What should be the real deal with match fixers and sport shamers?

Shaming the sport you play is possibly the worst you can do in your life as a sportsperson. It doesn't only downgrade you, your country, your sport but also disappoints your fans. It can be argued that any attempt to alter performance for monetary or other materialistic rewards in any sport, not only cricket should be dealt with furiously and is unforgivable. Some sports even strip the athletes of all their previous achievements and ban them permanently for life, no matter their deed or the extent of it, but not cricket.

A lot of hype has understandably been created for Mohammad Amir's return to cricket, let alone to Lord's the home of cricket where he performed his damnable deed close to 6 years ago. There have obviously been many mixed emotions. Kevin Pieterson, David Lloyd, and Ramiz Raza are notably some personalities that have called for life ban for fixers, and have openly opposed Amir's return whereas Imran Khan, Darren Gough and Atherton said that he can. How much of their respective verdicts were based on the player rather than the deed? Did we hear anything similar for Mohammad Asif, Salman Butt or even the 'unfairly' ousted Sreesanth? There can be only two ways to deal with fixing- have the same punishment for an offence on any level (since it shames sport equally), unless there is an exponential difference in the deed, or have the punishments according to the extent and consequent ramifications of the conduct.

The latter is practiced in cricket, which may seem the better option, but still has its flaws. For instance, no consideration of the offender is made- his age, his promise, his time in international cricket and experience or even the circumstances. What Mohammad Amir did was totally damnable and awfully disappointing, but it wasn't inexcusable, as "cricket is a game that gives second chances". "If [Marlon] Samuels can make it then there is no reason why I can't make it. Everyone gets a second chance and I want it too". Amir had a point.

 Samuels came back, Warne did, and so did Gibbs. There was outrage, but they are still well respected and treated as greats now. The allegations came when they were well into their international career, and at a mature age- all in their mid 20s. Amir was different. Then why not? He was just 18, a teenager from the small, poor region of Gujar Khan, who could easily be brainwashed. He was new to the international scene and the politics of the game in general, and thought the task was easy and harmless enough for a few quick bucks, something that his family needed at the time. I am in no way defending him, but describing his circumstances, and experience. It was no secret that he was obviously the next big thing and probably the most promising seamer with a lot of skill and potential. It would be logical to assume that had he played for these 5 years, he would've been a phenomenal bowler, probably standing out from the rest.

These facts about him are probably why some people have supported him and have not spoken as much for Mohammad Asif or Butt, even though they served similar sentences. The truth is, some cricketers are lucky as they just do a lesser rebukable job (the extent of which is decided by the board), but nothing can be more bad, or less bad, at least in this case. Hansie Cronje, Mohammad Azharuddin or Danish Kaneria didn't survive, but others like the previously mentioned did. 

It is probably universally agreed that any deed that spoils or brings stigma to sport should be severely admonished, but I call for more factors to be taken into consideration. . It was completely unethical and damnable for Shane Warne, or Gibbs and Samuels to be involved in this, as not only were they mature in life and international cricket, money certainly didn't create a barrier to a comfortable lifestyle as it is there in abundance in cricket. Warne was obviously really promising at 25 too, and he wouldn't have taken those 700 wickets if he had been banned, or Samuels wouldn't have won those two World Cup finals for West Indies. Similarly, other players like Ajit Chandila, Shalabh Srivastava or Mervyn Westfield (have you heard any of these names before), all banned for life weren't as promising or in even in the international scene, and wouldn't have achieved anything comparable in their career, hence, the lack of support for them. 

Players like Asif and Butt though were well established and already had amicable records, and then they betrayed sport and their fans, just like Azharuddin and Cronje, which is probably why no one rallied with or around them. The betrayal was too much to take for the fans and even the officials. This wasn't the case with Amir, Gibbs or Samuels. Noone wants to be remembered as a spot fixer and Amir has ensured that he will also, in part, be remembered for his cricket with charismatic performances.

In conclusion your deeds do decide your future, but your perspective and public opinion of you also does. No one would've supported Azhar, or Cronje (international captains) or even Asif, but people did support Amir and Samuels in part because of their promise and their inexperience. Some players also had a late change of heart like Gibbs, Warne and Henry Williams, that shortened their sentences. Spot fixing is definitely no good, but don't make it inexcusable or even excusable for everyone. Your reputation should be as much a basis of your punishment as your deed. And, if there is anything cricket stands for, isn't it second chances?

