|
|
|
|
 |
 |
  |
Frailties
of giants Pakistan
vs Bangladesh Why India needs to push cricket more
Frailties of giants By Zain Qureshi The UEFA Champions
League 2011-12 has moved on from the group stages to the knockout
rounds, leaving a few clubs notable by their exclusion. Two of the
bigger names in that regard are the Manchester Neighbours, United and
City. United saw their hopes
of qualifying for the knockout stage eliminated in a shocking defeat to
minnows FC Basel of Switzerland, while City’s past performances came
back to haunt them as their hopes were dashed despite a last match win
against Bayern Munich, as Napoli’s win over Villarreal took the
Italian side above City in their group. Ironically enough, and as a just
testament to consistency in early performance, Bayern qualified despite
their loss to City. The reasons for the failure of both teams are at the
same time both different and similar. Let us begin with a
look at Manchester City. Having won their first silverware in a long
time last season, the FA Cup, en route to which they trounced their
local rivals, City were looking forward to a return to the European top
flight after decades out in the cold. This is also what was ordered by
the Etihad group who recently acquired the club. The problem with the
squad City have assembled at great expense is that it does not possess
enough Champions League experience to contend with the variety of
competitors that the tournament offers. While this may sound like a
sheepish excuse, there is much to it. Take, for example, the two teams
to qualify from City’s group, Bayern and Napoli. Bayern are a European
powerhouse, having played their part in many of the moments that make up
the romantic lore of the competition. Napoli, while not an equal giant
in terms of pedigree, have proven themselves more than capable of
handling more superior teams in the form of AC Milan and Inter, and were
busy making waves in the Europa League before finally earning a deserved
place in the Champions League. Bayern serve up a
style of play where they look to control possession in midfield, and
quickly switch from a slow build up as they enter their opponent’s
half to quick passing as they get nearer to the opposition penalty area.
When defending, they do so in numbers, again by looking to choke out the
midfield. Possessed of ample pace on either wing and with a mix of guile
and strength, the German side are capable of presenting a mix of
problems to their opponents. Napoli, generally, and particularly in
their two matches against City, gave what would be called a ‘very
European’ performance in how they absorbed City’s forays towards
their penalty area and caught the Manchester side out on the counter
attack. The aspects presented here can be summed up as different
tactics, and that is precisely what City lacked. One of the more
consistent aspects of Mancini’s managerial career has been his
weakness in Europe, and that has been evident again this term, as City,
who are perched comfortably at the top of the Premier League, failed to
make it out of the group stages. The methods employed in the Premier
League cannot be transferred onto the European stage wholesale, and this
was found out by both City and their neighbours, Manchester United. United ended last
season’s Champions League with a somewhat predictable defeat to
Barcelona in the final. This campaign, they found themselves in a draw
which could have been handpicked by Sir Alex Ferguson, pitting a side
who reached three out of the last four Champions League finals against
Basel, Galati and Benfica. A club of United’s calibre would have
considered being even second in this group as insulting, and justifiably
so. However, to not qualify at all is simply disgraceful. It is one
thing to lose to an all-conquering Barcelona side in a Champions League
final and quite another to not make it past FC Basel at the group
stages. The only two wins scored by United were against the group’s
whipping boys, Romanian side Otelul Galati, who lost all their matches.
Basel secured a draw at Old Trafford before kicking their far more
illustrious rivals out of the tournament in the match in Switzerland. United have undergone
a major restructuring of their squad this season, and their
performances, barring some difficulties in the last few games, have been
full of energy and attacking flair. However, what United’s
swashbuckling attacking displays have masked is a defensive frailty not
seen in an Old Trafford side for a long time. With the continuing
decline of Rio Ferdinand and the recurring injuries to Nemanja Vidic,
the task of leading a youthful United defensive line fell to Patrice
Evra, who himself has gone missing all too often this season. This idea
of squad deficiency develops further when one considers that while they
have plenty of able ball winners in the middle of the pitch, United’s
creativity is left entirely to the wings, namely to Nani and Ashley
Young, with Rooney providing what sparks of genius he can around the
penalty area. United’s aura of
dominance and their reckless abandon going forward has been rewarded
well enough in domestic competitions, but the Champions League has a
tendency of turning minor omissions into glaring deficiencies, and so
the United back line was exposed when they needed to hold on against
Basel in Switzerland. City and United will
find themselves busy on Thursday evenings now with Europa League
football. However, one does wonder what importance will be placed on a
tournament which United’s Patrice Evra considers embarrassing to be a
part of. Both clubs have the Premier League and FA Cup to contest, and
it will not be at all surprising if more emphasis is placed on their
domestic responsibilities, particularly in regards to trumping each
other, than of taking on the elite of Europe. City will want to prove
that they can muscle in on United’s turf by winning the Premier
League, while Sir Alex and co. will be looking to prevent exactly that. zainhq@gmail.com
Pakistan
vs Bangladesh Pakistan won the
one-day series against Bangladesh for the fourth consecutive time.
Pakistan have won 28 out of 29 One-day Internationals played against
Bangladesh. The only loss came in the 1999 World Cup. The low scoring
one-day series went to bowlers as spinners dominated every game. Except
Umar Gul, seven bowlers who took four or more wickets in the three-match
series were spinners. Bangladesh’s Nasir
Hossain remained the most successful batsman of the ODI series with 124
runs with an average of 41.33 with the help of one hundred.
