MADRID, SPAIN – MAY 10: Atletico Madrid fans celebrate a day after they won the Europa League Final on May 10, 2012 in Madrid, Spain. Atletico beat Athletic Bilbao 3-0 in the final in Bucharest.

What happens when a bunch of excitable and supremely talented teenagers and young 20-somethings storm to the final before tamely bowing out to Atletico Madrid? The players from Basque get the coverage in the press they deserve, the notion of “playing” football to win gets drummed up, Javi Martinez is talked about as the second coming of John Charles and Iker Muniain is Spain and Barcelona’s answer to Lionel Messi. Either all of that, or the Europa League gets romanticised.

The UEFA Champions League has been Europe’s premier football club competition since its inception. The boffins at UEFA wanted a second-tier competition between European clubs, and thus the lesser competition was born. The ones who weren’t talented enough to be playing in the Champions League but good enough to play in Europe usually ended up playing in the “lesser” of the two competitions. Somewhere along the line, the prize money for participating/winning in the Champions League became huge while the prize money for participating/winning in the “other” competition became pitiable. It was not even a poor cousin. It was something worse than that.

One thing followed another and soon most of the clubs playing in Europe’s “insignificant other” competition started perceiving that losing in “this” competition would be better than just trying to win it. Most managers have been cited as saying “it’s not worth it,” or a rather acerbic “we would much rather preserve our players to play in the League and have a tilt at qualifying for the Champions League.” The thinking behind this principle is rather flawed for one basic reason. If you had a realistic tilt at playing in the Champions League through preserving players, you would be playing in the Champions League in the first place.

Now, I’m not the greatest sympathiser of the UEFA. I would rather discuss the merits of making Sanskrit the universal language instead of talking about Michel Platini’s administration. But UEFA have maintained one thing all along. The cash pot for Europe’s other competition is lesser when compared to the Champions League because of two basic reasons: not enough interest by advertisers and broadcasting rights are sold at a pittance. For them, the other competition is as important as the Champions League.

Why else would they bother allocating almost identical co-efficient points for the winners and runners-up of both competitions? That’s not all. A losing semifinalist in the other competition gets more coefficient points than a round of 16 place in the Champions League. Clubs in England have been notorious for avoiding Europe’s other competition like the plague. Aston Villa, Liverpool, Manchester City, Tottenham, Manchester United and Everton have all had decent chances of competing in the other competition in the recent past. Everton made a proper fist of it by losing on penalties to Fiorentina on one particular occasion. Tottenham had a decent chance but lost because of Harry Redknapp’s team selection and Sevilla. Other than that, England and Europe’s other competition have as much difference as class and Arsene Wenger after a defeat. Don’t even get me started on what Martin O’ Neill did with his Aston Villa team in CSKA Moscow.

Italy and Germany

While England won’t have much problems with co-efficients even with their continued approach towards the other competition (their financial clout will ensure that at least two clubs will continually challenge for Champions League honours), Italy have already relinquished their right to put four teams in the Champions League starting from 2012-13 to Germany. How did this happen? While Juventus’s recent non-participation in Europe was a key factor, the teams representing Germany continually outperformed their Italian counterparts in Europe’s other competition.

The above table clearly shows that Germany’s stranglehold over Italy has taken the shape of a large, uncompromising hegemony. So relentless has Germany been in its pursuit of Italy that it hasn’t lost a single co-efficient year in the last five years. And what does consistency like that get you? It not only gives you the right to put four teams in the Champions League as a nation but for clubs like Manchester City it also gives you the right to not face the likes of Bayern Munich in the group stages of the Champions League. Because,  clubs are also sufficiently rewarded with co-efficient points depending upon their performances in Europe irrespective in what competition. Let me illustrate this point with an example.

While some of the co-efficient points may be a bit skewed because of bonuses like qualifying bonuses, the picture is quite clear. Teams who reach the quarterfinals or above in the Europa League (the other league) are rewarded with handsome co-efficient points which will come in handy when it comes to picking up pots if the said club qualifies to the Champions League. If Manchester City had won the Europa League twice in the last three years (not an apocalyptic suggestion because of their powers in the capital and the money market), they, like Arsenal, will face the likes of Panathinaikos and/or Anorthosis Famagusta rather than Bayern Munich.

This table should be shown to all managers who are against the Europa League. Germany have put lesser teams in the Champions League than Italy over the last five years but due to their performances in the Europa League, they have ousted Italy from Europe’s high table. Some of the stats are misleading because the clubs’ final place has been taken into account and not the qualifying place (e.g. If Werder Bremen had entered the Champions League but went onto play the Europa League at some stage, they have been classified as a team that played in the Europa League).

The above table and this one won’t tally but that’s because teams from both nations have lost even before reaching the group stages of the Europa League, which is shocking considering both these teams are inside the top five nations according to co-efficients. Germany’s performances in the Europa League is one of the main reasons for their elevated status in the co-efficients chart. Also, if you take a look at this table and the one immediately above this, the attrition rate for Germany is lesser than that of Italy.

But there exists an argument that teams find the cash pot in the Europa League meagre. UEFA have been bolloxed many times over prize money in the Europa League. Some people have asked the UEFA to take some cash from the Champions League and give it to the Europa League but that’s a no go because if something like that happens, there will be a ‘Super league of clubs’ within the next five years.

What the UEFA could possibly do is to give a Champions League qualification birth from R1 to the defending champions of the Europa League. This could raise other complications but they will have to raise the profile of the competition significantly if people has to buy the idea. At least until they realise the importance of the co-efficients.

It’s not as much as one team defining greatness over 20 or 30 years but myriad teams continuing to come out of the supply line with relentless efficiency.

*******

Germany had just finished the rather easy task of dismantling a strategy-less, shapeless Argentina in the quarterfinals of the World Cup. The performance of the Germans clearly reflected in the scoreline – it finished 4:0. They followed that up with a rather timid performance against Spain, which finished 1:0 to the eventual first time World champions. Spain were coming on the back of winning all their games after a shock defeat against Switzerland. They were on the back of a hot streak of two 1-0s.

Germany, on the other hand, were more philanthropic, contributing handsomely to the “goals for” column (they were on the back of two consecutive four-goal hauls and this was almost unheard of in modern international competitions). While people expected Germany to give Spain a game, Spain hardly gave the Germans a chance. They cut the supply lines, limited the counter-attacking forays and smothered the Germans like they were a two-year kid.

*******

It was a very familiar theme in the 2008 Euro championships. Germany had scored three in two consecutive knockout games while Spain won in a shootout before putting three past Russia to reach the final. But they once again limited the free-scoring Germany side very successfully. Fernando Torres struck the winner in the first half and Spain saw through to claim their first significant title in 44 years.

*******

In the 2006 World Cup, Jurgen Klinsman’s free-spirited side (perhaps surprising more than a few pundits), reached the semifinals of the tournament before bowing out to the flavour of the month, Italy 2:0 in extra time.

Germany losing a hat-trick of knockouts when within 180 minutes of the cup is unheard of. This is the first time that Germany, having reached the semifinals in three consecutive tournaments, have failed to reach the promised land. Again, perhaps suggesting a lack of mental strength?

*******

In the 2002 World Cup, Germany were rather placid but still managed to reach the finals where Oliver Kahn fluffed his lines which allowed Luiz Ronaldo to score a brace. (Placid, but their efficiency came out because they won three consecutive knockouts with identical scorelines: 1-0.

*******

West Germany before destruction of the Berlin Wall

*Key – P – Played. W – Won. D – Drawn. L – Lost. LKO – Lost Knock Out. WKO – Won knock out. +1 indicates play off for 3rd vs 4th.  

Germany, circa 1992 

In the 2000 and 2004 Euros, Germany went from being ruthlessly efficient to rather dull and sombre. They, in fact, did not even get out of the groups in both the competitions. When was the last time that Germany failed to get out of the group two consecutive times in the Euros? The answer is 0. Zero.

*******

The present crop of Germans could easily be as talented as the school of 1972, but do they have what it takes to emulate that class? The team, ever since they became unified (after becoming Germany), have not won a major tournament for seven consecutive tournaments (reaching only one final in the process).