Pink Ball Test Matches- Yay or Nay?

A new form of test matches, played under the nights, with a pink Kookaburra ball are about to become a regular feature of cricket in the future. With India gearing up for its first D/N TEST, it is clear that cricket’s most influential board has given a go ahead to this new and much anticipated variation to the longest format that has existed since the past century. With the international debut of this format last year, there are many more reports of boards keen to participate in one, for instance New Zealand and India, along with Australia and South Africa. This is surely an exciting prospect, and perhaps a much needed introduction of a new format that will provide a welcome rekindling of interest in test cricket that has been sadly overshadowed due to T20s and ODIs in the past. The day night test would give the game something NEW to look forward to and anticipate after the fans and players have got acclimatised with the three formats, the last of which was introduced at the onset of 2005.

What is always overlooked is that cricket is as much for its fans and stakeholders as the players. The pink ball is almost introduced as a medium of resuscitating test cricket that has been dyeing out. It is hoped that these test matches would increase the saturating interest of test cricket by giving the spectators more reason to come to the stadiums and consequently more finances will be generated. There have obviously been some reservations held by both the players and the experts about the visibility of the pink ball in the fading light or how it would hold up its shape and colour throughout the whole day, having profound effects on spin and reverse swing. Everything requires time, no new technology takes a year to settle down. The D/L technology is still widely disputed and refuted, just like the decision review system and the fielding restrictions and new ball rules are constantly chopped and changed. 

Yes, there are some things about this new format to be excited about, along with some prevalent doubts. The pink ball format promises to hold some challenges for both the batsmen- to sight and strike the ball, and the bowlers- to find reverse swing or spin, and these challenges would also depend a lot more on the type of pitch, the dew factor and other conditions during the match. There have also been subtle variations in how the balls have been produced according to conditions. The advantages include the increased crowd participation- not only because of the change in timings of play, but also because people would be keen to watch their players face new challenges, as that enhances the reputation of sport. 

 The full house during the match

To assess the durability and validity of a format, we look at 

its long term implications and immediate effects. Although a form of test cricket, this format is considerably different. The pink ball cannot wholly replace the red ball but complement it, just like the day night ODIs haven’t totally nullified the day games. The red ball still is the only medium of connection from the onset of cricket a century ago to the present where the interpretation of the game has changed exponentially in all aspects. The reservations about the day night tests are granted, but not extreme enough to render the format unplayable. The recent match between Australia and New Zealand may have been a success in terms of turn up, but hasn’t mitigated the players opinion about the difficulty of playing with the red ball. Change is never easy, and is resisted in every sport, especially by professionals settled and used to coping up with the rigours of their job. The pink ball matches offer some new opportunities, as well as another threat- that to the longevity of test cricket. If a success financially, the worldwide adoptions of pure red ball test cricket may decrease, especially in such a fragile situation.

AUS vs NZ November 2015

For the moment, YAY should be said to pink ball cricket. Just like T20s and ODIs are played at different times and each has its own charms, a similar system for test cricket would be fruitful. Similarly, a format can’t totally replace the other. Pink Ball test matches aren’t a new format, but a variation of an old format. They wouldn’t change the older format in any way, just provide another way of appreciate it by adding another aspect to it. Any new introduction is only initialised by keeping in mind the certainty of its effectiveness in the future. The pink ball matches tick that box and will be a welcome addition to red and white ball cricket.

Talented Underacheievers

There are a handful of cricketers that are early bloomers but very few are persisted with by the selectors. They have rare talents that are picked up by the team management early and are introduced to international cricket at a young age. A lot of time is invested in such players with the hope that they will justify the faith and live up to their potential.

In the present day, there are many such cricketers, who have established themselves in the national teams for quite a while but haven’t been able to perform to the weight of expectation and calibre, even after the extended runs and continued faith shown by the spectators.

Most of these players are fairly young, since they burst into the scene at a young age, and have some years ahead of them to come true to the expectations. Here are the 5 Players who have underachieved to their potential.

