Aussies and ICC, Feel Ashamed

Seven contentious decisions during five days of cricket. Six in favour of the Aussies, one in favour of India. Shivnarine Chanderpaul once said, during an informal chat, if umpires don't rule all the 50-50 decisions, and is some cases even 40-60, in Australia's favour, most of the Test teams can beat them. OK, that could be said to be exaggeration, but Australia would certainly not win as many games as they do.

I personally have always felt that we should consider that umpires are also human, and that they can have a bad day, but Steve Bucknor and Mark Benson did a horrendous job. Why oh why did Mark Benson not ask the Third Umpire whether or not Michael Clarke's catch off Ganguly on the final day was clean or not? What on Earth is the Third Umpire for? To sit in an unconditioned room and to watch the match from any angle he wants and get paid for it, without having to do any work? Benson asking Ricky Ponting whether or not the ball touched the ground before the catch was taken was like asking a child whether or not he broke the glass. I'm even disappointed with Ricky Ponting. As skipper of the best team in the world, he is a representative of the the sport. As a true sportsman, he should have asked Benson to ask the Third Umpire whether or not the ball carried to Michael Clarke. Ponting has said that nobody can question his integrity, but sadly, he has given us reasons to. The Indian team management let the Umpires off when they decided not to lodge a complaint against them after Day one of the match. I don't see how the Umpires would escape their ire this time around.
As for Michael Clarke, all I want say is the he is a disgrace to the game. He exemplifies the fact that cricket is no longer the gentleman's game. He should have told the umpire he is doubtful whether or not he took the catch and asked him to check with the third umpire. He has been hailed as Ricky Ponting's heir as captain of the Australian team. This incident makes me feel worried that in the future the World Champion's (if they remain so) skipper would not be an ideal person to represent the sport. He would be idolised by thousands of wannabe kids, who would unfortunately learn anything but how to play the game fairly so cricket may be the winner at the end of the day. And not just this incident alone, looking back at the moment he was caught off Kumble's bowling on Day IV, he stood at the crease waiting for Steve Bucknor, who seemed to have gone to sleep, to adjudge him out. Surely he couldn't have thought Bucknor would not give him out for that, unless he had bribed Bucknor. Maybe it just goes to show that, after the umpires poor performance during the match, he was hopeful that Bucknor may just decide that the ball somehow magically turned towards Dravid at slip in mid air, without any contact with the bat.
The last bit I have saved for the Third Umpire. With the amount of replays he had at his disposal, giving an incorrect decision is absolutely unacceptable. The only areas where human error can creep in in his job is eyesight, and pressing the right button. If the case was the first, sack him immediately. If the case was the second, still sack him immediately. He ruined the match with that blooper. Symonds would have been out on 48, well before the 162he went on to score, and Australia would have been reeling. In that case, the final day would have probably seen Australia trying to snatch a draw rather than India. Shamefully, this match would be remembered not for the cricket played, but for the poor standards of umpiring.

Does the BCCI give a damn?

Firstly, I want to applaud John Gloster (Indian cricket team's physio) for his report on how the lack of physical conditioning has become a serious issue for the squad. I, for long, have felt that there is way too much cricket being played by our team. Like it or not, the effect this is having on our Men in Blue is there to see, with Zaheer Khan being declared unfit to play in the New Year's test. Just when I thought that the board would finally look at the scene seriously, BCCI's secretary Narenjan Shah's response to the report has made me doubt whether the Board even cares about the players.
Narenjan Shah told news reporters that every team has to face several small injuries, and this is not an important issue at all. Forgive me if I sound disrespectful, but how on Earth does Shah can Shah think he is a better judge of the issue than a trained professional. Look at any top team from any sport, the first priority for all of them is the player's fitness levels. If BCCI feels that their bunch of bruised and battered players are good enough challenge the might of the Aussies, then I'm sorry, I just can't see how India would ever be able to achieve anything. I guess I may as well as stop wasting my time supporting the team. For one we don't have any fringe players to boast of. If these set of players aren't going to be taken care of, then God help us.