Under West Germany, they averaged a title every 3.4 competitions. Under Germany, they have averaged a paltry one per every 10 competitions.

The hallmark of a great generation or generations (we are constantly being reminded by the press that Germany always do well at the clutch), is to convert the semifinals into a final and a victory. West Germany managed a total of 13 semifinal appearances out of a total of 17 appearances. That’s a staggering 76%. The unified Germany have managed a total of six from 10 appearances at a still healthy but relatively weak average of 60%. But where the graph dips has been their ability to convert the final appearances into victories. West Germany reached nine finals and won six of them at an average of 66%. Germany have reached four finals but have managed to win only one at an average of 25%, clearly indicating that perhaps that their clutch isn’t what used to be.

Getting to the later stages of the tournament is one thing; but finding extra legs from somewhere, blowing a second wind into the system before willing yourself over the finish line is an entirely different thing. Something which the Germany of old  constantly kept doing with the likes of Max Morlock, Franz Beckenbauer and Gerd Muller always stepping up to the plate. The West Germans in 1954 were deadlocked with Turkey after the group games and had to participate in a play-off against them to determine who would go through. The Germans went through 7-2. Their opponents in the final? The legendary Hungarian team who had demolished them 8-3 in a group game.

The other nations to have had representative clubs in the CLT20 so far are: New Zealand, England, South Africa, Australia, Sri Lanka and a few nations from the Caribbean Isles. But there is one major difference which alters the playing field so sensationally in favour of the Indian and the Australian teams. While the teams from the other nations are the domestic, first class teams the teams from India are not. The teams India and Australia are sending to the CLT20 are essentially franchises.

Is it a fair playing ground for everyone?

(Australia disbanded the KFC T20 last year and started off with the Big Bash League from 2012. But they are okay, because they do not run any parallel senior T20 campaigns. However, the teams are a bit like the teams in the IPL as most of them have been bankrolled by relative sugar-daddies.)

If the field has to be even, the teams that India has to be sending to the CLT20 should actually be the domestic teams. Baroda beat Punjab by eight runs in the latest edition of the Syed Mushtaq Ali trophy. This is the BCCI-sponsored domestic T20 trophy which started a few years back. The teams competing for the Syed Mushtaq Ali trophy are basically the teams who play in the Ranji trophy.

The BCCI has not exactly kept it clandestine, but they have not done much advertising for it either and the Indian mainstream media doesn’t even bother to cover the games: or at least most of them don’t (I do remember reading a report between Tamil Nadu and Punjab in ‘The Sportstar’).

But when you have nations sending in the domestic teams and counties, shouldn’t India also be sending only their domestic teams? How, exactly, can they send franchises bankrolled by millionaires who have no affiliation whatsoever to the city in which they play their home games apart from the stadium and the names?

Players

Football fans use the term ‘mercenary’ way too casually these days. A football player automatically becomes a mercenary to them when he chooses to go a club bought by a billionaire, never mind any other possible reasons (like, maybe your club has lost the right to dine in the higher echelons of the league?).

In cricket, Chris Gayle has taken the term to new heights. One look at Gayle’s profile on Cricinfo will leave you dumbfounded. Under Major teams, Gayle has played or is playing for “West Indies, Barisal Burners, ICC World XI, Jamaica, Kolkata Knight Riders, Matabeleland Tuskers, Royal Challengers Bangalore, Stanford Superstars, Sydney Thunder, Western Australia, Worcestershire.”

(Right now he is playing for every team except for the only team that really counts at the International level).

Of course, I’m no one to say that Gayle shouldn’t represent this team, or that. But I’m merely questioning how exactly he is allowed to shift between one league and another every three months before playing the CLT20 with a team he wouldn’t even have represented previously. It’s a bit like seeing Cristiano Ronaldo playing for Barcelona in the Champions League in April after playing for Manchester City from August to November, Chelsea from November to January and Inter Milan from January to March.

When the International Cricket Council talk about replicating something, they shouldn’t go in with a half-baked approach. Why not have transparent player transfers, cup-tied players (if a player has represented a team that year, he should only play in the CLT20 with that team)?

This year, the likes of Brett Lee and Dwayne Bravo will have an interesting decision to make. Brett Lee’s Sydney Sixers and KKR have qualified for the CLT20. Which team will he play for? It’s the same thing for Dwayne Bravo. In fact he can either play for CSK, Sydney Sixers or his country of birth, Trinidad & Tobago.

Conflict of Interest

So N. Srinivasan owns CSK (or at least did own CSK before relinquishing control to Gurunath Meiyappan. Having said that, I’m pretty confident that Srinivasan’s control over CSK is about as much as Sonia Gandhi’s over the Manmohan Singh administration). He also is the President of the BCCI. The BCCI runs the IPL. Srinivasan also holds another designation: chairman of the CLT20. A competition which CSK has already won. A competition where CSK find themselves in this year.

Only one thing is crystal clear from all of this. Srinivasan is holding a lot of designations which directly or indirectly plays into the hands of the franchise he owns. He may, or may not use his power to influence decisions. He may or may not have been directly responsible for CSK’s terrific run in the IPL so far. He may be the most likeable N. Srinivasan amongst all the likeable N. Srinivasans. But it’s high time he gives up some of those designations.

It’s all a bit confusing for me at the moment. But I do know that it defies logic (and perhaps, legality) to have nations, counties and franchises taking part in the same competition.

In Inception, Dom Cobb plants an idea into the mind of a subject he wants to extract information from and watches it as the idea expands or something similar.

Looking back at what my grandmother said, I begin to wonder whether this nugget of information that everybody are posting on Twitter and Facebook right now that “whenever Sachin scores, India loses” has somehow been reared into the genetic psyche when all of us were kids. Of course, there is another myth going around. He slows down when he gets into his 80s.

There is only so much a man can take after listening to such amounts of criticism about somebody before embarking on a fact-finding mission to find out whether the information that exists in the mainstream is valid or not. Given how most of us are likely to go by hearsay, I’m quiet confident that most of what is out there is either fabricated or the truth conveniently distorted to suit the opposition for whatever reasons.

But there are limitations about the fact-finding mission. I am going to be doing the ODI 100s only from 2001 (4th July, 2001) as Cricinfo started commentating on games only from then. However, I will be delving deep into each and every 100 that I can remember since I started watching the game.

You may ask why I want to this right now? I’m a little raged and a bit pissed right now. So my emotional self is ruling me right now.

P,S, To find out whether Tendulkar does slow down when approaching a 100, I have decided to break down all his 100 plus (from 2001) into three categories. Balls taken to reach 0-85 (with a range from 83 to 92). Balls taken to reach 81-100. And from 101-till dismissal.

India v West Indies
Harare Sports Club, 4 July 2001 

Opponents – West Indies. Result – Won. Batting – Second.

1st batch – 85 from 96 balls. Strike Rate – 88.54

2nd batch – 15 from 16 balls. Strike Rate – 93.75

3rd batch – 22 from 19 balls. Strike Rate – 115.78

Total – 122 (not out) from 131 balls.

Conclusion – This is an interesting find. So he chased down a target carrying India through. Not only that, he also upped the ante once he reached the 80s.

South Africa v India 

New Wanderers Stadium, Johannesburg, 5 October 2001

Opponents – South Africa. Result – Lost. Batting – First.

1st batch – 87 from 116 balls. Strike Rate – 75.00

2nd batch – 14 from 13 balls. Strike Rate – 107.69

Total – 101 from 129 balls.

Conclusion – Anybody who remembers this match might well remember that this was Tendulkar’s comeback game from an injury. But yet again another instance when the first batch is slower than the second batch. We did go on to lose this game after posting 279 but truth be said this was a Sachin Tendulkar struggle and will not really be mentioned when people talk about his great One-day hundreds.

India v Kenya

Boland Bank Park, Paarl, 24 October 2001

Opponents – Kenya. Result – Won. Batting – First

1st batch – 84 from 82 balls. Strike Rate – 102.43

2nd batch – 16 from 18 balls. Strike Rate – 88.88

3rd batch – 46 from 32 balls. Strike Rate – 143.75

Total – 146 from 132 balls.