1. Ishant Sharma

Indian cricketer Ishant Sharma. (Photo by JEWEL SAMAD/AFP/Getty Images)

Having debuted as an 18-year-old back in 2007, Ishant was termed as the next big thing in the Indian pace department by the selectors with captain MS Dhoni showing a lot of faith in him. His promise and talent was exemplified on the tour to Australia in 2008 when he troubled Ricky Ponṭing by swinging the ball both ways and accounted for him in both the Tests and ODIs.

Ishant’s biggest problem was his inconsistently. His numbers both in the limited over formats as well as Tests don’t do justice to his capabilities or justify the long rope he has had. His Test average of 36.90 is the worst for a bowler with over 200 wickets and he was also the slowest to get to the landmark. His effectiveness in T20s is indicated by the fact that he hasn’t played one since 2013 and averages 50. He came back in the ODI team on the back of his Test performances recently but failed to make a mark yet again. His ODI stats aren’t amicable with an economy of 5.73 and an average of over 30.

However, its fair to say that he has a bright future ahead of him, as he is very much a part of India’s future Test plans, with a new and improved Ishant Sharma. The aggressive one we saw on the Sri Lanka tour in 2015. Indian fans will be hoping that he inculcates his Test match skills in other formats as well to be effective and successful throughout, especially after the time invested in him.

2. Umar Akmal

Umar Akmal of Pakistan leaves the field after being caught out. (Photo by Richard Huggard/Gallo Images)

This highly talented 26-year-old has been in the international scene for 7 years now, but the Pakistan fans still have enough reasons not to be pleased with his performances. Having shown a glimpse of what he can achieve during the 2010 T20 World Cup with innings of class and character in the semi-finals, Akmal established himself in the national team in all three formats.

However, with an under par average of 34 after playing more than 100 ODIs, Akmal has also been left out of the Test team due to his disappointing performances. He is often blasted by the Pakistani fans with his inability to capitalise on starts, finishing games for Pakistan and justify his potential. That he has underperformed on the whole is illustrated by the fact that he has better first-class and T20 averages than in international cricket.

Although he no longer has a place in the Pakistan team, it is safe to say that he still remains one of the most capable Pakistan batsmen around. He has to work considerably hard to be considered for selection in the longer forms, his stint in the limited overs formats though is likely to continue.

3. Darren Bravo

West Indies cricketer Darren Bravo celebrates after scoring his century. (Photo by JEWEL SAMAD/AFP/Getty Images)

Barren Bravo Not quite Lara-esque, a batsman with the similar style, follow through and back lift created a lot of interest in the West Indies, regarding his ability and durability as a cricketer.

He may well be one of the most successful batsmen in the current West Indies lineup, but an average of 41 doesn’t fulfil his calibre, and certainly not the expectations of the hopeful fans. He hasn’t been able to replicate Lara’s flair, or even live upto his expectations with an average of 32 and a strike rate of 70 in close to 100 ODIs, and has even dropped out of the test team.

Bravo may find it really difficult to come back to the T20I team, because of the number of T20 specialists West Indies are blessed with, and his disappointing performances, but he has the composure and the potential to be the most important and effective West Indies batsman in Tests and ODIs. The upcoming India Tests is the perfect opportunity for the 27-year-old to enhance his reputation.

4. Glenn Maxwell

Australian cricketer Mitchell Marsh and his teammate Glenn Maxwell celebrate their vicoty. (Photo by JEWEL SAMAD/AFP/Getty Images)

The ‘Big Show’ hasn’t really shown his big calibre in Australian colours, unable to fulfil the weight of expectations. Having made his debut 4 years ago, Maxwell has been a regular in the limited overs team with some memorable innings coming in the 2015 World Cup and his fearlessness is exemplified with his 125+ strike rate in both ODIs and T20Is.

However, he has a handful of match winning innings that justify his reputation of an impact and MVP player. His biggest weakness is his impatience and lack of composure that hamper the longevity at the crease. Maxwell’s average of 33 in ODIs and a meek 21 in T20Is elucidates this.

It may be fair to say that following a poor recent tri-series in West Indies, his place in the ODI team isn’t necessarily granted, but he is just one impactful inning away for the selectors to rekindle their faith in his abilities. The 27-year old has a long way to be considered in the Test arena but his first-class average of 42 shows that he has the calibre and ability, but fails to translate it. 

