Historic day for Indian cricket

Today, India won the test series against England 1-0. Beating any team in its own backyard is always sweet; when they haven't been beaten at home in six years, the triumph is even sweeter. I had said at the beginning of the series that I would be happy with a 1-1 result. England have been strong at home, they were just coming off a 3-0 triumph against the West Indies and their morale was high. To manage to upset that applecart is creditable to say the least.

This is noteworthy for several other reasons.
First- it was a true team effort. Too often, Indian cricket has been carried on the shoulders of one or two great players, be it Tendulkar or Kapil Dev or a Gavaskar. This one was different. Everyone chipped in, Kaarthick and Jaffer batted brilliantly, RP Singh and Zaheer swung the ball both ways, Dhoni showed he could mix agression with plenty of caution when the situation demanded it and Kumble displayed his batting skills at the fag end of an illustrious career. What India has lacked in the past is consistency and all round team performance. This one had plenty of both!
Second- this victory was attained without a formal coach. Coming on the heels of Greg Chappell's now infamous Vision 2007 that ended in an ignominous first round exit at the World Cup, it seems the biys tend to do well without one. As long as there is some support in the bolwing and fitness departments, the need for an expert coach may be an over rated one.
Third- After the debacle of the World Cup, the Indian team needed to lift itself and play good, positive cricket to get their fans back in the fold. This triumph has again got the momentum going and made the fans believe that the team can do it. Nothing is better for a sport than the return of the loyal fan who may be feeling betrayed at the end of the World Cup.

All positive things going into the one day series which can be a completely different ball game. Given India's strong batting line-up and the consistent performance of the seamers and their ability to swing the ball both ways, I bet my money on India taking the series 4-3, but then, when have I ever been objective about India's performance!!

For now though, lets savor the test series win. Well done team!

Do Indian sportspersons lack the killer instinct?

I love watching and following sports, especially Indian sport. We are a perennially under- achieving nation in sport. Part of the reason is talent, part of it is the lack of infrastructure, but a large part seems to be lack of agression, the lack of mental toughness and just a lack of self belief in being able to beat the best. The one game India is good at is cricket and if today's events at The Oval against England is anything to go by, Rahul Dravid proved that he mentally incapable of pressing home advantage even when it is there for the taking.

The Indian cricket captain today was unusually defensive, intent on playing for a draw when India had a real chance of winning the contest against England. Instead, he preferred to defend, took a good 91 deliveries to score his first boundary and a strike rate that barely got inot double figures, so much so that when he did take a single, there were cheers all across the ground. This mindset was baffling to say the least. India are 1 up in the series and had a lead of over 300 when Dravid came into bat. There were no real demons in the wicket, only in Dravid's head and the more defensive he got, the more aggressive he allowed the Englishmen to be. Great sportsmen shine through courage and ability to stand up when under pressure. Dravid inflicted pressure on himself and his team-mates and while India are likely to win this series, today's afternoon was not one of their best.

Indian sportsmen have never lacked talent, they have lacked self belief and ability to get completely on top of the opposition. In this day and age, that can make all the different between being good and great!

Are we so short on talent we need Nardelli to turn things at Chrysler?

I hate corporate greed. And nobody typifies the ugly underbelly of naked capitalism more than Bob Nardelli. He did nothing worthwhile for Home Depot as CEO only to be fired and walk away with 210 million dollar severance package. I hated it when I read that story. CEOs talk about performance all the time. And I am certain Bob did. He said it it every meeting and every hardworking Home Depot employee earning a very average salary worked hard to make it work. The stock market didnt seem to think it was working out. The stock tanked and Bob got fired. When the average Joe gets fired, he gets a petty severance. Bob got 210 million for his naked greed and complete incompetence.

Imagine my complete consternation when I get up today to find out that he has a new job- to turn around Chrysler!!!
Are we so short on talent that we have to get back to an incompetently greedy self delusional CEO to turn around a company?
Is our memory so Goddam short that we have completely forgotten what he just did?
Are we not looking at right places or are we just so afraid to take a risk that 25 years at GE is what it takes to be CEO no matter how inept those 25 years may have been or your performance since?

It is by far, the worst and most demoralizing story I have heard this year. I am also reproducing an analysis from CNN on the subject. It is copied here below-

For weeks, Chrysler watchers have been wondering what, exactly, Cerberus would be bringing to its new acquisition. What did the sharp pencil guys in New York know about the auto business that Chrysler's own seasoned American executives - not to mention the Germans at Daimler (Charts) - didn't?

