Kartikeya Date
The Gayle affair underlines that cricket is a boys club
The saga and its aftermath provide an indictment of the marginalisation of women in cricket broadcasting
Kartikeya Date
08-Jan-2016
A few days ago Chris Gayle decided, in his wisdom, that a live television interview at the Big Bash League was an appropriate place to make a crude, clumsy attempt to flirt with Mel McLaughlin, a television reporter working for the broadcaster Channel Ten. It made for extremely uncomfortable television. Gayle demonstrated contempt not only for his own position as a professional sportsman but also for the professional role of McLaughlin, who is an Australian television presenter specialising in sports programmes.
It was a poor advertisement for the BBL, which has been systematically trying to build an audience among female viewers. The condemnation from the authorities was swift, if ultimately toothless. Gayle will not be thrown out of the 2015-16 tournament. He will not even miss a single game. Gayle, who is one of the highest-earning international stars in the BBL has been fined A$10,000, and will have to serve the penance of no longer being "miked up" during games.
At first, McLaughlin's employer publicised the interview with Gayle on their Twitter feed with the hashtag #smooth. They deleted this tweet shortly after. Later, they tweeted: "Well played to our very own @Mel_Mclaughlin for staying professional during the interview. What a pro." Their head of sport, David Barham, then said, "We won't be using [Gayle] in the game [broadcast] anymore. Unless things change in the next few days, it's not happening. It was totally inappropriate behaviour. Mel's a working journalist doing a job." A few minutes after the interview, a commentator on Ten, Mark Howard, said: "It must be pointed out that Mel is a wonderful, professional, informed sports broadcaster and a valued member of Network Ten, and on reflection, I don't think that's appropriate for what's required in that format… Chris is an entertainer and he's a joker, but I think he probably went a bit too far there. I hope we don't see any of it again, and Mel will be back for her next interview, prepared and ready to go as she always is."
Full postThe curious case of Miandad's lbw rates
Possible umpiring bias alone does not adequately explain why he was dismissed lbw in Pakistan much less than he was outside the country
Kartikeya Date
18-Dec-2015
A leg-before decision depends inescapably on the umpire making a judgement about something that does not take place. To answer an lbw appeal, apart from a few other things, the umpire has to answer the question: "Would the ball have hit the stumps if the batsman's body was not in the way?" Under the DRS, lbws are the most commonly disputed mode of dismissal.
In the 1980s, on the eve of the advent of the neutral, ICC-appointed Test umpire, cricket faced similar controversies. Visiting teams invariably complained that the home umpires tended to rule disproportionately against them. In both India and Pakistan, these complaints were loud and persistent. It was said that it was nearly impossible to get Pakistani batsmen (especially Javed Miandad) out lbw in Pakistan. The same went for Sunil Gavaskar and other Indian batsmen in India. As it turns out, the reality, as suggested by match records, is stranger than one might suspect.
Gavaskar and Miandad were both great players who built fantastic home and away records. Each played over 100 Tests and scored more than 8500 Test runs.
Full postWhat does the way we criticise cricketers say about us?
In India, it is common for followers to heap abuse on players when they disappoint expectations. It paints a damning picture of the so-called fans of the game
Kartikeya Date
20-Nov-2015
Earlier this month India and South Africa met on Mohali's tired wicket in a fast-paced Test in which both sides appeared to suffer fatal setbacks multiple times. On social media, reactions came swiftly. As India collapsed in the first innings, many said that losing wickets the way India did was "criminal". As the game progressed and India collapsed to 200 all out in the hour after lunch on the third day, there was talk of "pathetic" batting.
Mohali was not an aberration. Casual viciousness of this kind is an inescapable part of being a cricket fan, particularly on the subcontinent, unless one is willing to lock oneself in a room and not discuss the game with anybody else.
What does it say about us that we apply such terms to what we see? The response I receive most frequently is that this is "common usage". The argument seems to be that calling some of the outcomes players produce "pathetic" or "spineless" or "gutless" is fine because it is common. Further, since it is common, it must be harmless.
Full postHow the government can help solve Indian cricket's problems
The government ought to consider giving the BCCI legal recognition as a regulatory body responsible for cricket in India, in return for the board giving up ownership of the IPL
Kartikeya Date
24-Oct-2015
Cricket is in turmoil. It is beset by allegations of corruption on and off the field. As a commodity it is more profitable than ever before, while as an international sport it is under greater threat than ever before. The state of cricket today is eerily similar in some significant respects to the state of baseball 100 years ago.