5. Tamim Iqbal

Tamim Iqbal of Bangladesh celebrates. (Photo by Matthew Lewis-IDI/IDI via Getty Images)

Bangladesh’s leading run-scorer in all three formats, and still a young player with immense potential, Tamim Iqbal has caused excitement amongst the fans, since he debuted at a tender age of 17 in 2007. Probably one of the most experienced Bangladeshi cricketers now, he has some memorable performances that give his fans reasons to rejoice in an otherwise disappointing era.

However, the extent of his success is debatable. For an opener, an ODI average of 31 is pedestrian at best, and his strike rate of 78 belies his attacking instincts. His Test average is under 40, which is poor for someone with over 3000 runs. The fact that he is underperformed is indicated by the stat that his averages in List A, first-class and T20s are better than the international formats.

Having said this, he remains the most capable and talented Bangladeshi opener in a limited talent pool, and a great 2016 World Cup in which he was the leading run-getter ensures that he will be a part of the squad in the upcoming long season. He may not have fulfilled his talent, but he has a bright and ling future ahead of him, giving him a lot of opportunities to justify himself, and emulate others.

Top 10 Highest Scores by No.11 batsmen in Test Cricket

Who says the No.11 cannot bat? They aren’t in the team only for their bowling! Traditionally, perceived as weaklings and easy pushovers, this list is going to change your opinion about the durability of some, if not all of the batsmen. Some instances, nevertheless rare ones, have actually seen No.11 batsmen being successful in damage control and resurrecting their teams.

Barring Chris Martin, and perhaps S Sreesanth or Pommie Mbangwa, cricket has produced many unsung heroes who have impressed with their weaker suit, and have bailed their team out of impossible situations, in some cases. From Pakistan’s Mushtaq Ahmed to Australia’s Ashton Agar, the list is fraught with some extremely well-known names, as well as not so famous names that have been given a reason to remember.

Mushtaq Ahmed features at No.11 with his passive-aggressive 59 off 106 balls including 4 sixes. The other Asians to make it to this list are Wasim Bari, a wicket keeper but not really a batsman, and Zaheer Khan. Khan is at no.4 with his career best 75 from just 115 balls, en route a partnership with Sachin Tendulkar where he ended up with his highest Test score of 248*.

Glenn McGrath and James Anderson are both well known contemporary names on the list, both searing pacers. Anderson is appreciated for his efforts against India with an 118-ball 81 that makes him the latest addition at No.3, while McGrath finds himself in the lower half with an innings of 61 against New Zealand. Bert Vogler, the South African seamer is the oldest in the list, with his contribution of 62* coming in 1906, more than 110 years ago.

John Snow, another seamer dominating this list, lasted the longest at the crease, in terms of balls faced with his 149 ball 59* against West Indies in 1966 and finds himself at No.9. Not surprisingly, an allrounder, who in fact opens regularly for his state side, Ashton Agar tops the list with a smashing 98, off just 101 balls in the 2013 Ashes.

The following list elaborates their efforts. Trent Bridge seems to have a special connection with No.11 batsmen, with the highest score in ODIs by a No.11 also coming there (quite recently too, with Mohammad Amir smashing a 28-ball 58), along with Tests. Numbers spanning from 1906 to most recently, 2014 are included in this comprehensive list, elucidating the rarity of a defining performance with the bat by No.11s.

Here is the list of top 10 highest scores by No.11 batsmen in Test cricket:

Player	Runs	4s	6s	SR	Opposition
AC Agar (AUS)	98	12	2	97.02	v England
TL Best (WI)	95	14	1	84.82	v England
JM Anderson (ENG)	81	17	0	62.3	v India
Z Khan (INDIA)	75	10	2	65.21	v Bangladesh
RO Collinge (NZ)	68*	6	1	–	v Pakistan
AEE Vogler (SA)	62*	5	3	–	v England
GD McGrath (AUS)	61	5	1	66.3	v New Zealand
Wasim Bari (PAK)	60*	10	0	–	v West Indies
JA Snow (ENG)	59*	8	0	40.41	v West Indies
Mushtaq Ahmed (PAK)	59	4	4	55.66	v South Africa
PL Symcox (SA)	54	6	0	128.57	v Australia

The Impact of T20s on Cricket: Positive or Negative?

