Cricket twenty four seven.. Sorry twenty eleven..

With the South Africa tour currently in progress, the World Cup, the Indian Premier League (IPL), a tour of the West Indies, one of England, probably a tour by the West Indies, then a tour of Australia, and the Champions League, the year 2011 makes one ponder whether the product ‘cricket’ is forced on us. Who knows a t20 World Cup may pop in out of no-where. Meanwhile, let’s not forget the advertisement commitments of players too. It seems pretty obvious that none of the international players in IPL would have hunger for Champions league, it being the only optional tournament. Another funny thing to note is the interval between the World Cup finals and inauguration of IPL 4.. its a paltry 5 days. What it implies is that, the winners don’t even get time to cherish the cup!!

With the likes of Zaheer Khan and Nehra who are injury prone, it remains to be seen as to how India can handle the resources wisely. And giving kids like Unadkat, a chance to perform at too much pressure, at such an early age (when body of a fast bowler is not even half developed) can certainly be counterproductive to their career. I would recommend a rest to Zaheer for ODIs against South Africa.

Sachin Tendulkar is expected to retire at the end of world cup from ODIs. However, this is a relatively an issue of ‘NATIONAL IMPORTANCE’ to us Indians. It will be an emotional farewell after seeing him going through all the possible highs in the past 2 decades.

Another funny thing that I came to know was that the format of the world cup has been designed such that even if dhoni and co want breathing space, they can’t be eliminated in round one. Man! you gotta appreciate the organisers for their prowess. In fact, it is like India can proceed to next round after forfeiting a couple of matches and winning 3 out of other 4(including Ireland, Netherlands and Bangladesh).

IPL Bidding Process: An Innovative Solution to Keep Sachin Tendulkar, Rahul Dravid happy

The Indian Premier League ( IPL ) has revolutionized cricket in a huge way as the sport has embraced the concept of clubs / franchises and it has been largely successful in promoting the sport. Rewinding to the weeks before the inaugural edition of the IPL in 2008, there was apprehension as to how the public would react to this new concept.

However, it has been run very successful and is a worldwide brand thanks to the superb quality of cricket in the last three years. In the first edition, all the players interested were auctioned and the franchises built their team from the bidding that took place. The teams had a contract of 3 years after which it was intended that there would be 2 new teams introduced into the IPL.

After the completion of the three years of the successful tournament, the BCCI and the Governing Council has introduced rules such that each team can retain a maximum of 4 players from their current teams but a substantial part of their spending power would be reduced. In the $9 million cap for the auction, the process for retaining the players is as follows:

• Retaining 1 player would cost $1.8 million from their budget.
• Retaining 2 players would cost $3.1 million from their budget.
• Retaining 3 players would cost $4 million from their budget.
• Retaining 4 players would cost $4.5 million from their budget.

Though some have welcomed the move to have fair playing ground for all clubs including the two new clubs Pune and Kochi, some have criticized the decision because it might be detrimental to the brand and team chemistry that they have fostered in the last 3 years.

Two of India's greatest stalwarts Sachin Tendulkar and Rahul Dravid have provided contrasting views which are both justified with respect to their statements.

The Mumbai Indians captain said " I feel it is about building teams, not breaking teams," Tendulkar said. "We have really worked hard to build this team and have got together brilliantly. In the third year we held a couple of camps, which had nothing to do with cricket. It was just about getting together and building team spirit. "

On the other hand, Rahul Dravid who might not be a part of the Bangalore Franchise feels it will keep the IPL very competitive and interesting. “We don’t want to end up in a situation similar to EPL where only three or four teams can win. ”

From a neutral point of view, both these views could be supported because if the franchises are allowed to retain more than 4 players then it could be very unfair for the two new teams and those teams like Kings XI Punjab who are not happy with their current set of players.

However, the fact is that only a handful of the squad of the franchise were bought in the Auctions that has been held for the past three seasons. The teams which have been successful in the last three editions had strong local talent whom they picked and they have been integral to the squad.

For example, Tamil Nadu spinner R. Ashwin was a relative unknown before he excelled for the Chennai Super Kings from where he has progressed to the Indian side. Suresh Raina, Mahendra Singh Dhoni, Albie M0rkel et al were picked from the auction and if the clubs want to retain their services, they would have to do so in the 4 players limit. Mumbai Indians were instrumental in providing an excellent platform for Ambati Rayudu and many other youngsters like Dhawal Kulkarni.

The clubs which has been a part of the IPL since its inception have to be the given the advantage in a small way for their role in developing youngsters. These franchises have spent a lot of their money in scouting young talents around the country and it is unfair that they should be released into the Auction pool because of the present criteria.

One Innovative solution would be to give the option of the clubs to retaining 4 players with the option of 2 more players not obtained from the bidding process or the Under-19 scheme in the past. This would also have an impact on their transfer cap of around $800,000 to $1 million. This would mean that their cap is reduced but they would have the option to retain their important home-grown players.

The most likely argument to come against this idea would be the fact that most of the good Domestic players are already a part of the franchises. However, if one were to look keenly at the squad of the teams, they would find that some of the players currently doing well in the IPL were actually relatively unknown before they joined the franchises. Ambati Rayudu, Abhishek Jhunjhunwala and Siddharth Trivedi are examples of good talents nurtured by their franchises.

Another argument could be the fact that Chennai Super Kings could obtain the services of R.Ashwin and S.Badrinath mainly because they are from Tamil Nadu which has a very decent team while the likes of Kerela and Maharashtra do not have very good teams. But one must understand it was the BCCI's idea to have a quota of players on a regional basis in the first IPL.

Having said that, Chennai benefited greatly from the bowling of Sudeep Tyagi, Manpreet Gony and Shadab Jakathi who were outside the state. It is similar to Rajasthan who gave Swapnil Asnodkar to excel in the first edition. Likewise, many teams contained of good players from other states and it is not unfair to give the existing the option to retain 2 players which would still mean that a lot of players would still be available on auction.

The concept of a franchise is about constructing the team with a healthy atmosphere and releasing players that they have identified as big talents is not fair. Rahul Dravid's statement regarding the EPL's lack of competitiveness is correct but the major problem is that there are no real financial rules ( like a transfer cap ) in the Premiership which would mean that the lesser clubs despite developing good players would have to sell them due to their struggles to meet the player's demands and to ease their financial worries. This is not the case in the IPL in which there is a money cap which means that a financially stronger franchise like the Mumbai Indians cannot buy players at will like Manchester City or Chelsea in the Premier League.

Sachin Tendulkar was not happy with the new format which is understandable because he would have to lose many of his team's domestic talent like Ambati Rayudu and R. Sathish. If he is provided with the option of 2 more domestic players who could be retained, it would leave him with a hard decision to make but he has the option of retaining as many as 6 regulars from the last edition.

This solution would be beneficial to many franchises who could retain only 2 domestic players while not retaining any international players. Both Tendulkar's and Dravid's opinions does make sense but implementations of this rule could be accepted by both these stalwarts.