Much like cricket today, a century ago, major league baseball's popularity had made it a lucrative investment opportunity for rich magnates with cash to spare. The Federal Baseball League, set up with investment from hotels, coal, beer, oil and baked-goods barons, competed for players and audiences with the two established leagues - the American League and the National League. The established leagues fought back by threatening players who were considering Federal league offers and raised their salaries, forcing the Federal league to raise wages in its turn. The Federal League eventually only attracted a few major league players who were at the end of their careers; their audiences were not as large as expected; and their capital investments in building stadiums resulted in precarious finances.
The Federal League sued the big leagues in a federal court in Chicago, alleging violation of anti-trust laws. The judge who heard the case, Kenesaw Mountain Landis, had a reputation as a trust-buster and was expected to be sympathetic to the new league's case. For almost a year, however, Landis refused to rule on the Federal Baseball League's case. Soon the league's finances collapsed. It folded, and the lawsuit in Judge Landis' court was rendered moot.
Full postHow much does captaincy really matter?
Not a lot: a quality team with a nondescript captain would win more than a bad team with a good captain
Kartikeya Date
30-Sep-2015
How often have you heard "captaincy" being applauded by professional observers? "Great captaincy", they say. Or "lacklustre captaincy". Mahendra Singh Dhoni has experience of both types of criticism.
The entire concept is bogus. Have you ever heard of a captain being criticised when his team wins? Or have you heard it said, "We saw some superb captaincy from Clarke today but Australia were just not good enough"? No, when Australia lose, it is the other captain who did well. More consequentially, can you think of a good captain of an inferior team beating a better side purely because of captaincy?
Captaincy seems to be a concept by writers for writers. It exists not because cricket is played but because cricket is written about and argued about. There is a difference between noting the mere existence of a captain as the person who decides bowling changes and field settings, and captaincy as a full-fledged art consequential to the game. It is the latter that is bogus. Every time a captain puts a third slip in and a catch goes there, it doesn't amount to "great captaincy". Since a field is set every over, it's just one choice that worked, among many dozens of choices that didn't.
Full postWere Indian batsmen of earlier eras better against spin?
Quality spinners have always thrived in India, so it may not be fair to suggest that the current generation of Indian batsmen is inferior
Kartikeya Date
02-Sep-2015
Whenever an overseas spinner takes wickets against India, we hear endless dissections of the reasons why India's batsmen are weak against spin bowling today, but weren't so before. I remember reading about this back in 1999 when Saqlain Mushtaq took two consecutive ten-wicket hauls. Sri Lanka's thrilling win in Galle thanks to the indomitable Rangana Herath is the latest such episode. But is the underlying premise that Indian batsmen from earlier eras played spin better really true?
It's unlikely that any batting line-up will regularly make 400 against good spinners on a turning wicket. A spinner with basic control of length and the ability to get decent dip and turn on helpful pitches, with Test-quality close catchers, should expect a good return.
The top four spin bowlers (by wickets taken) against India in Test cricket are Muttiah Muralitharan, Lance Gibbs, Derek Underwood and Richie Benaud. Murali needs no introduction. Gibbs was the first spinner in Test history to take 300 wickets and for a time was the most prolific wicket-taker in Test cricket. Underwood took 297 Test wickets and 2465 first-class ones. And Benaud was probably the best orthodox legspinner in the world during his time.
Full postWhy slow-scoring sessions are exciting
It's precisely the lack of runs that makes them good to watch, because it means the bowlers are challenging the batsmen
Kartikeya Date
11-Aug-2015
"It's been a gripping session of play, even though we saw only 50 runs and two wickets in 28 overs of play." If you read match reports as often as I do, you will often come across statements like this. This method of observing cricket bothers me. The idea that quicker scoring generally means better, more interesting cricket comes from the increasing dominance of limited-overs cricket.
In limited-overs cricket it is probably true that quicker scoring means better cricket. There are asking rates at the beginning of chases and required rates during chases, so quicker scoring is, quite literally, better for the chasing side. It follows that the scoring rate also matters to the fielding side. The game is fairly simple. Get as many runs as you can in a given number of overs and prevent the other side from getting one run more than you did in the same number of overs.