Introduced in 2005, the much aggrandised T20 format has consistently been on the rise everywhere. Every country has its own T20 league which has been brought to life by world class players who are hailed as T20 specialists and domestic players who make a name for themselves though this platform. The IPL- India’s baby can be thought of as the catalyst for this rapid rise of this spontaneous format. As the world prepares for another T20 world cup starting March, the format's effects cannot be stated enough.

Initially, a lot had been thought about the relevance and implications of this format. Off spinners and leg spinners had been rendered useless, it was hailed as a youngster’s and a batsmen’s game, and a lot of speculations prevailed over its continuity and effect on the other formats and the approaches and the long term implication on the game of cricket. In a nutshell, this format has been the most influential of all formats, literally and metaphorically. We are now used to the outrageous ‘conventional’ and reserve sweeps and don’t give the  ‘dilscoops’ or the ‘switch hits’ as much credit as they deserve. God knows what new type of shots are yet to come, but one thing is for sure, new shots won’t surprise us as they did before.

People say cricket is turning into a batsman’s game with 300 totals imminent in almost all ODIs which are even easily chased down in many cases, high scoring T20 games and run rates like never before in test cricket. This is definitely the T20 effect, but it isn’t a negative one, since it will eventually change. After seeing unconventional batsmen, we have now seen two ambidextrous bowlers. After seeing new shots being invented, we have seen off spinners bowling flippers, leg spinners bowling doosras and fast bowlers bowling off cutters on a regular basis. It won’t be surprising to see more of such inventions, since just like T20 cricket revolutionised batting, it will do the same to bowling, after all, there was a time when people though spinners were unnecessary, and now 8 of the top 10 bowlers in T20Is are spinners!

The T20 World Cup, when introduced in 2007, was promising, but little could anyone predict the shear impact it would have on the current and future generation players, both young and old. It surely was a game for the youngsters, but was it?  Kumar Sangakkara, Chris Gayle and Mahela Jayawardhane are those “young players” who are playing in various leagues around the world. Everyone was wrong about T20s, it was supposed to be the youngsters’ format because it takes some getting used to, but as cricket proves yet again, Age is just a number. T20 cricket is the hardest format in that it takes the most time to get the hang of, but once one does get used to it, anyone can be a part of it. T20s turned out to increase the shelf life of cricketers, instead of reducing it. Muttiah Muralidharan, Micheal Hussey, Brett Lee, Marcus Trescothick and many more such cricketers have been out of international cricket for a long time, but T20s have provided them a way to stay in touch with their roots.

T20s have revolutionised fielding in a way like never before. An aspect of the game that had been overlooked and neglected at will, has almost been reborn as its importance has been rediscovered. More and more attention is now paid on fielding drils and electric fielding is almost a prerequisite to win games. The world’s top teams Australia, South Africa, New Zealand and India are full of such fielders. There was just one Jonty Rhodes in the last 2 decades, but we can’t choose from the Suresh Rainas, Glenn Maxwells and the David Warners. A reason for the multitude of fielding reserves is the competitiveness of this format which surely cannot be bad for the game.

The most inevitable part that came with T20s was the entertainment and the large fan base that it generated that has given cricket world wide recognition. We wouldn’t have seen players like AB De Villiers, Eoin Morgan and Glenn Maxwell who are recognised and loved all over the world. The only stigma that it has generated is perhaps the loss of the value of true test cricket, and turning cricket into a more and more batsman oriented game. However, it will be unfair to blame this format solely for that,other factors play a huge role too. The bat sizes have to be limited, there must be more experimentation with the type of ball used and the PITCHES must not be overly exaggerated to provide home advantage. Home Advantage is one thing, and Home overpowerment is another. One cannot blame the T20 format for introducing a whole new dimension to batting in the game, as such an after effect has come through the batsman and gives the bowlers more incentive and motivation to improve and invent.