Conclusion – This is admittedly slower than the first and third batches but given how people say that he is considerably slower than his career strike rate of 86.18, he actually is above that.

England v India

Riverside Ground, Chester-le-Street, 4 July 2002

Opponents – England. Result – NR. Batting – First

1st batch – 87 from 96 balls. Strike Rate – 90.62

2nd batch – 13 from 10 balls. Strike Rate – 100.00

3rd batch – 5 from 2 balls. Strike Rate – 250.00

Total – 105 (not out) from 108 balls.

Conclusion – As the scoreboard suggests, this was a period when Tendulkar used to come in at No.4 for India in the ODIs. In this particular, he came in at a tricky time and helped steady the ship with Rahul Dravid before reaching three figures with a couple of overs to spare. As far as the strike rates are concerned, he’s ahead of the first batch by about 10 runs per 100 balls.

India v Sri Lanka

The Royal & Sun Alliance County Ground, Bristol, 11 July 2002

Opponents – Sri Lanka. Result – Won. Batting – First

1st batch – 84 from 80 balls. Strike Rate – 105.00

2nd batch – 16 from 13 balls. Strike Rate – 123.07

3rd batch – 13 from 9 balls. Strike Rate – 144.44

Total. 113 from 102 balls.

Conclusion – Again coming in at No.4, an experiment which ultimately was a failure, Tendulkar did have a few good knocks. And again an impressive strike rate which keeps going up all the time till his eventual dismissal.

India v Namibia

City Oval, Pietermaritzburg, 23 February 2003

Opponents – Namibia. Result – Won. Batting – First.

1st batch – 84 from 96 balls. Strike Rate – 87.50

2nd batch – 16 from 19 balls. Strike Rate – 84.21

3rd batch – 52 from 36 balls. Strike Rate – 144.44

Total – 152 from 151 balls.

Conclusion - His only century in the 2003 World Cup, there is a marginal decrease in the 90s but not by some exaggerated margins. But do not worry haters, this shall be counted as a negative when it comes down to the final calculations.

India v Australia

Captain Roop Singh Stadium, Gwalior, 26 October 2003

Opponents – Australia. Result – Won. Batting – First.

1st batch – 85 from 95 balls. Strike Rate – 89.47

2nd batch 15 from 24 balls. Strike Rate – 62.50

Total – 100 from 119 balls

Conclusion – The first real indication that Tendulkar perhaps did take his time in the 90s as there is a marked drop of about 25 runs per every 100 balls scored.

India v New Zealand

Lal Bahadur Shastri Stadium, Hyderabad, 15 November 2003

Opponents – New Zealand. Result – Won. Batting – First.

1st batch – 84 from 76 balls. Strike Rate – 110.52

2nd batch – 16 from 11 balls. Strike Rate – 145.45

3rd batch – 2 from 4 balls. Strike rate – 50.00

Total – 102 from 91 balls.

Conclusion – His second of the TVS series, India run up a huge score and the Kiwis were never in the races. And a marked improvement in the strike rate in the 90s again.

Pakistan v India

Rawalpindi Cricket Stadium, 16 March 2004

Opponents – Pakistan. Result – Lost. Batting – Second.

1st batch – 84 from 88 balls. Strike Rate – 95.45

2nd batch – 16 from 18 balls. Strike Rate -88.88

3rd batch – 41 from 29 balls. Strike Rate – 141.37

Total – 141 from 135 balls.

Conclusion – His second 100 only while chasing since 2001, this is one of the very few fair criticisms over the years. While there is a marked decrease in the strike rate in the 90s, that is still above his career strike rate. One of quite a few glorious failures that Tendulkar has had while chasing a game.

India v Pakistan

Sardar Patel Stadium, Motera, Ahmedabad, 12 April 2005

Opponents – Pakistan. Result – Lost. Batting – First.

1st batch – 88 from 96 balls. Strike Rate – 91.66

2nd batch – 12 from 9 balls. Strike Rate – 133.33

3rd batch – 23 from 25 balls. Strike Rate – 92.00

Total – 123 from 130 balls.

Conclusion – For the second time in a row, a losing 100 against Pakistan. If I remember right, Inzamam played a gutsy little knock at the death to win the game for the visitors. The Strike Rate in the 90s kind of explains itself.

Pakistan v India

Arbab Niaz Stadium, Peshawar, 6 February 2006

Opponents – Pakistan. Result – Lost. Batting – First.

1st batch – 85 from 96 balls. Strike rate – 88.54

2nd batch – 15 from 16 balls. Strike Rate – 93.75

Total – 100 from 113 balls (After getting to a 100, Tendulkar got out the very next ball).

Conclusion - For a third time in a row, a 100 against Pakistan in a losing cause. There is a marginal improvement in the 90s but he gave his wicket away cheaply after reaching a 100 and perhaps could have avoided that. Pakistan went on to win the game in the D/L method.

India v West Indies

Kinrara Academy Oval, Kuala Lumpur, 14 September 2006

Opponents – West Indies. Result – Lost. Batting – First.

1st batch – 85 from 110 balls. Strike Rate – 77.27

2nd batch – 15 from 9 balls. Strike Rate – 166.66

3rd batch – 41 from 29 balls. Strike Rate – 141.37

Total – 141 not out from 148 balls.

Conclusion – An old school construction of an ODI innings. Build an innings and let it go to a crescendo during the death overs, Tendulkar held the sheet anchor while others around him went for broke. But what went again him was a fourth consecutive ODI defeat after scoring a 100. Maybe this is when the genesis that a Sachin 100 usually results in a defeat started spreading around Indian households.

India v West Indies

Indian Petrochemicals Corporation Limited Sports Complex Ground, Vadodara, 31 January 2007

Opponents – West Indies. Result – Won. Batting – First.

1st batch – 84 from 68 balls. Strike rate – 123.52

2nd batch – 16 from 8 balls. Strike Rate – 200.00

Total – 100 not out from 76 balls.

Conclusion – This was Tendulkar’s last 100 before the ’07 World Cup and as it proved in hindsight, last 100 before he came back to form  Down Under. This was another experimental 100 as he came back at two down. Tendulkar, while the strike rate says that he upped the ante during the 2nd batch, did take a single of the last ball of the 50th over to reach three figures instead of trying to belt the ball over Vadodara. But more pleasingly, he did arrest the slide of 100 in losing efforts.

Australia v India

Sydney Cricket Ground, 2 March 2008

Opponents – Australia. Result – Won. Batting – Second

1st batch – 88 from 91 balls. Strike Rate – 96.70

2nd batch – 12 from 15 balls. Strike Rate – 80.00

3rd batch – 17 from 14 balls

Total – 117 not out from 120 balls.

Conclusion – This was Tendulkar’s worst period in ODIs (a couple of 99s notwithstanding). But he did come back with a bang against the might of Brett Lee and co. There were calls for his resignation back then and some people who I knew began to write him off as a spent bullet. Coming to the strike rate, there is a decrease during the 90s but given the way he stayed till the end and anchored the chase, one can hardly call this as “playing for himself”. (This, though, will count as a negative when it comes to counting the final averages.

New Zealand v India

AMI Stadium, Christchurch, 08 March 2009

Opponents – New Zealand. Result – Won. Batting – First

1st batch – 85 from 86 balls. Strike Rate – 98.83

2nd batch – 15 from 15 balls. Strike Rate – 100.00

3rd batch – 63 from 32 balls. Strike Rate – 196.87

Total – 163 from 133

Conclusion – A monster innings in which he monstered all the bowlers to all parts of the Christchurch field. Just a very marginal increase in the strike rate while reaching to the 100 before going berserk.  A hat-trick of wins after a Tendulkar 100 also firmly establishing that the four lost on the trot was firmly out of the way.

Sri Lanka v India

R Premadasa Stadium, Colombo, 14 September 2009

Opponents – Sri Lanka. Result – Won. Batting – First

1st batch – 85 from 77 balls. Strike Rate – 110.38

2nd batch – 15 from 15 balls. Strike Rate – 100.00

3rd batch – 38 from 41 balls. Strike Rate – 92.68

Total – 138 from 133.

