to the "big" 3.

5. Bangalore Royal Challengers will arguably boast the best bowling line-up in the IPL- assuming of course that the usual starting line-up is Zaheer Khan, Kumble, Steyn, Bracken, Praveen Kumar.

6. The batting on the other hand, while being stodgy, is not exactly what I'd call swashbuckling. I worry for Bangalore Royal Challengers in all those big run chases.

7. Skimpy does a detailed job of analyzing possible starting elevens for all teams. In addition, I think Dravid will bat in the top 3. I don't see the point in him batting anywhere lower for a T20.

Cricket vs Football

This started off as a random discussion recently between me, Kodhi and Kanti which I extrapolated. The fortunes of cricket teams and international football teams seem to have some parallels.

Australia = Brazil. Strongest by far, and consistently been that way for a while now. Way too much talent in all departments of the game, and even a B side would be amongst the top 8 in the world. A lot of players from here would find it easier to make it to a "World 23" than a "Brazil/Australia 11". And both arguably produced the greatest ever player in the game.

India = Argentina. Lot of passion, huge crowd support, very entertaining teams, but underachieve when compared to their potential. Have had the occasional big wins, but still falter against the top team(s). And both arguably produced the player who can be considered as equal to Bradman/Pele.

West Indies = Uruguay. Had some past glory in the ages gone by. Nothing much to show for in recent times, though both seemed to promise a revival in the 90's/2000's but that was a damp squib.

England = England. Need I say more! Invented the game, but cant play it for squat. Highly overrated, only they think they're good, too much media coverage. But lots of money and excellent domestic setup nonetheless.

Pakistan = Holland. Lots of stars but no results, big underachievers, and too many injury prone players. Holland produces strikers the way Pakistan does with fast bowlers.

Sri Lanka = France. Some very entertaining stuff again, sometimes unconventional style, emerged as serious contenders out of the blue in recent years.

South Africa = Italy. Big time chokers, some bad luck. And could have won far more than they have done so. Falter against some really weak times at times, and also quite inconsistent.

New Zealand = Sweden or Mexico. Have barely ever come close to winning a world cup, and probably will never win a world cup, but will possess way too much talent to be counted among the lower rungs of their respective sport. Yet, they never seriously challenge the top guns either.

The last few are somewhat force fit.

Kenya = Ghana or Senegal. Lot of spirit, from a continent with not much sporting infrastructure, but well capable of a big upset once in a way.

Bangladesh = South Korea. One moment of glory, and for some reason, they seem to think they deserve to be amongst the elite purely for that. They can consistently be walloped by any of the top teams.

Zimbabwe = Cameroon or Nigeria. Had their best lot of players in the 1990's, played almost as equals with the big guns of the game, caused their share of upsets, and then faded out. Lot of mismanagement in the national game too.

Canada = Ukraine. Both qualified for a single world cup, largely on the basis of an individual talent, had some fun, and gracefully exited. Not much expected of them once said individual talent retires, and will probably never do anything of note again.

PS: Abhay strongly disagrees with the India = Argentina analogy, and suggests that India = Holland or India = France is a better analogy. Any comments?