BCCI blues...

The last time India did so badly in an away series was in 1999 when they went to Australia. They did slightly better over there, as they won one international game against Pakistan. In this series, the only victory was during the practice matches.
What went wrong for India? After all, they are the World Champions. They had not lost a single series ever since MS Dhoni became captain. They had a great ODI record before this series, but somewhere down the line, they lost the plot.
People have blamed the IPL and the fact that too much cricket is being played. Since the beginning of 2011, India has played South Africa, the World Cup, the IPL, the West Indies and England. After this, there is the Champions' League, a home series against the West Indies, a home series against England and then a series against Australia in Australia.

Overworked: Don't be surprised if
Dhoni decides to retire in 2 years

We can all blame the IPL. I've blamed it for the longest time. I hated the concept from the first year itself and the second year sealed the deal for me when Lalit Modi thought that the IPL needed more security than the Union Elections. But I won't blame it entirely.
We have a board that wants money.  The BCCI is the richest board in the world. It believes that because it has the money, it is bigger than the game. It refuses to associate itself with the government of India. It refuses to be questioned under the RTI. Other sports in India are accountable. Why not cricket?
The answer is a simple one, actually. It's always been the sad tale of Indian cricket. You have ministers lobbying for top cricket posts. Ironically, cricketers who are ministers, don't have much to say, but be experts on news panels. Navjot Singh Sidhu is a so-called expert. Nobody knows what Kirti Azad is up to and Mohammad Azharuddin was part of the Badminton Association of India. On the other hand, we have had the late Madhavrao Scindia, Arun Jaitley, Sharad Pawar and now Vilasrao Deshmukh as part of the BCCI think-tank - with Pawar taking a jump up to be the head the ICC.
Where does the player stand a chance? He unfortunately is a puppet in a larger scheme of things. We can make fun of our cricketers and write articles ridiculing their performance. They are to blame as well. Most of them are out of shape, others take their place in the side for granted and sadly, the selection has become a political one. To put it in perspective, people have told me that Suresh Raina, an extremely talented cricketer and a great ODI prospect is in the side because "he is dating Praful Patel's daughter." Similarly, "Yuvraj and Harbhajan are in the side because they are favourites of the captain and someone high up."
Furthermore, India doesn't have a player's association. This isn't good for a player, as his chances of burning out are a lot higher, given the amount of cricket he plays every year. IPL performances are viewed as better performances as compared to Ranji performance, as RP Singh's selection showed us.
Indian cricket has always been in this zone. The fact that we became the number one test side in the world shadowed this truth, but now after the loss against England, there will be a lot of questions asked. Hopefully for the Indian fan, there will be a comeback.
Unfortunately, I feel that the fan will be disappointed.

Rankings and rants

The Dambulla stadium is Sri Lanka's Sharjah

Before the Asia Cup began, Aakash Chopra said that India will be playing Sri Lanka for the millionth time this year. It was casually mentioned on Twitter, but I think it was retweeted several times. And why not?
Right now, I'm bored of watching the Tri-Series. I follow the game on CricInfo, but that is also limited. I'd rather follow the score for the England-Pakistan test match, which looks to be another good game of cricket.
Dambulla has become the Sharjah of Sri Lankan cricket. Every limited over or T20 game played in Sri Lanka seems to be in Dambulla. Again...it's understandable, as it is probably the only sporty wicket Sri Lanka has, considering their rubbish test match wickets.
So how do two teams deal with strategy when they meet each other so often in a year? It eventually comes down to luck on who wins the toss in the shorter version of the game. In the longer version, especially in the subcontinent, you need to bat first, put up a total of 600-plus and play out a draw. Unless of course, you're Virender Sehwag, who decides to make 288 in a day.
The boards need to be criticized for this. They schedule so many matches with the same side during the year, that most of the players find it hard to adjust to alien conditions when they play in countries like Australia and South Africa. India's record abroad has improved over the last few years, but it's still a long way from giving us the Number 1 test ranking. We're good, I agree, but we need to be more consistent.
I tend to agree with Kumara Sangakkara about the ICC rankings. If we play in subcontinent-like conditions throughout the year, barring a series abroad, then on what basis are we judged? India has been doing well in tests, but its ODI and T-20 (which I don't even count as proper cricket), haven't been the best in a while. Yet we're number 2 in the ODI rankings. The biggest tournament that we won in the last three years is the VB Series in Australia, which was three years ago. We haven't reached the semi-final of any major tournament involving all the cricket playing nations in the last two years.
My only theory is that since we play so much cricket, the probability of us winning more matches is greater. It's probably why the BCCI decided to work on the test itinerary for 2010, fearing that India would lose the Number 1 ranking. More matches played means the probability of more wins. Thus the ranking. If that is the case, then the ICC has some serious rethinking and restructuring to do.