In long-form cricket, the scoring rate is a symptom of the contest, not the goal of the contest. Whatever Steve Waugh might have said about scoring at four an over, scoring at 3.8 an over would not have broken any rules, nor would it have made Australia's position in a match any worse. Under Waugh, Australia not only had terrific bowlers who ensured that the side rarely batted against big totals in the first innings (and thereforewith a deficit in the second), but also brilliant, free-scoring batsmen right down the order. Only Waugh and Justin Langer could be described as conservative players with a limited favoured scoring area. But it is the match situation that is arguably the central determinant of the scoring rate.
Full postThe bat-first advantage in the Powerplay era
The batting Powerplay might be history, but it's worth reviewing how those restrictions loaded the odds in favour of batsmen batting late in the first innings of ODIs
Kartikeya Date
21-Jul-2015
Beyond much dispute, AB de Villiers (strike rate 112, average 64) has been the best limited-overs player in the world since the ODI rules were changed in late October 2012. But there is a peculiarity in his record. Here are some scores he made in unsuccessful chases since November 1, 2012: 80 in 76 against Australia in Perth, 70 in 71 against India in Cardiff, 77 in 58 and 74 in 45 against Pakistan in Port Elizabeth and Auckland respectively, 52 in 34 against Australia in Canberra, 51 in 51 against Sri Lanka in Colombo. In 19 run chases, de Villiers made one century and nine half-centuries - an astonishing return, but South Africa lost 13 of those 19 games.
Of the ten times that de Villiers reached 50 in chases, he was dismissed before reaching a century six times. On three other occasions he scored at a run a ball or less and remained undefeated. South Africa lost every single time when he was dismissed between 50 and 100. In the first innings, he reached 50 on 14 occasions, and converted these innings to centuries six times - often in spectacular fashion.
It could be argued that this is a glitch in his record - this weakness in the chase where his judgement failed him often enough for him to be dismissed with his team short of victory.
Full postBrendon McCullum and the algebra of batting risk
Traditionally, batsmen have found the best way to score runs is to take time to settle in and minimise risks early on. The New Zealand captain does otherwise
Kartikeya Date
11-Jun-2015
The batting average for a player contains within it the sum total of every factor imaginable - the quality of the bowling, the match situation, the condition of the pitch, the quality of the other batsmen, luck, the batsman's form, and so on. The reason records over a career are meaningful is that the influence of extreme individual occurrences on the overall record is minimised. This is a rough description of the law of large numbers.
As a measurement, though, the batting average presents obvious problems. Consider five innings - 0, 0, 0, 0, 100* - four dismissals, 100 runs, average 25. Consider another set of five innings - 19, 17, 20*, 24, 20 - four dismissals, 100 runs. You might say that the first group of five scores is unlikely, and you would be right. 0, 3, 11, 4 and 82* are perhaps more realistic numbers. A score of 81 is more likely to prevent defeat than a score of 24. The following chart briefly illustrates this idea. It shows how often scores in a given range (shown on the vertical axis) occur in wins, losses and draws or ties.
Full postMaking a 14-team World Cup work: a second look
Does a points system that takes into account the margin of victory involve too much math?
Kartikeya Date
07-May-2015
Recently, I proposed a format for a 14-team World Cup. The proposal was driven by two compulsions:
1. To ensure that literally every ball mattered.
2. To ensure that every team had a chance to give a fair account of themselves, and to make sure that one bad day did not result in a team being eliminated, while retaining the requirement that the eventual winner must successfully navigate knockout games.
2. To ensure that every team had a chance to give a fair account of themselves, and to make sure that one bad day did not result in a team being eliminated, while retaining the requirement that the eventual winner must successfully navigate knockout games.
The format achieved the first through the Performance Per Ball (PPB) system, which enables margin of victory to be measured. The format achieved the second goal with an expanded version of the Eliminator/Qualifier system used in the IPL. I've identified three broad points of criticism from readers:
Full post
Terms of Use|Privacy Policy|Your US State Privacy Rights|Children's Online Privacy Policy|Interest - Based Ads|Do Not Sell or Share My Personal Information|Feedback
© 2024 ESPN Sports Media Ltd. All rights reserved