Conclusion – Tendulkar, ably sheet-anchored by Rahul Dravid at the other end, cut loose early on and maintained the momentum to set a target in excess of 300 in the final of the Compaq Cup. This was when Tendulkar started making noises about playing in a sixth World Cup. There is a fall of about 10 runs per 100 balls during the 90s but the mark of 100 is still very good.

India v Australia

Rajiv Gandhi International Stadium, Uppal, Hyderabad, 5 November 2009

Opponents – Australia. Result – Lost. Batting – Second.

1st batch – 92 from 71 balls (Tendulkar went from 80 to 92 with two sixers so I had to take till 92 as the first batch as it would have been cheating otherwise). Strike Rate – 129.57

2nd batch – 8 from 10 balls. Strike Rate – 80.00

3rd batch – 75 from 60 balls. Strike Rate – 125.00

Conclusion – Another one of those glorious failures which might haunt Tendulkar and his fans for life. And he fell while playing a little scoop over short fine leg. A marked decrease in the strike rate in the 90s, Tendulkar has been stacking them a bit of late.

India v South Africa

Captain Roop Singh Stadium, Gwalior, 24 February 2010

Opponents – South Africa. Result – Won. Batting – First

1st batch – 87 from 69 balls. Strike Rate – 126.08

2nd batch – 13 from 21 balls. Strike Rate – 61.90

3rd batch – 80 from 42balls. Strike Rate – 190.47

4th batch – 20 from 15 balls. Strike Rate – 133.33

Total – 200 not out from 147 balls.

Conclusion – The match which saw M.S. Dhoni’s fans come to a head-on collision with Tendulkar’s fans after the former was accused of almost denying a fine 200 by not giving enough strike at the end. But to be honest, Tendulkar was cramping and the pitch was that sort of pitch were even 400 wouldn’t have been enough. In the end, it all worked out well for India and Tendulkar. Coming to the strike rates, this has been, by far, his slowest going from 80 to a 100. And as a result, the strike rate slumped by more than half.

India v England

M Chinnaswamy Stadium, Bangalore, 27 February 2011

Opponents – England. Result – Draw. Batting – First.

1st batch – 87 from 88 balls. Strike rate – 98.86

2nd batch – 13 from 15 balls. Strike rate – 86.66

3rd batch – 20 from 12 balls. Strike Rate – 166.66

Total – 120 from 115 balls.

Conclusion – His first 100 of the 2011 World Cup, it was as a result of a direct onslaught against the likes of Graeme Swann that helped him get some momentum after a very slow start ( he was on 32 after facing 50 balls). Ultimately lost his wicket during the powerplay overs if my memory serves me right which helped England get back in the game. A decrease of 12 during the 90s but again more or less matching his career strike rate.

India v South Africa

Vidarbha Cricket Association Stadium, Jamtha, Nagpur, 12 March 2011

Opponents – South Africa. Result – Lost. Batting – First

1st batch – 88 from 78 balls. Strike Rate – 112.82

2nd batch – 12 from 14 balls. Strike Rate – 85.71

3rd batch – 11 from 9 balls. Strike Rate – 122.22

Total – 111 from 101 balls.

Conclusion – A 100 in a losing cause for quite some time, India once again made the same mistake of going too early and losing wickets in a heap – with Tendulkar’s wicket again coming at a crucial time. South Africa made full advantage of it and prevented the hosts from running away with something bigger. A bigger decrease in the strike rate during the 90s but again more or less matching the career strike rate. This was his 99th International 100….

Bangladesh v India

Shere Bangla National Stadium, Mirpur, 16 March 2012

Opponents – Bangladesh. Result – Lost. Batting – First.

1st batch – 83 from 114 balls. Strike Rate – 72.80

2nd batch- 17 from 24 balls. Strike Rate – 70.83

3rd batch – 14 from 9 balls. Strike rate – 155.55

Total – 114 from 147 balls.

Conclusion – First up, let me get all the negative vibes out of the way. This, by far, is his slowest 100: at least from 2001 anyway. And it was pretty evident that once he got into the 70s and 80s, he sensed an opportunity to finally get rid of the monkey (which had by now grown wings and had become a lion-tailed macaque) and had probably put himself above the team in search for that 100.

But, judging him and calling him selfish on this innings is totally uncalled for. He recognised the need to get it out of the way and did use up balls. Granted and I will give you that. But calling him selfish amongst other things on ONE innings is Idiocy of the highest order.

For people who have decided to go ahead and call him names because of the way he has used up the last year, you may or may not have a point. (I myself called him selfish, but let us all give him the next 4-6 months to see whether he still remains motivated, whether the pressure was keeping him from performing or whether he is just prolonging his career for the sake of playing and nothing else).

Aggregated Numbers and Strike Rates from 2001 July:

No of centuries: 21.

Winning; 12

Tied: 1

Lost: 8.

Twenty-one 100s have come in the last 10 years and a bit to go with the 28 he struck in the first ten years of his decade (actually zero from 1989 to 1994 and then 28 during his first peak from 1994 to 2001). The winning percentage is 57.14 % and the losing percentage 38.09.

So the theory that India loses whenever Tendulkar scores a century is a false one and goes right out the window. An even more interesting aspect about Tendulkar’s losing contributions is that India lost only 6 times during his first 28 ODI hundreds – Interesting because the Indian team from 1994 to 2001 were more or less poorer to the side from 2001 till now.

If all his ODI 100s are taken into consideration, the losing percentage falls down drastically to 28%.

Strike Rates:

From 0-85 (median): Balls Faced – 1869. Runs Scored – 1801. Strike rate: It is a staggering 96.36 per every 100 balls faced – up almost 10 runs from his career strike rate.

From 85-100: Balls Faced – 313. Runs Scored – 290. Strike Rate: 92.65. There is an improvement of almost 6 runs per ever 100 balls on his career strike rate but there is also a small decrease of 4 runs from his 96 runs per every 100 balls during this phase.

I don’t know whether the overall and the one yesterday can be taken in isolation just because the century against Bangladesh helped him to get to something – something definitive. But while this century does reveal the fact that he perhaps put himself before the team, one incident doesn’t tarnish the reputation that he has built over the last two decades.

That’s about that for this column. Sometime in the future, I will try and look at whether Tendulkar’s slowed down in the 90s ergo resulting in him getting out in the 90s rather than stepping on and going to convert it into three figures.

P.S. This clearly shows that generally he doesn’t go out there just to look for 100s (as the strike rate of 92.65 very clearly shows). It also shows that having a fairly reasonable losing percentage of 28%, he is not really India’s unlucky man.

Test matches have long held me captive. Give me a good Test match and I will have no problems watching it in Azkaban even if I had the prospect of a Dementor’s Kiss awaiting me later on. But comparing teams and players in the five-day format  have always been a challenge to me. A first day 100, even if it is a 100, might more or less be less significant than a 100 on the last day. Batting up to Curtley Ambrose and Courtney Walsh will most certainly be more taxing than facing up to Eddo Brandes and Paul Strang. Coming in at 25/2 and scoring a ton against Bangladesh, whilst still being a 100, will surely be less of an achievement than coming in at 25/2 and scoring a 100 against Glenn McGrath and Shane Warne or Anil Kumble and Zaheer Khan.

It has widely been acknowledged that the best Test batsmen over the last decade to 15 years have been Rahul Dravid, Sachin Tendulkar, Jacques Kallis, Ricky Ponting and Brian Lara. To compare, comprehend and contrast to make sense of their effectiveness in the five-day format, the challenge would be to do away with contests against minnows, their effectiveness on the last day (or fourth innings), contributions made to winning causes, lone-man standing in lost causes and their endurance as a whole.

