In search of an IPL team to support

At the end of my last post, I began to ponder which team I'd be supporting in the second season of the Indian Premier League - a bizarre 8-franchise event pitching together teams composed of the world's best current players, the cream of India's up-and-coming crop and some from the 'Seniors' Tour'. As it enters the second of its five weeks in South Africa - complete with cheerleaders, mid-innings commercial breaks and the venomous (and hugely popular) Fake IPL Player blog (supposedly the work of a reserve for the Kolkata Knight Riders) - I am still none the wiser.

I was initially quite excited at the prospect of watching Kevin Pietersen turn around the fortunes of Bangalore Royal Challengers, who came 7th of the 8 teams last year and were widely ridiculed for picking a 'Test team', with a batting line-up including Rahul 'The Wall' Dravid and Jacques 'What's my average now?' Kallis. Not only was I very sorry that Pietersen was not England's captain for longer (I always fancied he could have emulated Viv Richards as a captain as well as a batsman), but I've also long felt that the best Test cricketers adapt their games best to the shorter formats - Dravid was one of the leading run-scorers last year and is currently 6th in the list this year. The problems with supporting the Challengers, though, are that Pietersen will be returning to England soon and I am unable to do anything other than enjoy the sight of Jacques Kallis' face as his bowling is hit around the park. They're also now bottom of the table.

Besides, the 'Royal Challengers' sobriquet is pretty poor really. In fact, half the teams have 'Royal' or 'Kings' as part of their name - a bit of a dearth of creativity in the marketing department, surely? By the 'name criterion', the Kolkata 'Knight Riders' are also a non-starter, I'm afraid, much as I like Chris Gayle and enjoy as I do the row brewing between John Buchanan and anyone who plays for him. If they'd been the 'Night Riders', I might have been intrigued..

The Delhi Daredevils are the only team to manage a vaguely decent name - hitting the jackpot (comparatively speaking) by being alliterative and appropriate to Twenty20 - and they seem to have assembled a team made for this format: Gambhir, Sehwag, De Villiers (scorer of the first century in this year's competition) and Dilshan are four of the most in-form batsmen in the world (in all formats), while Daniel Vettori is the world's best Twenty20 bowler and a fine captain. They have Owais Shah and Paul Collingwood in reserve, not to mention Glenn McGrath and Twenty20 sensation, David Warner. All this probably makes them the favourites to win the competition, which might well lose them my support, I'm afraid...

Which brings me nicely on to the underdog appeal of the Rajasthan Royals, or Team Warne, who won last year on a shoe-string budget (well, it's all relative - see here for a look at who was worth the spend last year). After losing Shane Watson, the Man of the Tournament last time, and Sohail Tanvir, its leading bowler, to the Pakistan-Australia series in Dubai and Abu Dhabi, things aren't going so well, with the Graeme Smith-led batting yet to fire (and Swapnil Asnodkar a shadow of last year's buccaneer). Dimitri Mascarenhas is doing marginally better than Warne with the ball (as things stand), but both have been trumped by the 18 year-old Indian left-armer, Kamran Khan, until recently, like me nowadays, predominantly playing tennis-ball cricket. Plucked from nowhere, he epitomises Rajasthan's lure - I wonder, though, whether liking them is a sign of my inner curmudgeon failing to embrace the IPL on its own terms, sticking two fingers up to its big-spending fantasy team ideal (in the first season, Rajasthan were actually penalised for not spending enough!).

As such, I'm going to need to look further afield and avoid curmudgeonliness in that respect. I'm not charitable enough, though, to overlook Chennai Super Kings signing Matthew Hayden. The Deccan Chargers have Adam Gilchrist and Herschelle Gibbs as their scintillating opening pair and are currently leading the way, after finishing bottom last year. Pragyan Ojha, an Indian slow left-armer, is proving one of the bowlers of the tournament so far, and Fidel Edwards' slingy action is highly effective in the death overs.

But Lasith Malinga, playing for the Mumbai Indians, is a more exciting slinger than Edwards and has been thrillingly unplayable thus far. And you can't beat the old masters, Jayasuriya and Tendulkar, for an opening pair. Sentiment and Sri Lankan exuberance, then, might just swing me Mumbai's way.

I've not quite persuaded myself yet - I'm still rooting for Rajasthan in their current run-chase against Delhi - but I'm certainly excited at the feast of cricket on offer. Hopefully, the more I watch, the less confused I'll be - I'll keep you posted...

Suggestions for England's next coach?