T20s have been a boon to a cricket and the effects cannot be understated or undermined. It has already revolutionised two aspects of the game and is inciting the third to change too. This format has brought a whole new approach to the game by the players and the audience, and it is not supposed to remain this way. Cricket needed to be different than before because everything has a shelf life. This acted as a catalyst to bring about that change, and there are many more to come

DL Method - History, Intricacies and unwarranted criticisms

The Duckworth Lewis Method has been on everyone's mind ever since the Champions Trophy began, with the rain making unwanted and prolonged appearances in almost every match. The method has come under the scanner a number of times but is a significant improvement on the certain absurd techniques that prevailed before Frank Duckworth and Tony Lewis decided change was necessary.

First came the Average Run Rate system which made Mathematical sense to the even the layman, which worked on the principle that the chasing team had to maintain the same average required run rate in the number of overs it played that the Average Run Rate was for the target they are chasing. So, a team would be set 126 to win in 25 overs, if the other team made 250 in 50. What this method failed to take in account was the wickets lost. If the same team scored a 126-9 in 25 overs and rain interrupted their chase, they would've deemed winners, as there was no concept of "par" that was introduced by DL method later on.

The "MPO" or the most productive over method, intended to make improvements to the existing method failed miserably. The 1992 world Cup Blunder that left South Africa to need 22 runs from 1 ball from getting 22 to 13 is the most famous example. Working on the principle that the least productive overs of the side batting first would be scrapped from the target given to the second team, the identification had been made from the experts that having the same number of wickets for lesser overs gave an advantage to the chasing team, hence a higher target was plausible, but this identification didn't agree with the math or the method they advocated. The 1992 blunder (in which South Africa bore the brunt of keeping their bowling tight to bowl 2 maiden overs) was one of the few pitfalls of this method.

Consider this- Team A make 200 all out of 30 overs, and rain forces the match to be curtailed to 30 overs. According to the MPO method, the revise target would've been 201, but in 30 overs. Team B's prize for tight bowling- a more difficult target. Even worse would've this situation- Team A makes 200 all out in 30 overs and Play is deemed impossible when Team B had made 175-0 in 30 overs with 20 overs in hand. The winner according to MPO method? Team A.

Clearly, changes were required, and apart from a few highly unlikely situations that may seem arbitrary, the DL method is the best we have, and have ever had. It takes into account the overs remaining and wickets in hand as resources with 100 being the most resources left and 0 being the least. The following chart shows these calculated as resources left when a particular number of overs are left and wickets have been lost.



The math behind how these numbers is a little too complicated for the layperson but the cricket enthusiast just needs to know that these resources determine the DL target or the par scores at different intervals. If a 50 over target gets curtailed to a 40 over target, a team has 89.3% resources to chase down a target that a team had 100% resources to score according to the table. Therefore the target to be chased will be 89.3% of the target. It is interesting to note that the number of wickets lost doesn't matter when 50 overs and played or the number of overs played while getting bowled out dont matter as the net resources used are 100% either ways. Similarly, the par scores are also calculated with the formula S*R2/R1 where R2 are the chasing team's resources, R1 are the batting team's and S is the number of runs made in the first innings. This method also accounts for first innings that are interrupted and ended by rain when the resources used are less than 100.

Therefore, the DL method is a significant improvement in the previous rules and takes into account the three most important things in cricket- Runs made, Wickets in Hand and Number of Overs Left. A concrete crystallised mathematical formula can only include these variables. What more can be done? The statisticians can be given a headache to examine the history of the ground- the average total batting first, and win percentage chasing or the percentage of times the team won the toss won the match. And, lets be honest, the list goes on to become more complicated and out of bounds for statisticians. The fact remains that the team batting second will always remain at an advantage and a higher target to account for the advent of T20s and more wickets in hand makes perfect sense.

This system isn't perfect but isn't every system? There will always be complications and variables that are unaccounted for, but the DL method attempts to make the best out of the game. Therefore, until something absolutely revolutionary comes along, DL method is all we have. It has already made the best of what it could. Let us accept its relevance and appreciate its effectiveness.