Man-of-the-Series Umar Akmal was just one run behind him with an average
of 41, including two fifties. In the bowling
department, allrounder Mohammed Hafeez improved his performance after
every match and emerged as the most successful bowler of the series with
6 wickets which he got at an average of just 8.16 and an unbelievable
economy rate of 1.96. Hafeez’s
extra-ordinary bowling performance pushed him to the second position in
the ICC ODI bowlers ranking after another Pakistani off-spinner Saeed
Ajmal. With some good performances in batting as well, he overtook Shane
Watson to reach the second position in the one-day allrounders’ list.
Now Hafeez is just 13 ratings points behind leader Shakib Al Hasan of
Bangladesh. During the series Mohammad Hafeez also became only the third
player to achieve 1,000 runs and 30 wickets in a calendar year. Sanath
Jayasuriya managed this feat in 1997 and Jacques Kallis in 2000 and
2002. Rubel Hossain, Shakib
Al Hasan and Abdur Razzak took four wickets each with the averages of
20.25, 22.50 and 23.50, respectively. Now a few things about
the history of Test cricket between the two sides. So far only six
matches have been played between the two countries, all of which went to
Pakistan. The first was played
in August 2001 in Multan, which Pakistan won by a huge margin of an
innings and 264 runs. The last Test was also played in Multan in
September 2003. It was the most exciting Test between the two countries,
which the hosts finally won by one wicket thanks to a fighting 138 not
out by skipper Inzamamul Haq. Habibul Bashar has
been the most successful batsman in the Test matches played between the
two countries with 554 runs in six Tests at an average of 50.36. For
Pakistan Muhammad Yousuf scored 503 runs in five matches with a massive
average of 251.50. Leg-spinner Danish
Kaneria has taken 34 wickets in five matches against Bangladesh at an
average of 16.41. Mohammad Rafique remains the highest wicket-taker with
17 wickets against Pakistan, averaging 23.82 in six Test matches. Pakistan’s 546-3 is
the highest innings total between the two countries, which was scored in
the first Test at Multan. Bangladesh made its best total of 361 at
Peshawar in 2003. Bangladesh’s 96 runs
in 2003 at Peshawar is its lowest total, while Pakistan’s lowest total
is 175 in 2003 at Multan. khurrams87@yahoo.com
Why
India needs to push cricket more Powered thus far by a
seemingly insatiable consumer and a buoyant economy, Indian cricket
might just be headed for a little bit of turbulence. Television ratings
are down, stadiums aren’t as full as before, the social media are
giving voice to unrest at the way the game is being offered, and
television companies are cutting costs. The cricket world must hope that
all will be well again soon, and that possessing a ticket to a big game
will again be seen as a status symbol. To be fair there is no
challenger to cricket in sight, not yet, but this was supposed to be the
bumper year for fans and television networks. In the space of 12 months,
India were to host the World Cup, the IPL, travel to England and finally
to Australia. Outside of India v Pakistan, those are the four biggest
events in Indian cricket. But if it didn’t turn out to be the year it
was meant to be, it was because, apart from all those, fans also had the
Champions League, two series against West Indies, and a set of one-day
games against England. There was biryani on offer but there was too much
of it. Meanwhile football
grows in popularity every day, and while the numbers aren’t
challenging cricket yet, they are notching up impressive growth. Formula
1 was accepted with great excitement and there is a hockey league in the
pipeline that deserves to be successful — if not for anything else, to
remind arrogant officials that an alternative exists. Marketers, though,
are looking beyond, at what engages today’s youth, and social media
and music are emerging as pretty likeable pastimes. Cricket cannot
exist, and proclaim itself to be unchallenged, in the narrow definition
of sport; it must reign in the wider world of entertainment. The
Economic Times this week did a lead feature on alternatives to cricket;
at lower price points, it seems marketers are willing to buy into them. This is not meant to
be an obituary, just a wake-up call. A reminder that seemingly
unchallenged product categories and brands can suddenly be threatened.
Kodachrome is gone, Nokia has been to the brink, and American Airlines
is threatened. The euro is being looked at anew, countries are mulling
their existences, and the 140-character statement is rampant. The owners
of cricket need to be vigilant too, need to constantly review their
product offering for relevance and quantity. And be ready for the
inevitable dip in viewership once Sachin Tendulkar retires. It means the game
needs to be marketed in India. Only the IPL did that in recent times,
reaching out to people and offering an entertainment package. The BCCI
needs to be aware that coming to stadiums is currently a cumbersome
process for spectators, and television companies will have to be careful
to see that the telecasts they produce are the best possible. We sat on
concrete steps once, five sitting where three were meant to, and
didn’t complain. The younger
generation, the current custodians of the game, aren’t going to be as
patient. And they shouldn’t have to be. Already the Test
championship is gone, not because the ICC is insensitive but because it
didn’t justify the rights amount attached to it. It was a shootout
with a one-day tournament and the Test championship lost. It is unlikely
the next set of ICC rights will attract the kind of numbers that exist
now, and the latest television rights to cricket in India showed no
increase over the earlier set. It has implications for the development
of the game in other parts of the world. We are seeing, too,
the first signs of the prioritisation of the game along commercial
lines. India go to England again in three rather than four years, to
play five rather than four Tests. Australia have revived the tri-series
because with India around, non-home games still have some interest. But
the numbers will be watched closely. India v England didn’t get the
audiences it was meant to, and that is why Australia v India will be a
huge test. If viewership is low, it will be further proof that even
marquee series are now being affected. But the bigger test will be the
IPL. Advertisers love it because it gives uniform viewership figures,
but advertisers can only love it if the public does. If India’s cricket
lovers show reduced interest in these prime properties, the BCCI will
have to start doing something it has never had to do before: take the
game to the public and sell it to them. Hopefully they will
realise that people need to look forward to a feast, not be offered it
every day; that people must say, “Wow, biryani”, not “Biryani
again?” – Cricinfo
|
|
