Short Jabs Cricket Podcast: Episode 5 (Download)
Guests: Hassan Cheema, SidVee, Shrikant
[Click on the links to jump to the segments right away]
Welcome to the Short Jabs cricket podcast. In this episode, Hassan Cheema reports from South Africa on the Pakistan Test series, SidVee discusses the significance of the recent launch of two new cricket writing platforms, and Homer tells us about the apathy Indian fans endure from cricket administrations as well as the media in “what’s bothering ’em now.
—
—
Subash Jayaraman: Welcome to Short Jabs, Hassan. Thanks for being here.
You quit your job in Singapore, and have travelled to South Africa for covering the Pakistan-South Africa series, haven’t you?
Hassan Cheema: Yeah. That is what I’m doing right now. The plan was supposed to be more clear than that, but so far so good.
SJ: What’s the motivation behind it?
HC: Basically, I was planning on getting in to this field anyway and I had talked to Osman Samiuddin back in February (2012) and I had email conversations with him over the next couple of months on whether I should be doing this, how should I do it, and stuff like that. He advised me through most of this. As you said, I had worked in Singapore for 2.5 years and I had a little bit of savings and there wasn’t anything better do with that savings than this. I plan to spend half of that during this trip – might spend a bit more. South Africa seemed like the perfect opportunity, and so I decided to pack my bags and fly over to South Africa hoping for the best I suppose.
SJ: Fantastic. How has your experiences in South Africa been so far?
HC: It’s been brilliant. It has been better than I’d imagined it would be, both in terms of the cricket as well as the country. There have been minor glitches here and there, but all in all, it has been fun.
SJ: In terms of the actual cricket on the field, you covered the 2 Tests, (2nd and 3rd) and now the T20 series as well… What is your evaluation of the Test series?
HC: The Test series was somewhat disappointing but was along the expected lines as well. In the sense that, Pakistan arrived 7-8 days before the start of the 1st Test in South Africa, hadn’t played Test cricket in 6 months, hadn’t played outside Asia for 2 years. SO the first Test you were going to get pummelled regardless of what was going to happen, especially since it was at The Wanderers and the pitch being the way it was. The messed up thing was that, you had one side match before the 1st Test and the second after the 1st Test and before the 2nd Test during which Younis Khan got in to a bit of form and carried it in to the 2nd Test. In the 2nd Test, the pitch was more friendly to Pakistan’s attack and Pakistan had a lot of opportunities in this Test. Pakistan fans might have expected a 3-0 loss, well, may be not not 3-0, but 2-0 , but you lose the 1st Test because you weren’t prepared, and you lose the 3rd because you had already lost the series. I met Misbah ul-Haq during the press conferences and otherwise too, and it was quite obvious that once they had lost the 2nd Test, the team wasn’t going to be up for the 3rd Test.
SJ: Going back to the 2nd Test, after Day 1, Pakistan had more than a foot in the door…
HC: That’s the thing. This sort of reminded me of the Australia series of 2009-10 in the sense that, that series left us with a lot of “what ifs”. Such as, “what if we had gone to New Zealand prior to get acclimatized to the conditions?”, “What if the two side matches were before the first Test rather than being sandwiched between the first and second Tests?”. Most of the what ifs come from the second Test. What if Azhar Ali hadn’t dropped AB de Villiers on the third morning? What if they had taken the wickets of Dean Elgar and de Villiers the second evening? What if Misbah hadn’t played that stupid shot on the third day? What if Misbah and Azhar Ali hadn’t played so slowly on the evening of the third day? It was disappointing that Pakistan had so many opportunities to kill the game off. I think they should have won from there. Especially, after the first 2 days, most of us thought unless South Africa made a big comeback, it was Pakistan’s game to lose, and Pakistan duly obliged.
SJ: Did Pakistan have the right team? Even for the first Test, they didn’t have Mohd Irfan. For the second Test, they missed Junaid Khan due to injury. So, Pakistan never really had their best XI playing in the series, did they?