This system of trying to rate the “supposed” best five does have its limits – just like every other system. This, for example, will not take into account match-winning knocks against Bangladesh and Zimbabwe. But with all due credit to Bangladesh and Zimbabwe, their status notwithstanding, they are just not cut out at this level. So the records of the aforementioned batsmen against these two sides have not been taken into consideration. Naturally this reflects in the statistics and records as well. Now I want you to remind all of you that this is not some definitive tool to measure greatness and place them one above (or one below) the other in some ranking order. This is just a set of numbers which these batsmen have produced in their illustrious careers against the better Test sides. (The records of the batsmen against Australia (or in Ponting’s case, against the ‘ICC XI’) have been retained).

First up is their Test careers minus matches played against either Zimbabwe and Bangladesh:

Somethings immediately stand out. Dravid has the worst average amongst the five batsmen. But that doesn’t mean that he’s the worst of the five. Test cricket, even in the times of T20, is all about accumulation. The graft is what makes Test cricket all the more special. While the artists may be savored more, Dravid’s artistry (he’s the supreme artist when it comes to defending) is what makes him stand out in a crowd. Saying that, Dravid does possess all the shots in the book and is as skilled as the others in playing Test cricket. Just that he preferred to play out time rather than just find “cow corner” every time.

The batting averages of all the five drops and this is no surprise really. That clearly explains what Zimbabwe and Bangladesh are made up of. It has been said time and again that the difference between a good batsmen and a very good batsman – at least in Test cricket – is the difference between averaging 45 and 55. While everybody fall in that bracket, Dravid’s average falls below 50 excluding Bangladesh and Zimbabwe. A part of that maybe down to his not-outs against both the teams (out of his total of 32 not outs, five came against either Zimbabwe or Bangladesh).

Another factor when it comes to categorizing batsmen as very good, good and downright abysmal is their efforts for winning causes. Or at least it’s the accepted norm that whenever the side’s lead batsman contributes, more often than not his  contribution leads his side to victory. How then, will you explain this? Lara, many people think, has led his side to more victories than Tendulkar. The stats disagree. Lara’s contribution to winning causes is just six hundreds (against the total number of 32 that he has scored against the better Test sides). That is just a total of 18.75 %.  But does that make Lara a bad player? His side was such that Lara had to do something for West Indies to even look like doing something (remembers the 2006 West Indies’ tour of Sri Lanka when Lara repeatedly kept depositing Muttiah Muralitharan over deep long on and deep long off. But West Indies still lost the series pretty badly).

Least  surprisingly, Ponting has the best centuries to matches won ratio. That once again goes to show what a powerful team Australia were. Tendulkar seems to have profited the most by playing Zimbabwe and Bangladesh – a whopping eight of his 51 centuries coming against Test cricket’s also-rans. And his winning percentages are also similarly skewed. Against all Test playing nations, Tendulkar’s centuries to matches won ratio stands at 39.21. But excluding those two, it falls down to 32.55. Not a steep fall but a fall nonetheless.

Now, it’s a given that the players in this list are special players who have been blessed with that special ability to drag home their side in tough circumstances. While it may or may not be the best method to determine their oomph factor, I am going to go ahead and look at their contributions in the third and fourth innings. It has for long been held that Tendulkar is not the same player when he comes to batting in the 3rd and 4th innings and that Lara is a like a beautiful wine – who ages as the Test wears on. Time to put all those assumptions to the test:

(Ponting has one match-winning 100 in the 4th innings against Bangladesh. He also has one 50 against Zimbabwe in the 4th innings but that hasn’t been taken into consideration).

Tendulkar and Kallis are miles ahead in front when it comes to performing in the third innings (there will be a table later on dealing with match-winning/match-saving knocks in the 4th innings) but more or less, it flattens out in the 4th innings. Both Tendulkar and Ponting have the most number of centuries in the 4th innings with three.

What, though, has really surprised me is that impotence of Kallis and Dravid in the 4th innings in terms of not scoring more. (These both have not scored a century in the 4th innings through out the noughties. Dravid’s last and only 4th innings century was the 101 at Hamilton in 1999. Kallis’s last and only one was way back in 1997 against Australia at Melbourne).

Then why exactly is Dravid arguably regarded as the best when it comes to the technical stakes? The column on the extreme right has the answer. The total amount of balls played in the 4th innings is a staggering 3721 balls: to put things in perspective, the next best is Tendulkar was has played about 800 balls fewer. Now to further simplify (and amplify) this, Dravid has spent about 24 sessions batting completely on the last day. Just about brilliant (while his strike rate is not up there with the others, who exactly wants to see the strike rate when there is a match to be saved?)

Lara is revered as the ultimate 4th innings player but his numbers more or less are the same as any other in that list. If you ask me, his 153 (not out) against Australia has stuck in the memory for so long that we have just accepted the fact that he would have a superlative record in the 4th innings of a Test match. But he has not scored a century since 2003.

Tendulkar, revered and reviled in equal measure, seems to be an outstanding performer in the 3rd innings of Tests – the same as Kallis. But not surprisingly, the performance and the intensity drops when it comes to batting in the 4th innings.

Amongst the five, Ponting has played the least number of balls in the 4th innings. But I wonder how much of that will be done to him being in a once-in-a-generation team.

Match-saving/Match-winning contributions in the 4th innings of a Test:

What I tried to do is segregate their achievements in the 4th innings to three segments: “Winning contributions”, “drawing contrbutions”, and “losing contributions.”

What is apparent is that all of them had their own weakness in the 4th innings where they have strugled through out their career. Kallis, who has scored 38 Test hundreds against the better sides, has just one 100 in the 4th innings. And that 100 came 15 years back.

Ponting’s weaknesses against India in India has been well documented. But this is pretty poor because when you have been seen as the best, you certainly need to have a higher score than 12 in the five essays Ponting has had against India in India.

Tendulkar has an aggregate of 18 100s and 20 50s against Australia and South Africa. In the fourth innings against these two, Tendulkar’s best against South Africa is 32*. His best against Australia is 53*. He just has two fifties against Australia. And has a combined total of three zeroes against these two. That’s more than the number of 50s and 100s he has combined against these two nations in the fourth innings. In fact, his record in South Africa in the fourth innings is almost as pathetic as Ponting’s record in India. Tendulkar’s best is a 22*. His other scores in the 4th innings in South Africa: 1, 4, 9, 0 and 14*.

For a batsman who is as surpreme as Lara (for me at least, the best combatant against spinners since I started watching Test cricket), you would expect him to have a superior record in the 4th innings just because of the way he he handled spin bowling. But no, surprisingly he is as good (or as worse) as the other’s in this list. But Lara, like the others, did have a weakness. In five innings against India in the fourth innings, his best is a 47 which will go nicely with the two blobs he has to his credit.

Dravid for long has been India’s go to man. But looking at these stats, just how many repair jobs has he successfully completed in the 4th innings? Or did he even start any mending contracts in the 4th innings? In the last six years, his highest score in the 4th innings is a meagre 38 and for a batsman of his class and calibre, that is simply not acceptable. But of the eight fifties he has scored, six have either resulted in an victory or draw. That explains the importance of his contributions in the final essay to the team. The only one who had a better record than Dravid in making the contributions count? That’s right, Ponting.

Out of eight scores of 50 or above, seven have either resulted in an Australia victory or draw. Australia’s talisman indeed. But Ponting should not really take all the credit for himself. We will have to bear in mind that he was playing in a team which was blessed.

Post script:

This, like I had already said, is not something definitive. While I have tried to remove the obvious ones like playing against Bangladesh and Zimbabwe, there are variables which can never be addressed properly. Like playing against Glen McGrath and Shane Warne will obviously be a different challenge than playing against Daniel Vettori and Shane Bond.

(All the primary stats have been taken from the respective player’s profile on Cricinfo).

Leonardo Di Caprio in ‘Catch Me If You Can’ is a film for the ages. Not because it’s a classic. Not because it’s a thriller. But because it shows the protagonist in a very positive yet negative light. He constantly keeps moving to evade the authorities: Tom Hanks. Di Caprio was a pilot, a prosecutor and a doctor amongst other things. While the film is based on the true story of Frank Abagnale Jr., Di Caprio essays the role as if he is Frank Abagnale Jr.

