ODIs , T20 and racism

Finally I watched a T20 game. India-Australia in Mumbai. And it was interesting. But nowhere equivalent to Test cricket. Or for that matter ODIs. Indians do play well in patches. And they seem to play well in 20 overs - as seen in the ODIs against Australia as well. They picked up early wickets and put Australian team under pressure, only to let the Aussies loose in the last 10. They batted well to post decently good totals in the first 20 overs, but by then used to lose 4-5 wickets. This seems to make them fit to be called T20 cricket champions.
However, the ODIs continue to be the best shorter version of the game for me. It is certainly not predictive in nature as claimed by some idiots. Along with the Indo-Australia ODI series, 5 match England-SriLanka ODI series was also played out in Srilanka. First match of this series was won easily by SriLanka, thereby allowing these "experts" to dismiss the ODI format as repetitive and predictable. Let the "experts" say whatever they want to - England won the series 3-2 against everyone's expectations. If this is not the proof enough of uncertanities of ODIs, whatelse is ?

There is another aspect which made quite a news during the Future cup matches between India and Australia - "racism" against Andrew Symonds. I dont really understand why a big fuss was made out of it. Symonds certainly is one of the most gifted cricketers of all time. Apart from cricketing skills, he is gifted also in using his vocabulary skills against the opposite team members. He is one of the most vocal players anybody would find in a cricket playground who makes no hesitation is abusing his competitors. This certainly attracts the attention of the crowd in India who like to give it back as good as they percieve it ought to be done. The monkey chants of Mumbai crowd must be taken as it is and not to be seen with racist angle. Even as saying this, I am not in anyway defending the section of the crowd behaviour which was not good by any standards. I was quite shocked to read an article which read that Symonds who is of Carribean roots, was smashing the Indian bowlers thereby rendering the crowd to do mischief. If one were to go by this argument, Indians should have jeered at many of the SriLankan cricketers. Sanath Jayasuriya, quite dark as far as the colour of his skin goes, is one of the greatest ODI players ever and has hit the Indian bowlers possibly like no other player has ever done. Yet he is a respected cricketer in India. His on-field behaviour is something that the likes of Symonds should try to emulate and then see if Indian crowds still make monkey chants at him or racist remarks ( like his teammate Darren Lehmann ??). There is a limit to double standards.

20-20(2)

Even as I continue to be a critic of 20-20 format, its heartening nevertheless to see the Indian Cricket team win the T20 worldcup.

20-20

With the inauguration of the new 20-20 cricket world cup, the ICC wants to get more advertisement for cricket and promote cricket globally. Its a good ploy to bring in more countries, more people and thereby more money into the game. However, for traditional cricket lovers like me who loves the 5 day version, 20-20 is a sham. Cricket in my opinion is a game that gives equal opportunities for both batsmen and bowlers and this is true only in a 5 day match with a true cricketing pitch. 20-20, however, is tailor made to suit the batsmen. I am afraid cricket might lose some good quality players - bowlers and batsmen inclusive, with special emphasis on bowlers. Good bowlers might even become an extinct species.

Neutral umpires in international cricket

The concept of "neutral umpires" is something that the ICC has been following religiously since a few years. Ofcourse, the need for such "neutral umpires" who didnot belong to any of the 2 nations whose teams were playing cricket, was seen as a necessity some years ago when the touring teams kept re-iterating that the "home umpires" are partial towards their respective home teams while taking the decisions. Such a need was particularly felt by most cricketing teams which visited Pakistan. And consistent call for better umpiring for cricket matches played in Pakistan led the then Pakistani cricket captain, the legendary Imran Khan to suggest this wonderful idea of "neutral umpires" somewhere in the 1980s ( if I were to remember properly)which was welcomed by the cricketing faternity and the supporters. It ensured that cricket matches were played fairly and with right "cricketing spirits", even though one cannot ever rule out the human errors which can come even with the neutral umpires.
However, with the recent bungling that followed by the umpires in the just concluded ICC cricket worldcup 2007 has led to some players to asking for the best umpires to stand in the cricket matches rather than having the neutral umpires. Today the technology has improved by leaps and bounds than it was in 1980s and the umpires also face the pressure of performing - not just the players ! Therefore, such a call in my opinion needs to be given some thought by the ICC - and should be experimented with - but not completely giving up its presently held policy of neutral umpires which evolved out of necessities.