HC: That’s very true, and it’s been for almost every tour Pakistan been on to South Africa. In 1997, Wasim Akram, I think, played just 1 Test. Shoaib Akhtar, didn’t play the 2007 series [in full]. Basically he just bowled one spell,won the match for Pakistan and broke down for rest of the series. Back to all the what ifs. What if Junaid had played the entire series? Probably, we could have won the second Test, because it was just Saeed Ajmal basically dragging the team on, by his own. He could have taken 20 wickets in that match without any real support from the other end.
Regarding Irfan – I sort of understand the logic of not playing him in the first Test because they were unsure of his fitness or they were unsure of how he will perform in a Test match, but that is something they should have sorted out before they came to South Africa, and before he was selected for the series. In hindsight, Irfan should have played the first Test. In hindsight, Rehman should have played the second Test. Sure, you want to play three seamers because it is South Africa etc. I understand the logic even if I don’t agree with it but you sort of know that Cape Town pitch will get drier as the match progresses…
SJ: Even Harbhajan Singh got a five-for there, so you can imagine…
HC: Precisely. If we’d had Rehman just clogging up one end, Ajmal could have attacked from the other. So, basically in that match, Ajmal had to both attack and defend and he was the only one doing both those things. In stead, we had freaking Tanvir Ahmed bowling at 100 kilometers an hour. I think Salim Malik, even now, could bowl at that speed. It was ridiculous, When he was given the new ball, most of the press box hadn’t seen him before. Some had seen him in the series in UAE when he took a six-for the last time South Africa were there. The first couple of balls he bowled, we thought, “May be he is injured or may be the speeds were because he was bowling in to the wind or may be he is bowling within himself” but then he continued to bowl that 120 kph, good length ball that doesn’t swing or seam throughout the series. That’s when you thought, even if Rehman hadn’t taken wickets, he would have been a better option than Tanvir.
SJ: There were of course some high lights for Pakistan, but all in all, a three-nil series loss notwithstanding the fact that you were playing the number one ranked side at their home, must have been disappointing as a Pakistani fan?
HC: I’m disappointed that they lost 3-0 but once you put that into the context of they hadn’t played Tests in 6 months, hadn’t prepared well, and were taking on a South African team that had played Test cricket continuously for 7 months and is on a 6 match winning streak and has an unbeaten streak in15 matches, and had beaten Australia in Australia and England in England, refuses to ever give up which is the least of the South African things I can think of, and is the best team in the world right now, [it isn’t as disappointing]. Basically, if you place the teams side by side, and think which Pakistani can replace a South African, Ajmal can take the spot of Robin Peterson, Junaid perhaps can take the place of Morkel, and if you have Asad Shafiq as the lowest batsman in the order, he could replace Elgar… So that’s 3 players in the 11. Add to that you are playing South Africa in South African conditions and with them having the momentum, and you having no preparation, three-nil is a logical result. Perhaps if they had won that 2nd Test, we could be talking of a different series altogether.
SJ: Where does Pakistan go from here as a Test team?
HC: The problem is that Pakistan do not play a major series till summer of 2016 when they go to England. They do play West Indies and Zimbabwe but that isn’t really non-Asian conditions. We have about 3-3.5 years until then. Probably, both Misbah and Younis will retire by that time. So, you will have to bring in at least 2 new batsmen, and a new leader. I hope Ajmal can play till he is sixty but we will need another spinner. Over the past three years or so, what we have seen is that the spine of this team – 3 to 6 in the batting order, Ajmal as a bowler and increasingly Junaid and Rehman, if we play in Asian conditions, is set. That is basically the middle order, and three of the four bowling spots sorted out. There is Umar Gul too, but he is an enigma wrapped in a mystery.
The best time for you to get new men in to the team is when you have a strong spine, a winning team and you are in comfortable conditions. We have to get the new batsmen in, in the next three years, whether that is Umar Akmal, or Haris Sohail or – this won’t happen but – Fawad Alam. I know I’m hoping against hope that one day Alam will come back in to the side but I’ve sort of given up on that ghost.