Watching Arsene Wenger and Arsenal the other day against AC Milan, one wondered what Arsene Wenger would have killed to not be there in the dugout. His expression was that of Avram Grant on drugs. Would he have wanted to be a player on the Arsenal team that night? Would he have wanted to be an infiltrator: an infiltrator who took care of the pitch designed by the Milan ground-staff. Would he have wanted to be the football? Given how the Arsenal faithful have treated him this year, he has been a bit of a football anyway.

Granted this was the team Wenger built: or something he never planned to build but had to throw in assorted players because of injuries and transfers. Granted he had the whole summer in front of him when he knew Cesc Fabregas, Gael Clichy and Samir Nasri, would one way or another, leave the club. Granted he again had the winter window in which he could have brought in a player or two strengthen the team. He choose not to. But was that a really bad idea? The team is in fourth place in the league, is in the 5th round of the FA Cup and qualified for the last 16 in the Champions League. The team was tonked by Milan and may well exit the Champions League. But is that a bad thing? Liverpool doesn’t have any cup exertions in March. Tottenham doesn’t have any cup exertions in March. Chelsea, our direct rivals, may well have if they progress beyond Naples. It’s not as if Arsenal is going to win the Champions League that we should all be disappointed about a loss. Yes, it was embarrassing. Yes, it was painful to watch. Yes, it was comical. But the bile and the rhetoric which has been written by the media following the loss has been nothing short of hyperbole.

To start off with, Wenger’s been criticized time and again for not refusing to delve into the pockets for that player who could make all the difference between a quality side and an average side having a few quality players. How about this: he spent on a structure worth 400 MP not long ago.

While the pain of the fans that their beloved club may not qualify for the Champions League is understandable, it’s not a Wenger or Arsenal birthright to be in there every season. Maybe Arsenal finishes this season in sixth place. The board fires Wenger and brings in somebody new who uses all the cash reserves to go out and build a new team. But still fails to qualify for the Champions League anyway. But the club are then in freefall with respect to balancing the books. I know there are a lot of assumptions in the above statement, but we are always yearning for change without thinking about the present. Picture this: this past week both Rangers and Portsmouth, again, filed for administration. We could be them.

And if reports are to be believed, there could be a few Premier League clubs going down the same route.

Your guess is as good as mine when it comes to talking about money availability at Arsenal F.C. But there is a clear difference between “money being there” and “money being made available”. While Wenger has not said anything about it being the latter case, au contraire, he recently talked about the need to generate a profit of 15 MP every season to keep the books happy. Does that seem like something a board will ask the manager to do? It looks like it.

While I’m not spreading any conspiracy theories, Arsenal made a hefty profit from the sales of Cesc Fabregas, Samir Nasri and Gael Clichy. Maybe profits well exceeding 30 MP. Arsenal makes about 20 MP every season by being in the Champions League. If they don’t do that next season, the profit is already in the books. The board may well be happy that the profits are already in place while Wenger will have to come up with the latest and newest Ponzi scheme of scouting and taking players under the Arsenal banner: “Victoria Concordia Cresit”.

Much has been made about Arsenal’s trophy drought. Some have rightly pointed out that Wenger’s stubbornness in the market has caused Arsenal a couple of trophies. But are all of you so insecure of your fandom or fan-boyism that you need some collateral or security to continue to support the club?

If that’s the case, you might as well shut up shop, burn the red jerseys, and relocate to the blue-half of Manchester. And enjoy the kebabs while you are it.

Why is it that there is this continued aversion to write anything good about Stoke? Are there too many Aaron Ramsey sympathisers or Arsenal fans masquerading as pundits in the mainstream media? If that is the case, stop faffing around and move on, will you? Yes, Ryan Shawcross made a rash challenge. Yes, the challenge broke Ramsey’s leg. Yes, the Arsenal midfielder was out for more than a year after that incident. If all Arsenal fans were to apply the same yardstick, why exactly do you guys like Robert Pires. His dive, like it or not, ultimately helped Arsenal stave off an embarrassing defeat against Portsmouth during the unbeaten season. Granted both the incidents cannot be compared, but if you thought Shawcross brought the game into disrepute with his tackle, shouldn’t you also hold up your hand and say Pires brought the game into disrepute with his dive? And also a retrospective one year ban?

Ryan Shawcross sees red

Appreciate Pulis’s ever-evolving squad

There is slowly but surely a team being built at the Britannia. They had one of the more exciting Premier League misfits in Henri Camara leading the line in 2008, their first season in the Premier League. These days, they have Peter Crouch and the very industrious but equally nifty Jon Walters. They have the very promising centre-half threesome of Shawcross, ex-league-winner Robert Huth and one-time Real Madrid player John Woodgate. That is as good a centre-half a pairing that a side like Stoke can get.

In the centre of the park, where there is a lack of a creative, ball-playing midfielder, they more than make up for that loss because of the workrate and the desire to win the second balls and be up for a scrap at all times. Glenn Whelan, one of the cleanest league players, Rory Delap, a man whose sum is greater than some of the other league pansies playing at the nouveau-riche clubs and Dean Whitehead and Wilson Palacios, versions of the Stoke engine which will irritate the living hell out of classier playmakers wanting to bypass the wall. But their main midfield threat comes from the wide areas. A classic throwback to when the football was passed around wide with wingers either running at the full back or cutting in and taking a shot. In Matthew Etherington, they have got one of England’s finest left wingers. And on the other side, they have got a consistent crosser of the football in Jermaine Pennant. These two will put in the box all day long, especially Pennant. The kind of deliveries which will be hated by the defenders.

Defenders' nightmare

When one sees managers like Arsene Wenger moaning about Stoke being a rugby team, it really depresses the football fan in you. They don’t have a Cesc Fabregas or a Robin van Persie to provide that class on the pitch. In stead, they have bull terriers who move heaven and earth to work a result in their favour. Now, why exactly is this wrong? You, Wenger, learned in economics, should know that. The means is not really important as long as the end is achieved. You want your side to play a slick, passing game. Why would you want to enforce your ideology on to other sides? And there is also much to admire about Stoke. Unlike the other bigger, but smaller than the bigger, clubs in England, they are enjoying their time in Europe and will top the group if they can avoid defeat at Besiktas this week.

A throwback to the disco era

Sometime back, when Charlton Athletic were punching above their weight in the league thanks mainly to Alan Curbishley, a lot of commentators were quick to say that any team coming up from the Championship should follow Charlton’s model to maintain its status as a Premier League. Surely that yardstick has changed to Stoke. A real battering ram at home while managing to pick up enough points away from home.

The purist may not like them. They may not really be everyone’s cup of tea. But does that mean they should be ostracised from the very society that produced them? The answer to that is a two-lettered word which starts with N and ends with O.

It’s nearly  the end of an epic saga; all over one man’s insatiable urge to locate, find and trade a priceless diamond for money; lots of money. Danny Archer is struggling for breath. He is on the phone talking to Maddy Bowen. Danny is in Sierra Leone. Maddy is in a place which is the antithesis of Sierra Leone. Maddy thinks she has a chance to rescue Danny and is pleading with him to listen to her. Danny, on the other hand, refuses the offer. He says he has no inclination to leave. He is about to die but still musters up the courage to say, “I’m exactly where I’m supposed to be”.

Ricky Ponting may not really be struggling for breath, at least literally anyway. But he is exactly where he is supposed to be at the moment: at the heart of Australia’s middle order. Orchestrator of many a turnaround, Ponting is now being asked to turnaround his own form; which has not been anywhere near acceptable for a batsman of his caliber over the last few years. But as is the norm when somebody is in a slump, the media, the public, the fans that have come to adore him, the ones who have compared his pull shot as the best thing since sliced cheese, are now calling for his head.

Big players, and Ponting is certainly one of them, don’t need stages to show their worth to the team. He creates his own stage. Like the one in 2003 World Cup final where he batted India out of the contest. The World Cup final didn’t make Ponting. The aussie veteran made “that” World Cup final his own stage.

Every great player has gone through and will continue to grow through dry patches. India’s Rahul Dravid was in a trough lower than the Mariana Trench – deepest part of the world’s largest ocean: The Pacific – last year. Yet, he has reinvented himself and is turning back the clock with some sublime knocks.

