The devil of small things.

The makeshift commentator idled away: “Thank You Umpire!” Seemed like a long time anyone, leave alone a commentator, had thanked an umpire – that too for signaling a wide ball. But this was an inter-school cricket match at St Paul’s, and there was a tad more bonhomie than in that 2007-08 India-Australia test series, Down Under.

Of course, this was only a Ten10 tournament – and any way you look at it, ten-over a side games will generate far less friction than locking adversaries in for five days. And once they become sworn enemies, is there any point in playing – that too, twice a year, as if the annual reports of their cricket boards cannot be inked without their blood. No thank you, I’ll pass.

Meanwhile, Commentatorji was wired to a white-noised neta’s loudspeaker, and rambling repeated thanks to the umpire – while I was sucked to the backroom’s rear window. Suddenly another classic film title rolled past, and mine was a room with a view. Not quite Hitchcock, but the batsmen were going for the kill.

Still, I approved of the overtly conservative field placements – there wasn’t one but two third-man positions. Can’t fathom why most captains are dead against a third man - Is it because the cheap ticket holders hang around there? Mind you, right now I was the only crowd behind third man; almost like pole position, literally, or hanging Mirinda manlike from a billboard, only more secure.

In spite of me, the cheap ticket non-holder, the third man fielders weren’t budging. Not even when the ball zipped past. Reckon that’s why the wicket keeper was standing way back to tiny tot’s out-swingers – a new cherry can do amazing things, even when placed in a little hand. Even from a distance, I half expected a Sachin Tendulkar uppercut.

But the batsman (boy?) was more intent square off the wicket – and as the cheerleaders and their followers were all stationed there, you can safely say, like Sehwag, he was playing to the galleries. And naturally to the gallows!

But no matter what, the watching school kids remained unmoved, like mute spectators– almost akin to an India-Australia World Cup final in neutral, non-cricketing Switzerland.

Thanks to the commentator, it dawned on me this wasn’t because of any eviction notice or stringent spectator code, but the playing teams were both from outside. Is that the way forward – no home series to secure best behaviour? But then, is there a corner in the world that the “Bharat Army” or the “Invincibles” won’t go to – Tierra del Feugo, here we come! Falklands, here we go!

Meanwhile, the commentator thanked the Umpire for signaling a no ball. Next, a wicket fell, and all hell broke loose. You’d be forgiven for thinking Harbhajan Singh had knocked Rickie Ponting over again. Or Australia had just won No. 16, the Sydney test. Frankly, if you play cricket, a big wicket always warrants a big celebration. No matter how small you are. Though somehow, in front of these school kids, the players in that 2007-08 India-Australia test series, Down Under, seemed a lot smaller. And no matter what, I just can’t get that bad taste out of my mouth. They were to me, to warp a phrase, the devil of small things.

For the entire series of "Rear Window & Room with a View" pictures click here

One Day in 2011.

It took a Sydney soap opera to crack the cast for Perth. That old adage, “don’t change a winning team” also works well when reversed – so, India changed it’s losing team, and thank heavens, rather, thank hell for that. For, had India drawn that game (if that’s what it was), they might have persisted with Rahul Dravid on top and Yuvraj Singh in the middle. Even though by then Yuvraj looked he’d rather be anywhere than in the middle. But then, Dravid didn’t look too different a few games back; and it’s rash to write off class on the basis of a few no shows.

Wherein lies the problem with Indian cricket, and the different directions it moves in – each negating the other. Trust, this is a time to cherish a remarkable win at Perth, but it’s also worth looking at a strange sequence of events.

Makes one wonder - did the Perth victory happen by default? How does India lose by over three hundred runs in Melbourne and then rise like a perky Phoenix in Perth – in the space of a few weeks? Did new coach, Garry Kirsten chant a secret mantra in Afrikaans? Or did better sense prevail?

On what basis did Virender Sehwag make it Down Under? Nearly as confusing as why he was dropped from the test team in the first place? Sehwag’s exclusion and subsequent inclusion highlights the freakiness of Indian cricket. Are the vague links between ODI, test and Twenty20 form being used to manipulate players? Often a bad run in one-dayers can cost a player his test slot – and vice versa.

When Sehwag exited, Saurav Ganguly returned to his good old top spot. Goes to show what that opening spot in one-day cricket is worth: is that why Tendulkar resisted going down the order against Chappell’s wishes? Now, in spite of scoring over 1200 runs at an average of 44, Ganguly has been dropped from the one-day team. And not rested, as is often the case –like after the World Cup debacle.

While the opening slot has as many as five takers for the upcoming one-day tri-series: Sachin Tendulkar, Virender Sehwag, Gautam Gambhir, Robin Uthappa and even Dinesh Karthik; until the Sydney test, India could not even muster two full-time openers. Instead they set free some fresh demons on an already dreary Dravid.

Two tests too late, India resorted to its only other tried and tested opener, Sehwag. One can argue that Sehwag should not have been in Australia, but not to play him once there, was foolish beyond words.

Into the Perth test, along with Sehwag came another ex star player – Irfan Pathan. And if Sehwag’s story is surreal, then Pathan’s is downright weird. Both pre ‘n’ post the World Cup (ODI) it was alleged that Pathan was either not fully fit or on the verge of regaining his old bowling form – he did not play many, if any games during this time to prove match fitness or form. However, he continued to tour with the team – as in the ODI World Cup, where he was a sprightly spectator.

A far cry from the Karachi hat-trick and the Multan triple century, these two erstwhile supermen of Indian cricket were seemingly powerless – but who was using kryptonite on them is still not known?

Both Sehwag and Pathan missed the England and Pakistan series – made it to the Twenty20 World Cup, and then the flight to Australia. In Perth, they both took flight.

