Here we go again…
The IPL management — ‘management’, where IPL is concerned, is like ‘high command’ for the Congress party; an inclusive term in theory, but in practice a reference to one man — in the inaugural year of the tournament came up with a series of draconian regulations relating to media coverage that led to a media boycott and a subsequent, partial, climb down by the tournament organizers.
The second edition was in South Africa, so we were spared the unnecessary drama — but now that we are back in India, here we go again.
The media treats cricket events as news; by definition, transmission of news has to be as close to real time as it is possible to get. For that reason, the IPL’s restrictions will prove unacceptable:
The guidelines specify that TV news channels can use no more than 30 seconds of fresh footage from the IPL per bulletin and not more than 120 seconds for a match. Further, there is a 7-minute limit for a full day. Repeats are allowed no more than three times a day against the earlier four.
The guidelines also stipulate a minimum delay of 30 minutes from the live telecast against just five minutes in 2008. Live telecast means the entire period from the first ball to post-match ceremonies.
Live streaming on the broadcaster’s own websites, which was allowed in the 2008 season will no longer be allowed. Nor is deferred or archived footage allowed to be displayed on the broadcaster’s own or a third party website.
As for use of archival footage until the next season, all that is permitted under the new guidelines is a maximum of two clips of 30 seconds each per day against the earlier two minutes per day.
You could argue that the IPL owns the event, and can decide just how it should be covered. Fair enough, if that is the way Modi and his cohorts want to go. Where it really becomes amusing, though, is when the IPL decides to redefine the meaning of websites:
One change that could prove really problematic for the media in the long run is the manner in which the guidelines define “bona fide news magazine” and “bona fide news media website”. These make it clear that a news magazine will qualify as such only if its “business solely concerns the provision of news to the public” and “no part of that magazine’s business involves the sale, distribution or supply of any goods or services other than the provision of news to the public.”
Similarly, a website will qualify for carrying IPL content only if it is “owned (directly and indirectly), run and managed by an organization whose primary business solely concerns the provision of news to the public.”
This means life-style or travel magazines, for instance, are ruled out from carrying IPL content. The guidelines also place restrictions on the nature of the ownership of media organizations that are eligible, for reasons that are far from clear.
The ToI, where this report appears, seems to be concerned with the fate of lifestyle and travel magazines — but there could be far greater concerns than that. For instance, consider the clause that a website will be defined as such only if its primary business concerns the provision of news.
Who defines what my primary business is — you, or I? And since when does the organizer of an event get to restrict media based on its ownership pattern?
What Modi has done is sown the seeds for a clash with the media — and for once, managed to unite print, television and the internet against a common enemy. A friend suggested, on our way to work this morning, that Modi was being a bit of a doofus — surely he should have learnt from the 2008 fiasco?
I suspect that assessment does not give Modi due credit. His goal has always been clear — he wants to squeeze out as many sections of the media as he can manage, or otherwise put restrictions on them that will reduce their coverage to the irrelevant. This way, he clears the decks for the IPL’s own website to gain a monopolistic hold on the event, which he can then squeeze for further revenue. Alternately, he has the option of selling chunks of content to “exclusive” media partners of his choosing, for mega bucks.
He is shrewd enough to understand that he cannot achieve that objective in one stroke — so his preferred option seems to be, each season, to come up with a slate of laws that are clearly unacceptable. The media will talk boycott; Modi will in turn talk compromise. And knowing that the media is hungry for anything it can get, he will make a few “concessions”, the media will proclaim a victory — and Modi will be the one laughing last, for despite those “concessions” he will reluctantly acquiesce to under “media pressure”, he would have managed to get many restrictions in place, and institutionalized.
He can then wait for season four, and start the dance all over again. And each season, he will get a little more, and be that bit further along on the road to the complete monopoly that is his ultimate goal.
PS: There’s a Test on, and opportunities for the likes of Vijay and Badri, not to mention the veterans Tendulkar and Dhoni, to make strong statements. Should be fascinating; personally, I’m hoping to see the team recover from its shock of yesterday and come out fighting. Not that I can see much of it — a day of serial meetings lies ahead; I’ll be mostly away from the desk, therefore. See you guys early evening.