A quick look into Cricinfo’s Statsguru says that Ponting has averaged 25.44 in his last 14 Tests. Is that good enough for Ponting? No. Is that good enough for one of the greatest No. 3’s of the modern era? No, and Ponting will be the first to acknowledge that. But does this run directly mean that Ponting will have to make way for someone way younger? Fortunately, no.

Time and again statistics have played an important role into analyzing the importance of a sportsman’s contribution to a team. None more so than when the sportsman in question goes through a patch dryer than the pitch being currently used at the Wankhede stadium where India are playing West Indies in the third Test match. But Ponting brings much more to the table than just runs. Australia have always made a conscious effort to groom captains elect when current captains still had a fair time to go on their watch. Michael Clarke was the captain-in-waiting even as Ponting carved open the record books in 2007 to win that most farcical of World Cups ever played in the game. It would be such a shame if Ponting would now be asked to leave without overseeing that transition completely.

A quick look at the Australian line-up will see that Ponting is currently sandwiched between Usman Khwaja, a fledgling at this level, and Clarke, one who is still learning how to delegate, be authoritative and at the same time retain his original nickname: Pup.

In such a situation, do the media and the fans really want someone else in his place? Granted this someone will have been fully vetted by Australia’s Sheffield Shield. But Australia’s domestic scene has not been all that rosy for the last couple of years. It’s not as if they can find another Michael Hussey from amidst the plethora of domestic cricketers. Give Ponting that little leeway that you guys use when one of your own celebrated batsman or bowler go through a lean spell. That most favourite of sporting clichés, “Allow a legend to retire on his terms.” is one of the most irritating in sport. But when it comes to Ponting, it’s not yet at time. For among other reasons, he still has the diamond with him. And nobody is strong enough yet to fight for the diamond that he currently has.

He has not found his Soloman Vandy yet. He may never find him, unlike Danny, but he needs to be given a fair chance to pass on the diamond and it will be very cruel if Australia does not give him that opportunity just when they look to be coming into some sort of shape.

If that’s not enough reason, let the world enjoy a Ponting v Sachin Tendulkar debate for one last time before one, or possibly both, batsmen walk into the horizon after having passed on the burden of carrying that stone for many a year. And that series, which is due to begin in about a month’s time, will be tailor-made for someone like Ponting: he loves playing against India at Australia in the longer format.

The better side by a long distance, Spain are fully expected to give England a footballing lesson

England is going to play the reigning European and World champions in football in a week’s time. So what does the country’s press talk about? Why Spain has been so superior in the recent past? No. Why Spain have one of the best ever contemporary football teams? No. Why Vicente del Bosque was able to successfully takeover from Luis Aragones three years back and help Spain win their first ever World Cup? No.

What exactly were they talking about all week long? They were all up in arms over how FIFA were stonewalling the English FA over the Poppy issue. Was it an issue in the first place? I don’t really think so. With all due respect to the Poppy, a much better thing would have been to not make an issue out of it and just go about donating all of the match fees to the British Army (media houses did suggest this idea). The need to wear the poppy almost snowballed into a crisis. And FIFA and the English FA reached a compromise.

Coming back to the game, this sets up the philosophies of the two nations perfectly. England, still locked in prehistoric times. Spain, basking in the glory of carousel football.

Many writers have argued that England won’t really develop as a footballing force till their players start to strut their stuff in mainland Europe. While that is just a notional argument, the Spanish team has a more continental look to it. Eight players in the current La Furia Roja squad have either played in England or are playing in England. The hosts, meanwhile, have one; reserve goalkeeper Scott Carson who plies his trade in Turkey.

The importance of having a squad which has experienced playing in different countries may not be very important but among the top UEFA nations, England is consistently found wanting in exporting their players to overseas leagues. While the link between that and not beating the top sides at the International level may be arbitrary, it must be worth examining the fact, nonetheless.

I remember the Spanish journalist Guillem Balague talking about the differences in the football culture between Spain and England a few years back. Looking at the physical attributes of the English side, the Spanish FA made a decision to go for players with better ball retention skills. And has it paid off or what?

On the week when the English FA got the poppy go ahead, there was something more remarkable done behind the scenes. The opening up of a brand new football training base – St. George’s Park, a new university for English football, which will be opened next summer. For so long, critics and optimists alike have asked for a training centre to train the kids in a finishing school. St. George’s Park is expected to be a finishing school where England will hope to produce their own Andres Iniesta or a Gerard Pique, or maybe even a Cesc Fabregas – a player who is only seen as strong enough to start from the bench today.

This is not to say that England can’t produce kids from the current system. A Jack Wilshere or a Ravel Morrison will come through the system as always. But the frequency of youngsters coming through will be at a premium.

Michael Cox, prominent football journalist, had this to say about the game.

“As someone going to Wembley on Saturday, I’m perfectly happy if it’s easier for England to pull out and we can have Spain v Spain B instead.

Say, Cazorla-Fabregas-Alonso-Iniesta v Silva-Xavi-Busquets-Mata in midfield,that would be good”

That, in a nutshell, explains the outrageousness of the Spanish side. Iker Casillas made his international debut at the Old Wembley for the Spanish U15 side some 15 years ago. Now, he is set to equal Andoni Zubirarreta’s record of 126 caps. The joke, meanwhile, is that England has tried out about 126 goalkeepers in the last 16 years.

The last time these two sides met in a game, the Spanish midfield ran rings and triumphed 2-0; goals from David Villa and Fernando Llorente sealing the deal for the hosts in Seville.

Fabio Capello, the England manager, described that outing as a “step into reality”. Continuing with his dissection of the game, the Italian said:“I hope in the future we will win. We tried to play like we do usually, but the pressing Spain did to win the ball back showed they are a very good team.”

In the two years that has passed between then and now, England haven’t really gone forwards while Spain have added the ultimate football gong; The World Cup.

One expects Spain to give out a footballing lesson to England come this evening at Wembley.

All that aside, this offers both sides a chance to fix some problems before the Euros which take place in Poland/Austria in eight months’ time. At 32, Carles Puyol is not getting any younger and he cannot be expected to play 90 minutes every time he dons the Spain jersey. This will be a good time to see the talent base of the Spaniards.

Amidst all the midfield talents, one man who has gone up and down that Spain left flank has been Joan Capdevila; the man who played in all minutes of Spain’s World Cup campaign. The Benfica left back is not in the side anymore. It will be interesting to see who gets that starting place. Valencia’s Jordi Alba is in good form and has laid on important goals to compatriot Roberto Soldado and could be given first chance to cement his place.

After England’s dismal qualifying attempt four years back and their less than triumphant return in South Africa two years back, they went back to the drawing board trying to blood in more youngsters. The blooding process will continue tonight at the Wembley. It is widely expected that Manchester United’s Phil Jones will start in midfield while other hotshots like Danny Welbeck and Jack Rodwell will be hoping to use this as a launchpad to get on to that flight come June.

England’s brave and loyal John Terry – accused of racism allegations over the last fortnight – will only start from the bench while the rejuvenated Frank Lampard will be donning the captain’s armband. In the absence of Steven Gerrard, Wayne Rooney and Jack Wilshere – for different reasons – the Three Lions, and their fans, might as well have their hands on the button marked “damage limitation” for the artists of Spain might just prove a bit too much for the artisans of England.

Former Pakistan captain Salman Butt and sometimes-maverick and sometimes demure fast-bowler Mohammad Asif were found guilty at the Southwark Crown Court. (A third, Mohammad Amir, had already pleaded guilty before the case
opened). What were the trio found guilty off? The two fast-bowlers, with instructions from the captain, had accepted to bowl a couple of no-balls in a particular afternoon of a particular Test-match. Does this seem huge enough? It does not. Ironically enough, the only ones who seem worse off than before the fixing itself is the now defunct News of The World, the tabloid which broke the story.

The convicted cricketers may even argue that bowling no-balls will by no means affect the outcome of any Test match. Their guilt, which has been proved beyond reasonable doubt, is relatively small when compared to other fixing controversies that have plagued the game. But this as a judgement will be viewed as a victory for the game because it sets a deterrent for fixers, match-fixers and spot-fixers likewise.

