The Tribune, Chandigarh, India

Service charge
Sania Mirza’s success would be of greater significance if it helps Team India become a power in women’s tennis, writes Vikramdeep Johal

Rushmi Chakravarthi feels that players like her need media support and sponsorship to prove their mettle

Russia has Maria Sharapova, Elena Dementieva, Svetlana Kuznetsova, Anastasia Myskina, Dinara Safina and Elena Likhovtseva. India has Sania Mirza and the others — Shikha Uberoi, the Bhambri sisters (Ankita and Sanaa) and Rushmi Chakravarthi.

The first line-up is so strong that not even Sharapova and Kuznetsova were missed during last week’s Fed Cup final, in which Russia defeated France 3-2. This was their second victory in two years in the women’s equivalent of the Davis Cup. If Myskina was the match-winner last year, this time it was Dementieva.

On the other hand, Indian women’s tennis has become synonymous with Sania, while the others, barring Shikha to some extent, are not yet quality players. At the ongoing WTA Sunfeast Open, both Rushmi and Ankita entered the main draw through the qualifiers, but crashed out in the opening round; Sanaa Bhambri even failed to qualify.

As far as the latest WTA rankings are concerned, Sania is the only Indian among the top 100. She is at a career-best 34, followed by Shikha (152), Rushmi (444) and Sanaa (484).

Russia’s fantastic success in the Fed Cup has underlined the importance of bench strength, which India lacks. Sania is going great guns, but Team India in women’s tennis is far from formidable. Her absence was badly felt during the World Group playoff qualifiers in Delhi earlier this year. She pulled out due to an injury, putting great burden on Shikha, who was making her debut for India. The latter fought gallantly, but the Chinese girls were just too good. China won the event to qualify for the playoff, leaving India in third place behind runners-up Australia.

The team’s aim for 2006 should be to become Asia’s number one. Their challengers are not only China, but also Japan, Indonesia and Thailand, who all figured in the World Group playoffs this year. Sania’s presence would certainly boost their chances of coming out of the Asia-Oceania Group, but she needs the support of team members. How much she can inspire them would also be crucial to India’s fortunes.

A tricky factor is the displeasure felt by some players at the Sania mania gripping the nation. Ankita and Rushmi recently sounded peeved when they talked about the neglect suffered by girls like them. “Sania has done very well for herself and made India proud. But there are others who are also trying and with a little media support and sponsorship they can also prove their mettle,” said Ankita. Echoing her views, Rushmi said the contributions and efforts of other girls must be recognised.

According to Ankita, a player needs to play at least 17 quality tournaments to gain enough points for moving up the WTA ladder. “That is not possible without sponsors. What happens if I end up playing 15?” she questions. Both Ankita and Rushmi’s first-round exit in the Sunfeast Open wouldn’t have helped matters.

It is a chicken-and-egg situation. A player has to stand out through her game (and attitude) to attract the media and the corporates. But to reach a certain level of excellence, all kinds of support, be it financial, technical or moral, are pre-requisites.

For the good of Indian women’s tennis, which in the words of Mahesh Bhupathi holds the key to the game’s future in the country, Sania’s super success should encourage healthy competition among Ankita and Co. The latter should also try harder to make themselves worthy of Sania-like attention. They ought to take their cue from the Russian girls, who haven’t let the spotlight hogged by Sharapova affect their performance.

India’s talent pool may not match that of Russia, but if tapped properly, it can make a splash on the big stage and shed the tag of “a one-girl wonder” in the not-so-distant future.

At home in Pakistan

Indian striker Gagan Ajit Singh bowled over spectators with his goal-scoring skills in Pakistan’s Super Hockey League

India’s mercurial forward Gagan Ajit Singh was one of the stars of the inaugural Super Hockey League (SHL) in Karachi. Gagan, who represented Capital Dynamos, was the third highest goal scorer in the league with six to his name. Gagan was consistently on the score sheet, but it was his hat-trick for Dynamos over favourites Shan-e-Punjab that put a spoke in the latter’s wheel. His team, however, could only finish fifth.