All fall down
The very best of Virender Sehwag was on view today. So was the very worst.
[That sense of schizophrenia did not apply to the rest of the side – with the honorable exception of Badrinath, who celebrated his long awaited call up with a level-headed half century before triggering the post-tea slide, what we got from the rest was their unalloyed worst].
While the other batsmen, lulled by a two year diet of largely batsman-friendly tracks and the kind of “pace” provided by teams such as Sri Lanka, Bangladesh et al, seemed completely overawed by the speed and fire of Dale Steyn and Morne Morkel, Sehwag motored along at a health one day rate, taking 34 off 38 Steyn deliveries and 21 off 38 from Morkel.
More than the runs scored, what stood out was the application Sehwag brought to his task. While Gambhir, Vijay and Tendulkar collapsed around him, Sehwag batted in his own zone, defending when it seemed to be called for and counter-punching whenever the bowler lapsed even marginally in line and length.
As his innings developed the Proteas, despite being well in control, seemed to be feeling the heat – the bowlers resorted to defensive lines, the fielders dropped back a few yards, and debutant Badrinath was able to find his feet under the senior batsman’s shelter.
And then, shortly after he had gotten to his hundred and the water cooler conversation had turned to his penchant for scoring big once past the century mark, Sehwag threw it away with a flashy shot he had no business playing.
With Sehwag and Badri looking assured against the quick guns, Smith had been forced to turn to his second, and even third, string bowlers. Wayne Parnell, who Sehwag had taken for 24 runs off 17 deliveries faced, resorted to bowling as wide of off stump as he could, under the more lenient Test norms, get away with. Sehwag could have let them go all day, but after four successive deliveries wide of off, the batsman chased at the fifth, sliced it to the cover fielder standing back on his haunches, and walked off shaking his head.
If he was as disappointed as he looked at having given it up, his team mates gave him a chance to get over it – a spectacular post tea collapse against the extreme pace and reverse swing of Steyn, that saw India lose six wickets in 46 deliveries for 12 runs, gave Sehwag a second chance.
He came out swinging – through the slips, over cover, whatever, in a display as ugly as it was unexpected. Steyn made one climb outside off; Sehwag let it go, chastised himself for his leniency and mimed the upper cut that he, at least by his lights, should have been playing. Before you had the time to say ‘bad idea, dude’, he went for the next ball, fuller outside off, got the edge, and found a delighted Smith at first slip.
The best of Sehwag, the worst of Sehwag, all in one day that saw India get a long delayed comeuppance against genuine pace. Much was made of the reverse swing the Indian bowlers had tried, and failed, to find when the Proteas were batting. In a devastating day long display, Morkel and Steyn showed that even on relatively harmless tracks, sheer pace through the air can smash past the defenses of good batsmen [Gambhir, Vijay, Tendulkar in the first innings before Sehwag and Badri steadied the ship] and that a quick bowler operating with the older ball, bowling the full length at extreme pace, can harness reverse to lethal effect [Steyn, whose post tea spell read 3.5-2-1-5].
During the euphoric period when India under MS Dhoni were unbeaten in Tests, there was always the nagging thought that somewhere, some time, the “law of averages” was going to kick in. More accurately, there was the thought that one of these days we would find ourselves against opposition that didn’t have names stretching 140 characters.
Ironically, India found such opposition only because the BCCI, seduced by the team’s statistical feat of climbing to the top of the Test charts, saw the sponsorship opportunity inherent in a “World Championship” Test series, and managed to shoe-horn one into the calendar.
It may not seem like it at the time, but this series is already proving to be a blessing – we can finally put our sense of notional superiority aside and find out exactly where we stand in terms of being a high quality Test side, and start work on building the sort of team that doesn’t require a buffet of Bangladesh and Sri Lanka to climb ranking ladders.
It could be a process that involves some considerable short-term pain, but it could also be the start of a team building exercise in the real sense.