Imagine this scenario: a cricketer wakes up this morning to the possibility of being jailed for up to seven years irrespective of whether he was a captain or the next big thing in cricket. You do something fraudulent. You are going to be jailed, mister. Now, that’s a very strong message that the jurors have sent out to the cricketing world. But it is not really possible to man every game that is happening in the world. One will have to take chances and accept that while there will be some corruption going on somewhere, in some remote corner, let’s have a system where we police the game at the highest level: ODIs, T20Is and Test matches and work our way down.

You find and catch the fixers and their agents at the highest level. Chances are the nexus and foundations break and the also-rans come out to face the law. It’s a bit like blackjack or poker in a casino at Las Vegas: You find the master, you find the card reader who is bankrupting all the casinos.

The ‘BBC 5 Radio Live’ this morning have been asking callers this question: ‘How damaged is Cricket’? A caller, with all the acquired wisdom, just said ‘Cricket is doomed’. If anything, this is the second wind that the ICC needed in its fight against corruption in cricket.

Cricket might have taken a dangerous pathway if the verdict at the Crown Court was ‘not guilty’. While it wouldn’t have lost its identity, it would have alienated itself with the die-hard fans who preach white-coloured clothing against the mindless jamboree of T20. These fans, the ones who sit in front of the television sets all day long to examine whether the cracks have widened enough on the 4^th day of a Test, are the last meaningful connects to how cricket was being watched some two to three decades back. A ‘not guilty’ verdict would have killed them for ever. Not, not because they would have stopped watching. They will go on and on. It will be because there would have been no difference between a young tearaway testing the batsmen with chin music and Shawn Michaels chin-musicing ‘The Undertaker’ at Wrestle Mania 50.

It’s natural that other games which we have come to watch over and over again – Graham Thorpe’s match-winning knock in the dark in Karachi being an example – will be examined by the ICC and its auxiliary machineries for any evidence of fixing. The chances are even if those games where faked by any parties directly involved with betting syndicates, the guilt
won’t be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. So it’s best if we all stop this knee-jerking towards ceasing to worship those matches which made cricket a pure joy to watch.

But Michael Vaughan, a writer for ‘The Telegraph’ for these days, has voiced his concerns already regarding the Karachi Test match. It was one of the most iconic images that Test cricket had produced this side of 2000
but the former English captain writes,

“For instance, go back to the Test we won against Pakistan in Karachi in December 2000. They collapsed from a strong position to leave us a small total to chase, which we did as night descended. It was a very surreal atmosphere and I remember feeling that there was something not right about it at the time. Was it just a dodgy wicket or were there other forces at play?”

A cynic would readily say that was fixed. An optimist would say Pakistan did what Pakistan does best: “Their willingness to implode has been well documented and that is exactly what happened 11 years back”. While nobody can fault Vaughan for speaking his mind on the matter because the human psyche tends to doubt rather than seeking to clarify, naysayers at this moment in time should be pushed to the background as cricket celebrates one of its most historic verdicts off the field of play.

Last year, Butt, the former Pakistan captain, in an interview to the Guardian, had said,

“In these daark days for Pakistan, cricket can lift spirits.”

Dear Mr. Butt, “In these dark days for cricket, the guilty verdict can lift spirits”.

Ian Ayre at a home game

Contrast what Shankly said to what Ayre said and one will immediately know the difference between a money-minded, post-modernist world to that of when football was a fiercely-competitive game on the park and a couple of beers and a proper debate about the game and its heroes of it.

While Liverpool fans, the ones who echo their managing director’s sentiments, might not be that wrong for wanting a separate overseas TV rights deal, the traditional top four have dominated viewership in the Middle-East and South Asia, do they really want to be part of a league which gives 100 million pounds to them and 5 million pounds to a promoted club further exacerbating the gulf (pun intended) between the rich and the poor?

Ayre, who may have been closely studying the La Liga model where clubs negotiate their own TV deals also said, “What is absolutely certain is that, with the greatest of respect to our colleagues in the Premier League, but if you’re a Bolton fan in Bolton, then you subscribe to Sky because you want to watch Bolton. Everyone gets that. Likewise, if you’re a Liverpool fan from Liverpool, you subscribe. But if you’re in Kuala Lumpur there isn’t anyone subscribing to Astro, or ESPN to watch Bolton, or if they are it’s a very small number. Whereas the large majority are subscribing because they want to watch Liverpool, Manchester United, Chelsea or Arsenal.”

That is typical snobbery from one of England’s most respected clubs, or at least a representative from one of England’s most respected clubs. Fourteen of the 20 Premier League clubs will have to say yes to Ayre’s proposal to ratify this suggestion. Rest assured, Bolton won’t be one of them.

United calls it ‘fair’

Manchester United manager Sir Alex Ferguson recently said the deal-sharing system was “fair”. Coming back to Ayre who thinks if the Premier League doesn’t follow the La Liga model of individually negotiating TV rights, the Premier League’s status quo might affect the top four. Dear Mr. Ayre, step back for a moment and think about the 14 (Tottenham and Manchester City will be able to get a sizable chunk for themselves) clubs if this was to be ratified? Won’t the overall competition of the Premier League be in jeopardy if the elite (6 of the 20) takeaway about 80% of the total money that was on offer?

While Premier League watchers might scoff at me for using the word competition – only four clubs have ever won the revamped Premier League – one just needed to watch the game between Stoke City and Manchester United the other week. It was intense, it was passionate and the “smaller club” almost beat the “bigger club”. And the likes of Stoke City, or even a Blackburn Rovers, who beat Arsenal in dramatic fashion a couple of weeks back, need their own stage, and also a bit of money to perform at the highest level.

If what Ayre is proposing does indeed get some backing, the Premier League will become poorer because of two reasons:

1) this then sets a precedent for someone like Mr. Ayre, from any one of the other four or five clubs, to voice his concerns of equally sharing the domestic TV rights and

2) more and more clubs will go the Manchester City way of finding new owners to pump in that extra bit of money which has been denied to them by the system.

The current overseas broadcast rights is worth about 1.4 billion pounds (contract from 2010-2013). Assuming the demand for the Premier League would have grown by the time 2013 comes around, let us assume the value would be about 2 billion pounds. And the top six, negotiating separately, would be able to access about 1.8 billion pounds for a subsequent three year period.

To just put up a few numbers, that would mean a Manchester United being able to negotiate a 300 million pound contract with an overseas broadcaster for the three year period in question (from 2013-2016) while the likes of Bolton would be able to generate a revenue of say 30 million pound for the same three year period in question. To just put those numbers into perspective, Manchester United just needs to cover 10 meters while Bolton would have to run the whole 100 meters in a sprint.

Why the comparison to Spain doesn’t bear fruit

Just how many of this does Ian Ayre want?

Granted Barcelona has won the Champions League more times in the last decade than all the English clubs put together. But how much of the separate TV rights eventually helped them in winning it? You are arguably looking at the best club side in history since Arrigo Sacchi’s AC Milan. Not a bunch of individuals who have been bought for vast amounts of money from all corners of the world.

The league’s third placed over the last couple of campaigns – Valencia – are doing well in spite of selling their biggest stars over the last two-three campaigns. And the difference between them and top two is so huge at this point in time.

Conventional wisdom, and a passing knowledge, states that Real Madrid are one of the world’s best club. While the foundation was based on a few men, it has managed to stand the test of time. But they haven’t been having a say in trophies, both in Spain as well as in Europe, for quite some time now. Even after individually negotiating the TV rights. It’s just a highway to give clubs more money, there’s no guarantee that it would anyway stop superior football teams from outplaying the inferior but far-rich football teams. So Ayre might have just come out and said he wants Liverpool to “earn” more money, rather than sprouting bollocks about how this jeopardizes the Premier League’s elite, when compared to Spain’s elite.

A better way for Liverpool to address the current imbalance would be to either build a new stadium or stop buying mediocre players for about 35 million pounds. And also get back into Europe.