In the absence of Sehwag and Pathan, India’s one-day team lost to an average English team, was thrashed by Australia at home, but won against a below par Pakistani team It’s worth noting that Saurav Ganguly played in these series, scored plenty, but at a modest strike rate – 73 per hundred balls for 2007.

While 73 is level with Ganguly’s career strike rate, the one-day game with the advent of T20, is now being played with even greater frenzy. Scores of over 200 are gettable in T20, and totals in excess of 400 are being overhauled in ODIs.

Both Ganguly and Dravid score heavily, yet strike in the early 70s. Where as Sachin Tendulkar’s prolific scores come at a career strike rate above 85. Doubtless, it’s a bitter pill to swallow for ardent Ganguly and Dravid fans, and a large section of the reactionary media, but the time is ripe, yet again (it was once before when Ganguly was reinstated) – to decide on who’s in, who’s out.

Whether the selectors have shot themselves in the foot or the arm, it’s too early to say – but if it’s time for the Uthappas, Rainas, Sharmas, Gambhirs, then they should be given a fair run. For without that, it will only be a case of one bad series, and back to the usual suspects.

It helps if there is clarity between the selectors and the senior players. Because if India’s one-day team is earnestly looking beyond them, these players should be informed in no uncertain terms that the agenda is the 2011 World Cup, and they do not figure in it. That of course, in no way undermines their standing as world-class test players. If VVS Laxman and Anil Kumble can play exclusively tests, then pray, why can’t Ganguly and Dravid? By sending an unequivocal message, the seniors too would know that it’s time to move on. And won’t try to win the selectors’ nod through out of character dare devil cameos in test matches – like Rahul Dravid in the recent Indo-Pak test series.

Of course, as always cricket has a way of making the selectors look silly – and don’t be surprised if Dada, Jammie or VVS play an innings at Adelaide that demands they be picked for the tri-series.

In such a case, regardless of the media pressure, the selectors should stick to their guns, and back MS Dhoni’s team. What it achieves remains to be seen. But there will be considerable clarity, one day in 2011. Over to the next World Cup, folks!

Cricket for Dummies!

“Hindi Cheeni Bhai Bhai!” When that last echoed, a war was waged on the unsuspecting people of India. And now: an unwritten gentleman’s agreement between the Australian and Indian cricket captains before the start of the test series down under. The outcome may not have been quite “Made in China”, yet it was suitably cheap. However, for once, there are no takers in India. After the blatant betrayal of the Sydney test, doubt many Indians will ever trust an Australian - on or off a cricket field.

Call it stereotyping, call it a chain reaction, call it racism, but one doubts any Indian, or Australian for that matter, is going to call it quits in a hurry. Today we condemn cricket’s “gentlemanly” crooks: who suffer from a public school hangover that prompts them to tell-to-sir! Sadly, the latest developments could spawn a whole new breed of cricket hooligans – more akin to football hooligans. When the fights take to the stands, streets and rear their ugly head like Zidane on the field. What then?

How will a sixty one year old, who cannot hear heavy nicks but sees invisible edges cope – or hope to control enraged cricketers? Is it any wonder that Steve Bucknor ceased to umpire, in his earlier avatar as a FIFA referee because the age limit was lowered to forty-five. What then must the age limit for international cricket umpires be – Bucknor’s age minus how many years? How long back did Bucknor allow his prejudices to creep into the decision making process? When did “Slow Death”, as he’s often called, decide to give India the kiss of death?

And when exactly did the Australian machine start to steamroll umpires with the perfect ten Nadia like appeal routine? But then, they’re hardly appeals. More like crazed celebrations. That cocksure they are. And when their certainty is disturbed, they too are disturbed. And it’s down to anything for that record equaling sixteenth win – shudder to think what they’ll do to break the record.

There’s no denying that Bucknor’s role, in cahoots with the other erring umpire, Mark Benson, is significant in the India-Australia impasse. Swept by the Aussie juggernaut, they too laid siege on India. First it was woeful umpiring – but soon it became bad man-management and a communication breakdown. Third umpires were made redundant. Though when used they were still redundant. Any coincidence the third umpire who gave Andrew Symonds not out (when successfully stumped by M.S. Dhoni) was Australian. Though not as Aussie as the Jamaican, Bucknor and the English, Benson.

South African match referee, Mike Proctor’s conviction of Harbhajan Singh for an alleged racist remark (that wasn’t captured by umpire or camera or microphone) was the skunk poo icing on an already stinking test match. And regardless of which way Bhajji’s counter-appeal goes, the series is already lost in more ways than one. Perhaps the only way to salvage anything from here would be to head back home. Reckon at times what’s broken cannot be mended.

It’s tough to say what our stoic skipper may be feeling – think Jawaharlal Nehru, a few decades back when he was informed of the Chinese invasion. Almost a sense of irony when Anil Kumble says it’s just a game. For, a game it ceased to be a long time back. If you want out or watch from afar, then it might still be a game. If you play or follow cricket with even a remote sense of purpose or intensity, then sir, you know, as well as Anil Bhai does, this is no game. Cricket as we know it today, is indefinable. And inflammable. And as we speak, the media, the players, the two nations feed the flames. And as you read this, you too feed the flames.

It’s obvious now, that the very warped nature of its inheritance, its so-called pseudo good manners are choking cricket. The archaic comparisons with a bygone era, when television didn’t expose players or parade umpires as morons, is strangling cricket. It will continue to do so, unless we give in – to either the past or the future. And though it’s more than likely that cricket will eventually lose some of its charm and quirks, it will resurface as a more agreeable game. Though definitely as one with a lesser I.Q. Welcome to cricket for dummies. A punter’s delight!