Now the answer is becoming clear. And it isn't encouraging.

Cerberus' appointment of Bob Nardelli, formerly of General Electric (Charts, Fortune 500) and Home Depot (Charts, Fortune 500), as CEO seems wrong-headed on a number of fronts.

One: Chrysler is a fragile place these days, having only recently recovered from the German invasion and then seen itself sold for essentially peanuts. But soothing bedside manner isn't exactly part of Nardelli's MO. Any remaining talented individuals who stuck around at Chrysler to see how things were going to turn out are now polishing their resumes and arranging severance payments before the boat starts to rock.

Two: Nardelli's appointment undercuts Chrysler's renegade culture. As the youngest, smallest and most fragile of Detroit's former Big Three, Chrysler has always prided itself on its outlaw spirit; it was willing to gamble on things other automakers weren't.

Now comes Nardelli, brandishing his Six Sigma credentials and his GE by-the-books training. His mere arrival has already forced the exit of several talented car guys. Wolfgang Bernhard, a former Chrysler and Mercedes executive, has left the building. Considered a sure thing to become Chrysler's new chairman, he's declared that family considerations prevent him from taking the job. Eric Ridenour, Chrysler's young and up-and-coming chief operating officer, has also bolted. Tom LaSorda, the popular president, took a demotion to stay with the company, but the chances of the easygoing LaSorda coexisting with the hard-charging Nardelli are slim to none, though at Monday morning's news conference, Nardelli took pains to identify LaSorda as his partner and to identify his areas of reponsibility.

Three: Observers are making much of the fact that Nardelli is the second outsider to move into Detroit in the past year, the first being Alan Mulally of Ford (Charts, Fortune 500). But any similarities between the two stop with that fact. Mulally was coming off a big success - the development of the Boeing 787 - has little visible ego, and appears to be very comfortable knowing what he doesn't know. He seems to have charmed much of Ford with his off-putting, gee-whiz style while at the same time using his knowledge of large industrial companies and some basic common sense to shape up the company.

Nardelli, on the other hand, arrives on the heels of an enormous fiasco at Home Depot, appears to have a very high psychic profile, and by all accounts has the tact of a Marine drill instructor. This is not precisely what Chrysler needs at this point in time.

So what does Chrysler need? It needs a seasoned industry executive who understands the company and the business. To start with, Chrysler must do what GM (Charts, Fortune 500) and Ford are already doing: Get smaller, strike a deal with the UAW, rationalize its product line, and learn how to deal with the new realities of foreign competition and $3 gasoline.

Beyond that, it needs to capitalize on its unique strengths. In the 1980s under Lee Iacocca, Chrysler invented the minivan, popularized the SUV, and revived the convertible. Since then, it has enjoyed other out-of-the-box successes like the PT Cruiser, the Chrysler 300, and the hemi engine.

In the past couple of years, it has made some stupid mistakes. The 2006 inventory fiasco was a disaster that everybody in Detroit could see happening but Chrysler was too slow to correct. It also dropped the ball on a couple of new products by visibly cheapening them. And its sure hand with breakthrough design wavered with the clunky Dodge Caliber and the gimmicky Chrysler Sebring.

A smart auto guy would have seen those problems developing and headed them off. There are plenty around. Bernhard would hit fit the bill to a "t." So would industrialist and racing legend Roger Penske, but he is too busy. Former Ford CEO Jac Nasser is making too much money in private equity.

If Chrysler could clone GM's Bob Lutz, now 75, it might have the perfect candidate. Instead it has Nardelli. Aggressiveness and discipline aren't what Chrysler needs right now - it got that under German management. And we know how that story ended.

The Box at Fenway

I love watching sports events. Particularly up, close and personal- it doesnt get any better than having Box seats in Fenway on a cool summer night with a come from behind 5-4 victory.

Fenway has great appeal- it is the oldest ballpark in the US, it is also the smallest. I daresay it is the home to the most diehard Baseball fans in the US- New Englanders who have long suffered the curse of the Bambino till the 2004 Nirvana season when they astonishingly beat the Yankees in the playoffs when they are down 0-3 to eventually win 4-3. That was some season, and even this is turning out to be a good one.