To Narenjan Shah, I would like to ask this: where are players such as Lakashmipati Balaji and Ashish Nehra? They both unfortunately faced injuries at crucial points of their careers. If their rehabilitation had been carried out carefully, along with Zaheer Khan's fragile ankle and Munaf Patel's injury woes, today, India's pace department would have had several options. Add to the names given current bowlers like RP Singh, Ishant Sharma, Irfan Pathan , VRV Singh and a bunch of players from the domestic circuit waiting for their opportunity, we would have a good talent pool to choose from. And, more importantly, the players would be able to fight it out longer and would be less prone to visits to the Doctor. Does an F1 team race with a car whose wing is out of shape because of an accident? No. Does a football team let a player suffering from a minor niggle risk causing him serious damage? No. Does the Indian team field players suffering from shoulder strains? Yes.

Did Jol deserve the boot?

Almost exactly two months after first denying that his position at the club was in danger, Tottenham announced the sacking of their manager Martin Jol on Thursday. Sevilla boss Juande Ramos is set to replace the Dutchman.
According to reports, Jol was informed that he has been fired prior to Spurs UEFA Cup match against Getafe. Although the news wasn't made public, rumors were already widespread, and the White Harte Lane faithful showed their support to Jol by chanting "Stand up for Jol" during the Getafe match. Jol's last match in charge of the Spurs symbolized the season for Spurs, as they took the lead through Jermaine Defoe early on, but went on to lose the match 2-1. When Defoe scored, videos showed Jol uncharacteristically somber, not celebrating unlike his previous demeanor, further fueling the rumors that were flying about at the time that his rein had come to an end.
Whether the change would bring about positive results at White Harte Lane would only be know in the next couple of months, but one things for certain- Tottenham were horrible in their handling of the situation. Back in August, they did no favors to Jol by clearly approaching Juande Ramos and offering him Jol's position, barely three months and a couple of matches after Jol lead them to a second consecutive fifth place position, even threatening to break into the top four. Although the Spur's Board denied any move to bring in Ramos, and said that Jol enjoys 100% support from them, Ramos accepted that he had been approached.
Jol's former colleagues showed sympathy to his removal, with Manchester United manager Sir Alex Ferguson saying that Jol would be rather "relieved" that it's finally over, and added that his impressive record as manager would make it easy for him to find another position quickly. True this season Spurs had the worst start to their campaign in nineteen years, but back in 2005-06 also they never started well, only to finish fifth in the League. The problem lied in the fact that Jol had lost the respect of his players, as a result of being too "light" with them. ESPNStar's Steve McMahon said on a show that Jol was being punished for mistakes made by the players, and not him, since they never showed any drive to perform and improve during their matches this season.
"You can't just turn up and expect to win", McMahon was quoted to have said.
What future are the bookmakers predicting for Spurs? The odds are equally in favor of them getting relegated as they are for them to make the Champion's League. Many experts said that by sacking Jol, Spurs have lost a chance to create a dynasty, similar to Nottingham Forest's back in the 70s, and the ones at Manchester United under Sir Alex Ferguson, and at Arsenal under Arsene Wenger.
"There seems to be a far less patient approach in football now but Arsene has been there 10 years and I have been here 21," Ferguson said in an interview," I think you can see there have been rewards for both managers and clubs."

You call that insult???