Day three, open thread
Work-wise, this was a packed weekend — which worked in my favor. The sessions and periods of play that I watched in the first two days of the first RSA-India Test sufficed — total immersion would have been akin to being strapped to a chair and being forced to watch paint dry.
The cricket was, in a word, boring — for all the hype about AB de Villiers taking on the spinners, fact is none of the South African batsmen, batting on day two from a position of considerable comfort, were proactive; they never seemed inclined to try and step up the pressure. An overall run rate of 3.17 tells its own story; when that run rate is achieved on the back of a first day that produced 291/2, it becomes a bedtime story for the habitual insomniac.
If South Africa played to its patented safety first template and showed no real urgency in run-making [Kallis, his mind fettered by the desire for that elusive double ton, was as strokeless on day two as he was positive on day one], the Indians were equally disappointing. The wicket had bounce and sharp turn [we could yet come to regret not having taken the courageous step of going in with five bowlers, and including Pragyan Ojha in the mix] — the kind of conditions spinners revel in and batsmen, especially from teams like SA that are not known for their skill at playing the turning ball, dread. And yet the lines were flat, the bowling uninspired. Amit Mishra inspired oohs and aahs with sharp turn — but a foot of turn is of debatable value when the bowler is hitting the line outside off as his stock ball.
As for Bajji, any time you find an off spinner bowling the bulk of his deliveries from around the wicket to right handed batsmen, you’ve got to figure something is way wrong. The likes of EAS Prasanna, newly picked as one of India’s two spin bowling coaches, will tell you that when there is turn to be had, the off spinner’s stock ball is the one just short of driving length outside off, turning in to hit the top of off. That line forces the batsman to play the turning, bouncing ball from beside it, without the protection of his body behind the bat; Bajji’s preference on the other hand seemed to be to bowl off, to off&middle and middle stump lines — just right for batsmen to get behind it, watch the turn and play it down and away through the “leg trap” for easy runs.
Add missed chances and an umpire seemingly unschooled in the fact that the LBW is a legitimate mode of dismissal, and it all made for less than compelling viewing. More of the same, I suspect, today, though as I write this Sehwag has already hit Dale Steyn for the first four of the day — India with a batting lineup missing the solidity of Dravid and the silken grace of Laxman has to make 359 as its first target, to get past the follow on mark, and then fight its way to 558 and beyond. Coach Gary Kirsten spoke of how there is yet a chance for the home side — but realistically speaking, there are only two results possible: a draw, and a South Africa win. And the way the game is set up, by the end of play today we will have a fair idea which of those two results we are likely to get [oh, and between that four and this sentence, Gambhir's been taken out by Morkel].
Add post: The first hour is not yet done, and already SA has a firm grip on the game. Gambhir, Vijay and Tendulkar back in the hut — and all three batsmen undone by the extra pace of the Morne-Steyn combine. Pace through the air — the quality the Indian seam bowlers lack — is proving to be the key differentiator. Two quicks regularly hitting speeds in excess of 145k, coming at them from either end, appear more than the Indian batsmen have the will, or skill, to handle. Gambhir got the kind of ball no batsman wants as the first delivery of a session; Vijay misjudged the line and extent of movement; Tendulkar made a mess of trying to counter away swing generated at great pace — and India, 60/3 at the time of writing this, are now dependent on Sehwag, two debutants [one of them a reserve wicket keeper] and captain MS Dhoni to save their blushes.
Open thread, people, for any comments that may occur to you in course of the day’s play. Will check back off and on…
Spin and other turns
Interesting ‘ask the expert’ feature with spin coach Terry Jenner [must read, especially if your name is Harbhajan Singh]:
In my view we should find ways of getting those young, developing spinners to play longer forms of cricket where they can bowl sustained spells. There are two ways to develop as a spinner: by going to the nets and working on your craft and bowling at targets. Or by experimenting and bowling in matches where you can try the things you tried in the nets. In limited-overs games everyone applauds a dot ball but not the batsman’s strokes. To develop as a spinner in the four-day game you have to invite the batsman to play strokes. If the mental approach of all concerned – the coach, captain and team-mates – is to keep it tight, the spinner struggles to develop. We say big bats and short boundaries have created difficulties for a spin bowler but dot-ball cricket has done more damage.