The smallness of the Park, the unique Green Monster, the fanatical fans- all make for fantastic viewing from anywhere in the Park. And then, throw in the Box seats- and it really is special. Having grown up on cricket, baseball can seem plain vanilla at times, but as I watched pitches being thrown at 97 mph, I did begin to have a gruding respect for the batters who are able to not only see, but connect well to score- it is much more difficult than it appears on TV. I was most impressed with the intensity and focus on the Closer for the night, Jonathan Pappelbon. It is remarkably intense, not something for the faint hearted and he does astonishingly well to close innings after innings with precision, accuracy and verve.

Fenway Park is a special place and will always be for me. It is the place where I began to not only to like but appreciate the subtle nuances of baseball. And there is no other Park where I would have loved this education to be imparted!

Tendulkar, expectations and the sweet Indian win

As Indians celebrate around the world at a famous win over England, I found the article below from Rohit Brijnath incisive about the accusation that Tendulkar does not deliver the goods for India under pressure. Fans recently, including myself, have complained about Tendulkar crumbling when India needed a great innings from him. Rohit reminds us how short-sighted tht view may be.
Here goes the article-

There is no truth to the rumour that Sachin Tendulkar has mailed a videotape of his painstakingly-constructed, match-tilting, rudely-interrupted 91 at Trent Bridge to Kapil Dev, with the words “What was that you said about pressure, paaji?” scrawled across the package.

Tendulkar wouldn’t do that. Because he’s too polite. Because if he did, it would mean Kapil’s recent criticism had got to him. Because he’s heard this genius-who-can’t-win-matches stuff more often than Ganguly’s heard that “princely” nonsense which Western journalists imaginatively whip up every time they sight the Bengal player.

Kapil was just nimbly leaping onto a crumbling old bandwagon recently with his doubting of the extent of Tendulkar’s talent. After 37 Test centuries, and 11,000-plus runs, this “question mark” over Sachin is tedious. We can hurl stats, for and against the notion, at each other for 10 days running, but it’s hysterical to suggest that “Tendulkar should start taking the pressure”.

Has Tendulkar ‘not’ taken the pressure? Have these 18 years of staying sane and performing as a nation howls for runs been just, you know, a stroll in a Bandra park? Was all that rescuing of India, all those forgotten years ago, when opponents used to say, openly, “Get Tendu out and India’s shoulders droop”, no big deal? Damn, he ate a pressure for breakfast Tiger Woods would have choked on.

Time has flown

But this is partially Tendulkar’s fault. People forget the player he was because they see the player he is. Time has flown and his majesty in the mid-1990s unscrolls in the mind like a fuzzy, hiccuping videotape. The clearer picture is not of the warrior rising amidst a Sharjah dust-storm, but of a man being beaten outside off by a bowler he’d have once dismissed into retirement. The longer he looks mortal the more room he gives former players to unkindly dissect his legend.

Priestly discipline

Still, Tendulkar’s innings in Trent Bridge was stirring. It showed what he can’t do, but also what he can. If his command was absent, his discipline was priestly. His face told us nothing of the wars in his mind, for he is an old pro who gives nothing away. He was beaten, he took guard, he played on, pure in his mission, refusing to bend to an instinct to lash out.

India needed patience and, cocooned in concentration, he did not let India down.

How vital the century that never came was for him, how keenly he required the validation of three figures, was evident in his reaction. After 139 Tests, he is old friends with the dubious decision, but his innate courteousness has meant he swallows injustices and moves on. It’s the only way he knows how to play cricket. But this time he staged a gentle, two-second dharna of disbelief at the crease. An ageing hero, who is in the middle of that awkward journey when the next cen tury is no longer a case of “when” but “if”, was hurting.

Tendulkar has not merely worn pressure, but done so with a quiet dignity. Indeed, an entire generation of players, from Dravid to Kumble, has ensured that India, for all its other cricketing excesses, has a reputation for on-field decency. And young Sreesanth must not be allowed to tarnish it. There is room in sport for the colourful and the eccentric but none for shoulder charging and constant mouthing off. It is no good if you can neither bowl, nor behave.

Hosts are confused

No doubt the English have shown the Indians inadequate respect, but it is because the hosts are confused. Some bizarre metamorphosis has occurred in the dressing room wherein the English now think they are Australian, and believe mental disintegration is achieved by throwing jelly beans on a crease. John Buchanan must be aching with laughter at England’s interpretation of aggressive cricket.

But it is immaterial if the hosts started the unpleasantness, for India must always demand a higher standard of itself. And only an insecure team needs to respond in kind just to prove that it won’t be pushed around. The only worthy response from India should come through a resolute performance, in refusing to disintegrate or be distracted. As England will confirm today, nothing stings quite like defeat.