SJ: [Laughs]. Thanks a lot for coming on the show, Hassan. Enjoy the rest of the trip in South Africa.
HC: Sure. As long as I save some money.
SJ: Thanks
—
—
SJ:Welcome to Short Jabs, Sid.
SV: Hey Subash, Welcome back.
SJ– Thank you!
Last week, we had two new additions to cricket writing space online. One with The Nightwatchman and the other one with ESPNcricinfo’s modified blogging platform – The Cordon. One, you are part of, you contributed to- The Night Watchman. Couch Talk is a part of The Cordon. What is your take on this new advancement?
SV– I think they are both definitely trying to grab a space that has quite a bit of requirement. The Nightwatchman is a Wisden quarterly. It is backed by the Wisden group and it is going to focus on long-form cricket writing. I look at it as more of a meandering cricket conversation kind of space where you have writers given a chance to explore a wide range of topics over a large word count. That is something that cricket, as a sport, allows you to do liberally- there are various dimensions you can take. The thing about The Nightwatchman that is interesting is that, in my knowledge, this is the first attempt which has a subscription based long form cricket writing magazine online. There have been print magazines that have been sold online, but this is an online magazine that you can read on your e-reader or any other device.
(ESPN)Cricinfo’s The Cordon… Cricinfo has always had blogs, and has been going on for a while, but what is interesting to me is that they have expanded the range of voices in The Cordon and now have a totally new set of people from various parts of the world talking in a very intimate and personal voice and interactive with the readers. I will look at it as a different print kind of medium as compared to what The Nightwatchman is trying to do. But again, a very vital space that it is trying to corner.
SJ– Let us focus on The Cordon a little bit. They have included some of the existing voices like Samir Chopra and Michael Jay and Ananthanarayanan and incorporated other voices like Mahesh Sethuraman and Jon Hotten who has written before, but in a blogging way, he has just come in. That is pretty cool. When you look at The Nightwatchman, you brought this point about long form features. Cricket, as a sport allows it. But, we did not have an outlet that supports long form features, correct?
SV– Yes. That is correct, and that is exciting. If you see the first issue of The Nightwatchman, there is a very, very good piece by Osman Samiuddin about the habits that Pakistan have made over the years of trying to turn games around towards the end and winning in the hurry. Like when you have the opposition cruising and you have Pakistan turning it on and winning the game with a rush of blood. That is very interesting piece. That goes on for 6000-7000 words. Where else does one get the chance to explore the theme at such lengths? I think The Nightwatchman is extremely good in that regard.
As for The Cordon, you mentioned a range of voices. It is interesting that until now, all these bloggers had their independent blogs. But, what happens now is that the moment they are put through the kind of portal like Cricinfo, they are put through a number of check and balances, which is very good in terms of getting the writers and bloggers to be very polished in their approach, and probably not saying things that they would say otherwise in terms of libel and other suits. I think it is adding a slight bit of professional edge to the amateur spirit, which is good as long as it is not controlled in a heavy handed way. As long as it is only a little bit, it is always good.
SJ– How do you see this theme developing, not just these new outlets, but also giving rise to more of these platforms?
SV– It can only be good because both these platforms have been advertised. The Nightwatchman is very clear that they are willing to take submissions from readers and consider them. Any reader, irrespective of his background if interested in writing a long-form, this is definitely an outlet that he can look at.
In The Cordon, it just shows that if you have a blog and if you are constantly at it, there are portals like Cricinfo that will notice and give you a platform and enhance your writing and your blogs. Both are very good developments, and for aspiring writers as well as readers, this is only good to know that more and more outlets are coming up.
What will be interesting to see from The Nightwatchman’s point of view because they are subscription based is how much they can sustain in terms of monetary inputs and it will be interesting to review it after a few months to see how much they are going in terms of subscription.
SJ– You have contributed to the first issue of The Nightwatchman. Why don’t you talk about what you have written?