Gagan and five other Indian players who featured in the SHL — Dilip Tirkey, Arjun Halappa, Viren Rasquinha, Sandeep Singh and Adrian D’Souza — all left a lasting impression on their team-mates, fans and officials.

The tournament was won by Sindh Qalandars, who had Indian captain Tirkey in their ranks. He was the backbone of the Qalandars’ defence and was also instrumental in organising the midfield.

“I don’t know what we would have done without Tirkey,” said former Pakistan captain Ahmed Alam, who represented the Qalandars.

“Tirkey is so involved on the field that it seems as if he is our captain. He is really inspiring,” said Pakistan’s Olympian Kashif Jawwad, who played alongside Tirkey for the Qalandars.

Goalkeeper Adrian D’Souza was in contention for the best custodian of the SHL, as the diminutive goalkeeper kept the Baloch Lions in the game in at least a couple of wins that aided their fourth-place finish.

Up-and-coming drag flicker Sandeep Singh made an early impact for Shan-e-Punjab and was one of the leading goal scorers despite missing a couple of games due to illness.

Midfielder Rasquinha might have been unlucky to have played for the weakest team, Frontier Falcons, but he nevertheless made an impact. “Viren proved that he is a great player by making his presence felt in spite of playing for a weaker outfit,” said Falcons’ coach Qamar Ibrahim, an Olympian.

Halappa kept a low profile in Pakistan, but gelled well with team-mates Rehan Butt and Akhtar Ali to see Northern Cavaliers into the final.

The Indians were bowled over by the hospitality, but Gagan felt peeved that the organisers did not regard him good enough to be considered for the player of the league award. “I have been loved and admired both on and off the field ,which made me feel at home. Nevertheless, I would think twice before returning for the second SHL,” he said.

Gagan agreed that Mohammad Shabbir of Sindh Qalandars deserved the award, but he felt that having won two man-of-the-match awards in the league event, he deserved to be in the pool of players who were considered for the top award.

Surprisingly, while naming those who were considered for the awards, the compere of the prize distribution ceremony, who happened to be the marketing head of the Pakistan Hockey Federation, did not mention any of the six Indians who played with distinction in the event. — Agencies

Youhana’s leap of faith

Yousuf Youhana prays with his team-mates after a practice session at the Gaddafi Stadium in Lahore
Yousuf Youhana (right) prays with his team-mates after a practice session at the Gaddafi Stadium in Lahore

In the Byzantine ways of Pakistan cricket politics, the conversion of Yousuf Youhana (now Mohammad Yousuf) from Christianity to Islam may see his return to the vice-captaincy of the national side and eventually the captaincy itself.

As vice-captain, Youhana led Pakistan in two Test matches in Australia last season when captain Inzamam-ul-Haq was injured and also in some one-day Internationals.

However, he was controversially replaced as vice-captain for the tour to India earlier this year, a move which the Pakistan cricketers and officials refused to comment on.

Reportedly, it was former captain Imran Khan, still wielding considerable clout in Pakistan cricket who objected to Youhana’s position in the side and this led to his being replaced.

He had identified Younis Khan as replacement for Haq as leader of the Pakistan team. According to another Pakistan columnist, Imran had stated that Yousuf did not have the right “character” to lead Pakistan
and hence should be replaced.

Writing in The Nation in February, journalist Zafar Samdani wrote, “The PCB (Pakistan Cricket Board) has stabbed the team in the back in a totally incomprehensible move by replacing the vice-captain (Youhana) with a player (Younis) who, judging by the management of the team in Australia (where Pakistan had just returned from after being beaten 3-0), is not treated as an automatic member of their playing eleven”.

Hinting at this, columnist Kamran Abbasi wrote in Wisden Asia Cricket (October, 2004): “When Youhana has substituted for Inzamam, his captaincy has been imaginative and astute, but highly placed insiders claim that Youhana is too self-serving to win the players’ confidence. His religion too makes the calculus more complex, when it should not even be a factor”.

Earlier, in www.cricinfo.com (April 22, 2004), the same columnist while discussing future Pakistani captains had written, “Youhana is thought to be a schemer, not trusted by some of his team-mates, and others are shamefully reluctant to be led by a captain from a minority group”.