‘Everybody does it’
Harsha makes two points in his latest column — one, that Shahid Afridi could be the one day captain Pakistan needs, and two, that maybe it is time to look at making ball tampering official.
The captaincy debate comes just when Mohammad Yousuf, the incumbent, gaffed his mouth with his foot:
“I didn’t do badly as captain, not as badly that I should resign or quit. I accepted captaincy when no one was willing to take captaincy for the tours. I took it [captaincy] only because of the country and will continue for the country in future.”
That statement is disingenuous at so many levels. For starters, when he says he didn’t do as badly as he could have, after being whitewashed in both Tests and ODIs, it kind of begs the question: how worse do you suppose the defeat had to be before you felt a sense of personal responsibility?
As to the second part of his statement, that he took it because “no one else was willing to”, he forgets to point out that his predecessor Younis Khan quit because senior players made his life miserable — and one of the major culprits was Yousuf himself.
The biggest argument against Yousuf’s continued tenure, though, is that he is totally lacking in inspiration on the field — and though I didn’t watch the Australia-Pakistan series start to finish, the sense I got from the parts I did see was that he is not the kind who is likely to grow into the job.
So there needs to be a change — and given the fractious nature of the team, different captains for Tests and ODIs seem to make sense, with Afridi the obvious choice for leading the one day side thanks to his ability to galvanize his mates [it is no coincidence that the one game where Pakistan and Australia were on level terms is the one Afridi led in].
But from that to endorsing ball-tampering seems a bit of a stretch — particularly when it comes from the voice of moderation that is Harsha.
But at least one good has come out of it. We now have a nice debate on the whole issue of ball-tampering. Predictably bowlers, who have always played the role of the exploited, sometimes with good reason, are all in favour of fiddling a bit with the ball. Batsmen (and at least one wicketkeeper) are up in arms. The law doesn’t allow it but maybe the time has come to question whether the law is indeed just. Cricket allows you to “maintain” the state of the ball but not to “alter” it. You can therefore rub the ball on your flannels to ensure the shine stays longer, but you cannot rub it on the ground, for example, to ensure it goes faster. But in either case you are altering the natural condition of the ball.
By maintaining the shine a bowler prevents the ball from deterioration. And yet the worsening of the ball, and the ensuing implications, are at the very heart of our game. Either action seeks to make the two halves of the ball unequal, so why should one be allowed and the other outlawed? Is it because one helps conventional swing and the other encourages reverse swing, which has always been looked upon as the naughty child in the family? Or, let’s face it, is it because batsmen don’t like reverse swing?
Cricket is no stranger to ways of making the shine go off the ball faster. Remember when Sunil Gavaskar used to “open” the bowling? The wicket keeper would collect and roll it to fine leg, who would roll it to mid off, who “passed it” to third man and so on. An over of that, and the ball would be just right for Bishen Bedi to bowl over number three. And even now, bowlers do more than rubbing the ball to ensure that the shine stays longer — in the areas they polish and the ones they don’t lies the secret of preparing the ball for reverse swing, and no one has a problem with that. [It is not, for instance, as if the law says any polishing done should be even].
But to go from there to the extreme, and to suggest maybe that it is okay to snack on the ball between deliveries [what next, if I am a bowler with weak teeth, can I bring my knife and fork to the party?] is more than I personally would want to see — because if you open that particular door, there is no telling where it will end. If it is okay for instance to use your nails to raise the seam, why then is it not okay to use a bottle cap? If teeth are acceptable, why not a knife?
“Everybody does it” is, first up, false — a more accurate statement would be, “some people do it”. And the fact that some people do something does not, in and of itself, make that the right thing to do. Hey, some people do dope — so would we argue the case to make doping, recreational or performance-oriented, legal?
4 comments