SV– I wrote about, because Sachin (Tendulkar) had just retired around the time I was thinking about what to write, I thought I will write about my favourite One Day innings of Tendulkar. I explored one innings in a long form format. I hope your listeners will subscribe and read the issue.
SJ– I’m sure they will.
Thanks a lot, SidVee. Thanks for coming on the show.
SV– Thanks, Subash.
—
—
Subash Jayaraman– Welcome back to Short Jabs, Homer!
Shrikant Subramanian– Hi, Subash! How are you doing?
SJ– Doing well! So, what seems to be bothering you now?
SS– What is bothering me is that the spectators remain to be an afterthought for both the BCCI and the media. For the longest time, you have had this argument put forth in the media that the Indians don’t seem to be caring enough about test cricket and the proof for this lay in the fact that the in-stadia audience seem to be dropping every year compared to the IPL, say. So, that was being used as a benchmark to push this notion that the Indians don’t care about test cricket.
Today, you have in the media, articles that talk about how the spectators are getting shot-changed by the facilities that are available to them. My contention is this- this lack of facilities was/has been a leitmotif of cricket watching experience in India since time immemorial. So, when you say that people don’t care, why wasn’t that argument nuanced with the fact that people who were showing up in the stadiums were doing in-spite of all the obstacles put up in front of them, rather than saying that this was basically a rosy path and people still didn’t show up, in which case that would have been a valid argument? But when one argument was being made, the other was not being used at all.
Then, when you strongly believe that the spectators are being shot changed, then when you have the forum, when you have the bull-horn, why aren’t these questions being asked of the BCCI officials? Today, Mr. Arun Jaitley is the BCCI chair for the tours and programs committee. So, why hasn’t anybody bothered to ask him why the spectator facilities are so poor?
The other thing is, why is that each state association seem to be operating in its own world? Why isn’t there uniformity as far as the spectator experience across the board? Nobody seems to want to ask that question. But, everybody wants to shed copious amounts of tears about how the spectators are getting shot changed. At what point in time do we become central to both the BCCI and the media? At the end of the day, it is the spectators who are driving cricket in India. If they are going to be an afterthought, then let us not start pitting them or use them as a mean for making a point. They have always had to endure this, and the people who show up at the stadiums show up in-spite of what is being presented to them.
SJ– So, what would you like to see form both the boards’ sides and the media platforms?
SS– From the media platforms- at least ask the questions.
Personally, I would like to see that the spectator experience is uniform. If you have to go through three layers of security, let it be uniform. You can’t tell me that in one stadium you can take your cell phone in and in the other stadium, you can’t take your cell phone in. In some places, you can take water inside, while in some places, you can’t. And then, the onus is also on the BCCI and the state association that the facilities they provide to the people is in keeping with standards. You can’t tell that there is no water available for people. That is retarded.
The onus is on the media to keep the spotlight on these issues. You can’t just wake up and say “Oh, the facilities are bad.”, and make generic statements about how facilities are bad. Shine the spotlight on where it is bad. Ask the state association members as to why they are doing what they are doing. If you had a test match against New Zealand in the August-September time-frame and you are having a test match now, have the facilities changed radically between then and now? If they haven’t, if the people are still being shot-changed, if there were no shamiyanas being erected, if there was no water available, why isn’t Shivlal Yadav being asked that question? Asking the relevant people the relevant question should be done. Making generic statements about “Oh, the spectator experience in India is poor” and all that amounts to what? At the end of the day, the spectator continues to remain an after-thought.
SJ– Okay! Thanks for coming on the show, Shrikant!
SS– Thank you very much, Subash!
—
That concludes another episode of Short Jabs. This week’s recommendation is actually the Wisden Quarterly “The NightWatchman”. The first issue is out and costs only 4 dollars and change and features writings of Osman Samiuddin, SidVee, Jarrod Kimber, Firdose Moonda, Daniel Norcross, Dileep Premchandran amongst others. It’s a wonderful read and will be worth every single penny of yours.
Thank you all for listening.