The Higher Moral Ground

Sambit Bal, in a meandering piece on the injustice done to Cricinfo and other cricket websites by the IPL makes some very valid points. The most insightful paragraph of the piece is this:

"It has been argued that what we do conflict with the IPL's commercial interests. In other words, as long as we are around, as long as cricket fans see us as the most comprehensive and credible source for news, views and scores for cricket, the BCCI's ambitions for its own website are unlikely to be fulfilled. They are missing something important here: Independence and credibility are vital ingredients for any media organisation. A cricket board can not be expected to rise above its own interests."

And it is followed immediately by another very valid statement:

"Of course, we have commercial interests."

Immediately after, he takes off on a tripe trip:

"To us, covering cricket is much more than a business, it's an obligation to the game and to the millions of readers who rely on us. We cover cricket in Kenya and Bermuda; and in India, we go considerable lengths to cover domestic cricket, that impoverished and uncared-for cousin, with no expectation of returns other than the satisfaction of having served cricket. This, of course, might be beyond the comprehension of those who cannot see the game beyond the rights it offers."

Agreed. Cricinfo does cover lots of cricket that the world largely doesn't care about. And it does a great job of this coverage, given the resources. But it did under-cover the IPL's 'uncared-for-cousin' - the ICL. Not once, and I stress, not once did I see ICL live scores on the front page. And trust me, I check the website very often - it is my homepage on one browser. Reports of the ICL games are largely factual, often written by ambiguous "Cricinfo staff", and there is hardly an opinion on any of the cricket played. Contrary to popular belief, the cricket isn't sub-standard, and the crowds, at the Lal Bahadur Stadium in Hyderabad at least, were quite substantial. People with tickets were sent away from the final.

Compare this with the IPL coverage by the same website - for instance, today, there was an article on Robin Uthappa, and whether he is worth the money they paid for him. Why isn't there a piece on Rayudu's batting? He's arguably a better player, and his technique and shot-selection are definitely worth giving more attention to than Uthappa's.

In the recently concluded ICL World Series, a very interesting innovation was used - the batsman was allowed to refer three decisions to the TV umpire. Guess what, the innovation worked - everyone involved was happier than they otherwise were. The umpires liked the fact that someone was auditing their decisions, it put them under less pressure. The players liked it because there was some way of keeping a check on errors of judgment. Cricinfo, which I'm sure would have flooded the cyber-world with articles, quotes, opinions and lists if such an innovation was made in the IPL, remained silent, except for a couple of references here and there.

Cricinfo is a wonderful and comprehensive website. Many fans, fanatics and addicts swear by it, and owe their better understanding and knowledge of the game to it. Many others have settled arguments based on material from the website - especially using Statsguru. Is Laxman a better player abroad? Is Sachin a better player in the first innings? Is Mervyn Dillon really the world's best bowler? Who was Syd Barnes? Was Bill O'Reilly better? How did the Don score all those runs? We've always turned to Cricinfo for all this and more. We know that when Sambit Bal writes that they have a commitment towards cricket and cricket fans, he means it. But this charge, of not giving the ICL its due, I'm sure, he will plead guilty to.

To conclude, he writes, in reference to the IPL:

"We will try to bring you every game with the same rigour and depth you have come to expect from us."

Frankly, expected more rigour and depth in your ICL coverage.