Yet again, Indian sportsmen are being booked for having insulted the national flag. Remember Sachin Tendulkar and Narain Karthikeyan being barred from wearing the tricolour on their respective helmets back in 2005? This time, it's the turn for the Indian T20 World Championship winning squad.
In probably the most ridiculous story I have yet heard related to Indian T20 team's victorious South Africa sojourn, the Chief City Magistrate of Nagpur Nagar accepted a complaint against the team members for "insulting" the tri-colour during their celebrations. The person who filed the complaint was seemingly "offended" when the Indian players wrapped the tri-colour around themselves and rolled on the ground when some of their mates jumped on top of them.
Meaning no disrespect to the complainant and the Indian judiciary system, but, for heaven's sake, does Team India's actions show "disrespect" to the national flag? In 2005, the reason given to Tendulkar on why he couldn't sport the tricolour on his helmet was that, since his helmet was kept in a bag with his other sporting accessories, namingly his pads, guards, and so on, it wasn't fit for something as important to national sentiment as the country's flag to be kept alongside with them.
Rewind to Athens 2004. Maurice Green wore spiked shoes in the colours of the U.S. flag at the Olympics. Germany 2006. Wayne Rooney showcases his boots at the World Cup which had a miniature English flag at the back of the heel section. Both are lauded for their patriotism and passion. What if an Indian sportsman had shown his pride in representing his country in a similar way? Based on the cases that have already occurred, he could have easily faced a jail term or a huge fine.
The judiciary and the government has to realise that sportsmen do get very sentimental when they represent his country, and like to show that to the public. They have major restrictions on the gear they wear, and don't get many options wear to showcase their passion. For a cricketer, all he can personalise is his bat, shoes, helmet, and any additional accessory such as wrist bands. A Formula-1 driver gets no other option but his helmet. When Narain Karthikeyan was told to remove the flag, he did nothing to hide his disappointment at having to do so, and said that now all he can do is sell that portion of his helmet to some sponsor. This in a year when Narain Karthikeyan had spent each Rupee of his income to be able to represent India on the F1 circus, yet was willing to sacrifice some additional earnings to show how much he loved his country.
No sportsman, in their sound mind, would do anything to upset the national sentiment by disrespecting their nation's flag in front of such a large crowd, and when being watched by millions of viewers. Give these guys a break.

Sport and Racism

In South Africa, racism and sports have been intertwined right from the end of World War II, largely due to apartheid, which crushed the hopes of so many sportsmen of color (for example, see "The First Great Indian Golfer" below this post). But even though apartheid is long gone, racism is very much still a big factor in South African sport. Post the Springboks first World Cup triumph in 1995, many legislators voiced to the country's rugby federation to take the opportunity to showcase South Africa's racial mix. The debate of racial quotas has been raging ever since.
Sports is undoubtedly an ambassador for a country in its own way, basically because more people tune into watch a mega sporting event than any news program presenting the the visit of an "official" ambassador from another nation. The South African government certainly tried to take advantage of this to show that they were well and truly over apartheid and that blacks from the country had as much scope in sports as the whites. But, in following a selection process that includes race as an important attribute, are they running the risk of fielding teams consisting of players that don't deserve to be a part of it based on their abilities?
This topic first hit the Indian sporting circles back in 2005, when South African-born English cricketer Kevin Pietersen hit three centuries in their tour ODI series on their of South Africa, and in turn picked up the Man of the Series award. Whenever the Barmy Army would give Pietersen a standing ovation for his heroics as he would walk back to the dressing room on being dismissed, the home fans would stand up and show their backs to him, calling him traitor for having left his home country. But Pietersen didn't bother about his reception, and never said he made a wrong decision to change in nationality. He hailed that, despite some amazing performances, including a warm-up match against Naseer Hussain's England side in 1999, when he took four wickets and scored 61runs batting at No.9, he was dropped from his state's first team. He was never shy to say that he believed this was because of the racial quota system. He moved to Britain searching the opportunities he believed he deserved.
Now back to rugby. Unlike cricket, which adhered to the government's desire to field a team of diverse races, the rugby federation never let the officials interfere with the team's composition. Due to their stand, the Government has always been at odds with the federation. At one stage, the head of the parliament's sports ministry even suggested to impound the Springbok's passports till they take a more favorable stand to their desires. Although the team won the recently held World Cup, it wouldn't have gone unnoticed to the President of South Africa, Thabo Mbeki, that when he congratulated both the English and his country's team, that Engalnd had as many black players as the Springbok's had. Whether that would result in a push by the South African administration to bring in more black players into the team, or accept that the the best crop are the ones wearing the country's colours at the moment, remains to be seen.