As I write, a Dimitri Mascarenhas-inspired England are fighting back well in the first innings of the 4th one-dayer. It is worth noting, in passing, that Mascarenhas' ODI batting strike rate of 96.41 is the best in the England team and his economy rate of 4.53 second only to Flintoff's (in spite of the Chris Gayle pasting in the last match) and far ahead of his next best teammate - the statistics aren't the full story, but Shane Warne's perennially high estimation of Mascarenhas' potential in international one-day cricket may perhaps be justified.

The main significance of this match, though, is that it may determine whether Andy Flower can really be deemed a credible candidate for the vacant England coach's job - especially if, as seems very possible, the series ends today. With only one victory over the Windies this winter - and that largely down to the Duckworth-Lewis miscalculations of his opposite number, John Dyson - Flower can surely not compete with seasoned international coaches such as John Wright and Mickey Arthur, tipped for the job in the Sunday Times by John Stern, editor of the Wisden Cricketer. The (much-cited) strength of Flower's relationship with Strauss is all well and good, but how hard can it really be to get on with the affable England captain?

Yet I share Scyld Berry's scepticism that Arthur, on the brink of bringing South Africa to the pinnacle in both forms of the game, would choose to leave that challenge behind. In Arthur's interview on Radio Five Live this morning, he doesn't quite rule the possibility out (the very fact of giving the interview might be viewed as putting himself in the shop window), but seems to stress that he sees the England job as something he'd like to do further down the line (most probably after his contract with SA ends in 2012).

John Wright and John Dyson have had some success with India and Sri Lanka respectively, but both are at early stages of projects with New Zealand and West Indies. Stories of Wright's often confrontational dressing-room approach - he once took Sehwag by the collar after a reckless dismissal - might also work against him. With Graham Ford also ruling himself out and John Buchanan evidently enjoying the prospect of managing the Kolkata Knight Riders, it is hard to see what precisely the head-hunters' options are...

Any ideas?

The Referral System

I would imagine that anyone who follows English Test cricket will want to forget the Sabina Park incident as quickly as is humanly possible. However, this match will live long in the memory – not due to the failure of England’s fragile batting line up, nor to the possible resurgence of the West Indies under Gayle’s quietly efficient captaincy – but due to the fact that this was the Test in which England met the referral system for the first time. In principle the referral system is a logical application of the available technology. I for one can still remember the devastation of watching wicket after wicket falling to no-balls against Pakistan in 2001, a situation that ultimately could have been simply avoided through the simple use of video replays. Indeed, in the West Indian innings Gayle, having been given out caught behind down the leg side, was able to immediately refer the decision and rightly continue his innings. Sarwan was given LBW for 5 and again the decision was reversed, allowing Sarwan to provide his vital innings. The referral system therefore should be seen as a great step forward for Test cricket – proof that the game is willing to march forward and evolve with time. Players, umpires and spectators can be certain that the best decision will be reached and games decided on the skill of the players involved not the vagaries of umpires.

The referral system is a logical step but this is sport and since when has everything in sport been logical? Just ask Owais Shah. Part of the attraction for me of cricket, and indeed sport in general, is the spectacle. The spectacle of cricket is not simply the majesty of a Trescothick straight drive but also the waft outside off stump with no foot movement. It is the moments of exquisite skill and the momentary loss of concentration. Umpires are no less part of this. The skill involved in making a decision and the courage to make a judgment call at a key stage of a Test are vital ingredients in this spectacle. I am (perhaps unsurprisingly) often a listener of TMS and the fall of a wicket often brings out the best in the commentators. They are caught in the moment and, to the listener, part of the spectacle. There are moments of Test cricket that I will never forget – Harmison’s slower ball to Michael Clarke at Edgbaston in 2005. This is not simply due to the significance of the moment or the skill involved but the commentary of Mark Nicholas. I was listening to TMS when the Smith, Sarwan, and Gayle referrals were made and the moment was destroyed by the system. Each decision took an age to process even though the commentary teams had a fair idea of what was going to happen within seconds.

I must admit to sneaking glances at the Six Nations on Saturday as England collapsed in Jamaica. Video technology has been in use for many years and can be said to be a success. Decisions are reached quickly and accurately without spoiling the flow of the game. The length of time needed to make the decisions during the first Test was certainly my principle concern with a full adoption of the system. I had come into the Test thinking that technology was a necessity for the modern game; however, I am not so certain now. Bad umpiring decisions, like dropped catches, are as much part of the game today as they have been in the past, and in reality how many games can be said to rest on a single decision? With falling Test crowds the spectacle of Test cricket is of vital importance for the initiation of future cricket tragics. If at the end of the summer of 2009 Ponting is trapped by Flintoff for England to regain the Ashes I want the moment to last. I don’t want technology spoiling it for me.