The Best and Worst IPL 11

IPL 2017 Best 11

1. Gautam Gambhir (KKR)
2. David Warner (f) (SRH)
3. Suresh Raina (GL)
4. Steve Smith (c) (f) (RPS)
5. Ben Stokes (f) (RPS)
6. Rishabh Pant (wk) (DD)
7. Krunal Pandya (MI)
8. Rashid Khan (f) (SRH)
9. Bhuvaneshwar Kumar (SRH)
10. Jasprit Bumrah (MI)
11. Jaydev Unadkat (RPS)

Players who narrowly missed out- Dinesh Karthik, Hashim Amla, Glenn Maxwell, Chris Lynn, Axar Patel, Imran Tahir

The best of Gambhir was seen when he was opening the batting, as he provides stability to the top which compliments the belligerence of David Warner who was prolific again this season, the only batsman to aggregate over 600 runs.

Steve Smith has been preferred as captain over 3 other candidates that encompass the Top 4, due to his dominant hand in the resurgence of the RPS franchise who were down in the dumps in the last season. Suresh Raina completes a stable top 4, who accumulated over 1800 runs this IPL.

Ben Stokes, the million dollar man, who was named the MVP is the obvious choice who is a perfect fit for the all rounder spot. Stokes was a super man with both bat and ball, as well as in the field. Rishab Pant and Krunal Pandya provide youth and muscle with their fearless approach to round off a batting heavy top 5.

18 year old Afghan leggie Rashid Khan will bowl in tandem with Krunal Pandya after the power play, with both the spinners being both economical, accurate and wicket taking. The Purple Cap winner Bhuvaneshwar Kumar will share the new ball with the next best candidate Jaydev Unadkat (who played 5 fewer matches).

 Arguably the best death bowler in the world, Jasprit Bumrah, whose jaw dropping skills were on display multiple times this tournament in which he rarely failed, acts as the aggressive wicket taking option. These 5 four over bowlers are complimented by Stokes who has been lethal with his variations, and has shown his ability to bowl whenever required, to form a well balanced 11 who send shivers down the opponent's spines.

Now, for the players who didn't have the IPL that they had hoped for...

IPL 2017 Flop 11

1. Mandeep Singh (RCB)
2. Karun Nair (DD)
3. Rohit Sharma (c) (MI)
4. David Miller (f) (KXIP)
5. Yusuf Pathan (KKR)
6. Colin De Grandhomme (f) (KKR)
7. Naman Ojha (wk) (SRH)
8. Sunil Narine (f) (KKR)
9. Tymal Mills (f) (RCB)
10. Dhawal Kulkarni (GL)
11. Mohammad Shami (DD)

Players who narrowly missed out- Chris Gayle, AB De Villiers, Deepak Hooda, Trent Boult, Irfan Pathan, Shivil Kaushik

The quality of the players in this line up along with the glut of international and IPL experience suggest that the line up is much more destructive and proficient than the individual player performances suggest. Could this 11 upstage many others?

Why the Kohlis and the ABs shouldnt be compared to the Sachins and Laras

Two different generations. Two different types of batsmen at the peak of their powers. New benchmarks being set and old records being broken every other day. There is bound to be comparisons sparking up. Sachin vs Lara and Virat vs ABD is justified but Sachin vs Kohli and Lara vs ABD isn't. The best batsman of the generation may very well be justified with the comparison of his contemporaries, but not one may never be able to determine the greatest batsman to ever play the game of cricket. Generation by generation, the game of cricket has transformed and is very different to what it was 10 years ago, be it the number of formats played, the bat sizes, the rules or even the techniques of batting and bowling. 

At such times, when the game is constantly evolving, no one can picture what the game will be like after 50 years. Day night tests? 50 over IPLs? Test championships or Limited overs test matches perhaps? Each improvement or introduction that enhances the game demands a different physical, metal and technical skill, and the players who can develop these the most effectively will dominate the future. The skill sets required and the interpretation are definitely going to be different, and this is the case with the Virat Sachin dilemma.

One may be in awe of ABs versatility and Virat's dependability, but the times weren't as difficult as they were in Lara's era. The quality of willows used was elementary to say the least as compared to now, and T20 cricket hadn't been introduced then, ensuring that sanity mostly prevailed in that era. Sachin wasn't trained to be destructive and Bradman didn't have to adopt the aggressive aspect in his game, so no one can predict how dominating he would've been in ODIs or T20s, if at all. It would be unfair to compare ABs 360 shot capabilities to Lara's belligerence. Virat's recent consistency in T20s is an unmatchable spectacle today, but cannot be correlated to Sachin's overlying consistency in tests and ODIs, where he adapted his game according to bowling, conditions and different eras. 