However, what may have turned the tide against his replacement, Younis Khan, was the fight that erupted in the Pakistan dressing room during the first Test match in Bridgetown, Barbados in May.

Younis was leading in place of Inzamam, who was serving a one-Test ban. The altercation involved Younis, Inzamam and Shahid Afridi.

Inzamam had also lunged at Younis at a training session during the 2003 World Cup in South Africa and had to be restrained by other members of the team.

Three other Christians have represented Pakistan in Test cricket, Wallis Mathias (22 Tests; 1955-62); Antao D’Souza (six Tests; 1959-62) and Duncan Sharpe (three Tests; 1959). Besides, two Hindus, wicketkeeper Anil Dalpat (nine Tests; 1984-85) and his nephew, leg spinner Danish Kaneria (currently 28 Tests) have played for Pakistan.

India’s record of ‘minority’ captains is exemplary. Four Muslims (Iftikhar Ali Khan, Nawab of Pataudi Sr, Ghulam Ahmed, Mansur Ali Khan Pataudi and Mohammad Azharuddin), two Christians (Vijay Samuel Hazare and Chandu Borde), two Parsees (Polly Umrigar and Nari Contractor) and a Sikh (Bishan Singh Bedi) have led the nation in Test cricket. — UNI

Setting the records straight
Sai R. Vaidyanathan

After almost two decades, India registered a series win outside the subcontinent. But it did not come against tough oppositions like England or Australia under testing conditions. The series win against Zimbabwe virtually came on a platter.

Captain Sourav Ganguly made the most of a great opportunity to end his century drought, while Irfan Pathan, who struggled against top sides, ran through the Zimbabwe batting line-up. But is Ganguly’s century against a club-level attack on a par with Sunil Gavaskar’s ton against the fearsome West Indian pacers? And would the English rate a series win against Bangladesh as highly as their Ashes victory?

To ensure that statistics present the true picture, a new system of keeping records is needed. The opposing team in a match has to have a certain level for individual and team performances to be included as Test and ODI statistics in the record books.

To begin with, the ICC should fix a maximum percentage of Test matches and ODIs that any deserving team should not lose. Then classify the teams according to their record in the past two years. A team that performs better than the set mark would be classified as a qualifying team for one year.

Then, set the minimum number of Tests and ODIs that a qualifying team will play in a year against other qualifying teams and specify the maximum percentage of matches it can “afford” to lose. Also set the minimum number of matches for playing against non-qualifiers and the maximum losing percentage.

Similarly, specify the number of matches and the maximum losing percentages for a non-qualifying team against qualifying and non-qualifying teams.

Thus, at the end of the year, there would be four percentages to look at: ODIs lost against qualifiers, Tests lost against qualifiers, ODIs lost against non-qualifiers and Tests lost against non-qualifiers. A team that comes good on at least three counts is ranked as a qualifier for the next year. The review would take place every year.

The statistics for the matches among qualifying teams only would be compiled under the present head of ODIs and Test matches. Another head has to be created under which statistics for the matches where one or both teams are non-qualifiers would be compiled.

By specifying the amount of matches that a team has to win to be a qualifier, teams would be encouraged to perform better. No team would like to be ranked as a non-qualifier. As all statistics are being recorded, though under different heads, it would not have any negative impact on individual performances.

Schedules are planned without taking the players into consideration. In the pursuit of making money, the boards forget that it is players who make a team. The absence of players capable of winning matches could take the team down. Australia lost the two Tests in which Glenn McGrath did not play due to injury. This cost them the Ashes.

Shivnarine Chandrapaul was the only member in the West Indian squad touring Sri Lanka in July-August with adequate experience of international cricket. They lost both Tests against the hosts in four days. The threat of not qualifying for next year would make the boards give their players time to rest and recuperate.

The plan of the ICC to globalise the game would also get a fillip under this system. Teams like the Netherlands, the UAE, Kenya, ranked as non-qualifiers to begin with, can play more five-day and one-day cricket even against qualifying teams. This would better their game and prepare them for the topmost level.

The ICC should seriously consider this change to make the game more interesting and globalised. It would also ensure that the sanctity of cricket statistics is upheld.