Mourniho exit=Players exodus?

The news of Mourinho's exit came as a bolt from the blue to me. Yes, everyone knew that Mourinho wasn't too happy lately at Stamford Bridge, but I never thought that he would leave, or that Abramovich would fire him, whichever the case may be, at such a crucial point in the season. I expected Mourinho to stay at least another season, take another crack at the Champion's League trophy that has so far eluded him in his three full seasons with Chelsea, try to regain the Premier League title, and leave England on a high, justifying "the Special One" name he gave himself.
Where does this leave Chelsea, and the Premier League? That can only be confirmed in the weeks to come. It depends heavily on how the Chelsea players react to their new manager. A lot of them were very close to Mourinho, and his departure could result in many wanting to leave the club. This could be noted in Ricardo Carvalho's statement, "It is a very sad day for me and the team. I had a big offer from Real Madrid but I stayed at Chelsea because of Mourinho." Didier Drogba is known to be furious over Mourinho's sudden exit, and Frank Lampard had put contract talks on hold at the start of the season. Could Chelsea soon be without several players that defined their game during the three seasons Mourinho spent there? Well, at least not till January till the time the transfer widow opens again. Grant, previously the coach of the Israeli national team, has a tough job of gaining respect of his players till then, or else Chelsea will be in turmoil.
As a Manchester United fan, I am elated by Mourinho's exit. For one, it means I no longer have to bear his arrogant antics. Also, this means Chelsea come into the important clash with United on Sunday distracted. I believe this could give United an edge over Chelsea this weekend, although when Ranieri took over in 2000 and faced the same fixture on his debut, Chelsea scraped a 3-3 draw. If Chelsea end up like Real Madrid, hiring and firing their managers every now and again, it could mean that all the hard work Mourinho had put in during his time would be undone. The hierarchy prior to Abramovich's take-over would return, with Arsenal and Liverpool already showing signs of becoming the power teams they previously were. The nature of this season, and maybe even the next few, could well be decided in the next couple of months.

To Sledge or not to Sledge

There was a lot of talk during the recently concluded India-England Test series over the volume of the stump cameras. The English team wanted the broadcaster to lower the volume so that when they sledged an Indian player, it wasn’t heard by the million of viewers following the match on their television sets. But, really, is sledging that important part of the game?

People defending sledging would say that it is integral, a modern strategy to your rivals all tensed and makes it easier to cause them to make mistakes. It shows aggression, it shows a burning desire to win, it shows that you belong here and are confident enough to be a part of the sport. But should verbal abuse (yes, sledging is nothing more than verbal abuse in more common terms) really be used to such a great extent in a sport which is called ‘The Gentleman’s Game’?

Don’t get me wrong here, I’m not attacking cricket alone. I am a critique of sledging in all sports. The players are looked up to by young adoring fans and it most certainly would not send out the right signals to them if you say that the secret behind your success is hard work, practice, physical fitness and a vocabulary of F-words used in various forms to have a go against your opponent’s moms and dads. It was a horrendous experience for me to recently play a small football match at school where every time during a corner there was some or another altercation with an opposing player where I had to bear insults to my family.

Athletes must realize that they are the ambassadors for good sportsmanship. I’m sure you can show your aggression in ways other than by sledging. If you remember the Chelsea-Manchester United game towards the end of last season, there was an incident involving Didier Drogba and Rio Ferdinand. The stare Drogba gave to Ferdinand made even a rough-and-tough guy like Ferdinand cower. Nobody can deny that Ferdinand was shaken by that look. If Ferdinand can be scared off by a mere gaze, anyone can be. And at least this way, we spare the kids vocabulary of some, well, unneeded words.