Just like Bradman's heriocs can't be stacked up against Sachin and Lara of the next generation, due to the dearth of ODIs in Bradman's times, AB can't be put up against Sachin, and a future AB can't be compared to a current AB De Villiers. What we can, and most definitely should do is appreciate the geniuses for their central ability and infinite capabilities. There is no doubt that an average of 99.94 is unlikely to be ever matched, or 34,000 international runs by an individual are a superhuman effort or the invincibility of a player at just 28 is commendable. However, no record is superior than the other and there is no single person who will hold all possible records as they are likely be broken somewhere down the line. Since the records hold different meanings, and magnitude, no two can be compared, and since they wouldn't be held by one person ever, no one can be pinpointed as "The Greatest of All Time"

The least that can be done is the comparisons occurring at the culmination of these modern day greats’ careers as Virat’s and Ab’s true numbers at 40 may be a better indication than their numbers at the peak of their career as sportsmen. The greatest batsmen can only be chosen according to the eras in which he belongs to, with respect to a similar sample size and similar factors. Good players adapt themselves according to the format changes, great players dominate all the possible formats in the eras they are part of. Virat and AB are those batsmen now. Sachin and Lara were the batsmen then. Bradman was the batsman originally. But no two can be compared, and for good reason.

Will the MCC’s move to introduce card system benefit the game?

Countless sports like hockey, badminton, volleyball, rugby and athletics have stringent methods of dealing with misconduct or violence of any kind on the field. 

What about cricket?  Players are mainly fined an insignificant amount of their match fee and banned for a match at best, while the match during which the misdeeds are carried is totally ignored. The recent brawl in a domestic cricket match in Bermuda where the wicketkeeper resorted to violent means may be an anomaly, but there are various other instances of misbehaviour among players and umpires was recorded.

Ben Stokes recently had an argument with Indian captain Virat Kohli, while the Anderson-Jadeja incident is still fresh in our minds. The Australian cricketers tend to go overboard with their sledging on regular occasions who can forget the Monkey Gate and Josh Hazelwood saying, “who the f**k is the third umpire”.

At a recent MCC meeting, perhaps this issue as discussed at large, with the members contemplating an introduction to “penalty cards” in cricket too. These would give umpires the power to send players off the field for grievous disciplinary violations. The MCC world cricket committee has recently recommended that umpires be empowered “to eject cricketers from a game for serious disciplinary breaches” such as threatening an umpire, physically assaulting another player, umpire, official or spectator, and any other act of violence on the field.

The committee further went on to state that cricket was the only sport in which there is “no in-match punishment”. Rightly so too, as the players are reprimanded after a match ends, the one who creates nuisance during a game might easily go on to win the match for his side. Incidents such as the under-arm bowling incident could also be avoided.

Billy Bowden, albeit jokingly, also showed Glen McCgrath the red card in an attempt to discourage his from under arm bowling. That certain gesture had worked too. If the MCC does decide to work on this problem, the forms of penalty or penalty cards may be valid from as early as October 2017. This would mean that cricketers would have to be on their toes and keep their behaviour in check especially while fielding. 

Unlike football, where a sending off still maintains some level of competition, cricket would be virtually impossible for a team with a batsman or bowler short against a full strength opposition.

Having stated that, it is unfair for the opposition to bear the brunt of a player who has not adhered to the spirit of the game. Virat Kohli ended up making 248 runs in the secondTest against England, clearly being the difference between the two sides, despite discipline problems, especially with Ben Stokes.

Very recently Stokes was also in the headlines for refusing to shake hands with Bangladeshi players during the ODIs and yet played a defining role in England’s first Test win. These may be recent examples but what about the Ashes sledging incident of 2013 (James Anderson vs Michael Clarke), or the Harbhajan- Sreesanth controversy in the IPL 2008?

The introduction of cards may perhaps decrease the role of troublemakers in a certain match- for example, restrict the number of overs a bowler is allowed to bowl or settle the batting position for a key batsman. Whatever be the impact, this move by the MCC will have strong ramifications and will alter the way this game is played.