ICL v/s IPL: The story of Kapil Dev, Aamir Khan, Allen Stanford and Lalit Modi

When BCCI and IPL turned ICL and everyone who had anything to do with ICL into outcasts, no one said anything.

I can't recall the current players (A Tendulkar or Ganguly for example) saying anything about the way BCCI and IPL were flexing their muscles and affecting the careers of ICL players.

I don't remember the media coming out against BCCI and IPL for their dictatorial behaviour.

The ICC did not raise a murmur at their behaviour either.

I don't think that the commentators - M/S Ravi Shastri or Gavaskar or Arun Lal said a word against BCCI/IPL for the way they were behaving.

All these guys knew which side of the bread was buttered. All these guys knew who called the shots.

So much so that no one minded the fact that Kapil Dev, one of India's true heros if ever there was one, was reduced to a social pariah by an ambitious businessman.

This is when my wife wondered how Aamir Khan would behave if he had anything to do with Indian cricket. Would he have supported Kapil Dev or would he, like so many others, be lured by the greenbacks?

And the bigger question is this: If the Texan billionaire Allen Stanford ties up with Kapil Dev and ICL, and offers more dollars as prize money, will all the players, commentators and umpires and media who are now aligned with IPL, come running to join ICL? The answer unfortunately looks like a resounding YES.

20-20 cricket - the right way to bring cricket to the world including Groucho Marx

The purists might still yearn for test cricket, but one thing is for sure - 20-20 cricket is here to stay. And why shouldn't it? I remember tennis ball cricket matches we played back home in Ahmedabad. They were all of 20 overs a side and played with great passion and commitment and we had a result in less than 4 hours. Then again, there is place for test cricket too - the real test where you have a bit for everyone - batsmen, bowlers - seamers and spinners.

But this post is not about which format is better - after all both have their merits and they can co-exist.

This post is about how 20-20 cricket can help ICC take the game of cricket to the rest of the world - especially big markets like the US, Europe and China. Whenever I talk to my Chinese friends about cricket they baulk at the very prospect of players playing a match over 5 days after which a game could still not have a result! So they stay away from it - they don't even want to try and understand the game.

20-20 on the other hand has everything the game has to offer and also guarantees a result in 3 hours. It is more comprehensible for people totally new to the game - 3 hours is all they have to invest. Then again 20-20 promises much more - there are the dancers and singers and acrobats who make the game of 20-20 an interesting outing. My Chinese friends will not mind joining me for a game of 20-20 cricket.

There is this story about comedian Groucho Marx who was once taken to a game of test cricket at Lords in England. The players had been playing for a couple of hours when Groucho turned to his host and asked, "So when does the game start?"

Groucho would have appreciated the 20-20 version.

Sourav Ganguly - another match winning performance

Who writes his scripts? Will he ever stop proving people wrong? A hunger to do well is what sets this man apart. Not the perfect technique, but the sheer will to stick it out and hang around come what may. That sums his 87 against South Africa on a crazy pitch.

That he has to fight for his place before every test match shows how much the Indian cricket selection think tank understands him or does not understand him.

How much different would his performances be if he had the assurance of the captain and selectors that he would be given an extended run come what may. Imagine the insecurity with which he and the other seniors are currently playing. Any talent needs security to flower.

With this kind of grit and determination, will he also not fight back into the one day team?