Battle of surfaces and tour-de-farce

Umpire's Post

Both tennis and cricket are faced with waning popularity. But their administrative set-ups are addressing it in starkly different ways.

On Wednesday, Rafael Nadal won a tense battle with Roger Federer 7-5, 4-6, 7-6

(12-10). Dubbed the battle of surfaces, the match was played on a court whose one half had grass and the other clay. The two players had to change shoes at changeovers.

Nadal is the undisputed king of clay, having won, till this event, a record 72 matches on the surface; Federer has won a record 48 on the trot on grass.

For a sport struggling to increase its popularity, the exhibition match was a masterstroke. It drew a packed house and lavish media coverage.

Cricket, too, is in recession. The International Cricket Council has brought more teams into international cricket. But the sport faces waning popularity in its core markets.

Members of the all-conquering Australian team struggle to get endorsement deals. In New Zealand, Ross Taylor can walk into and out of a department store unrecognised. The West Indian team played some of its World Cup matches to half-empty stands.

What is the cricket administration doing to address the issue? Nothing. Instead, it has just staged arguably the worst global sporting event ever.

The anti-climax to the World Cup, which saw Sri Lanka block 18 meaningless deliveries in the dark after Australia had already celebrated victory, showed umpires and referee to be bumbling and ignorant. It also symbolised the tour-de-farce that this tournament was.

To compound matters, the ICC is caught in a carping battle with its richest constituent, Board of Control for Cricket in India. A BCCI official even talked of moving a no-confidence motion against ICC, only to be disowned by his board the next day.

In any case, BCCI would do well to set its own house in order first. It has just bungled its way through selecting the team for the Bangladesh tour (players who have not played much in recent months have ostensibly been rested), played to the gallery by placing a cap of three on players' endorsement contracts, and somehow concluded that a good commentator will also make a good coach (or cricket manager, as they call Shastri).

A few days ago BCCI president Sharad Pawar said he was looking into whether sponsors influenced selection. But in doing so he gave a new meaning to the words non-committal and vague. The richest sports body in the world has not paid its players salaries for seven months.

Amidst this, can anyone think of a match between Australia and India played on a pitch whose one half would have grass and offer bounce, while the other half would be a dust bowl paradise for spinners?