Ranji, an uninspiring grind

MUMBAI: In retrospect, it would be fair to conclude that it wasn’t the Indian Premier League (IPL) or international cricket that sapped India's Premier domestic tournament the Ranji Trophy, of any interest. Instead, it was the Board of Control for Cricket

in India’s listless planning that failed to make Ranji matches happening.

While taking nothing away from Mumbai who are celebrating their 38th title win after batting Uttar Pradesh out of the final, it is pertinent to note that the 76 days of cricket the tournament witnessed - for the record played out at 23 different venues across the country - was uninspiring. There were flashes of brilliance though.

Cheteshwar Pujara’s century in the quarter-final at Mumbai, Shivakant Shukla’s 178 in the semi-final at Nagpur, nine seven-wicket hauls including that of Basanth Mohanty in the highly entertaining match between Orissa and Punjab and Ravindra Jadeja’s performances that make him the all-rounder of the year. The rest of the tournament spoke harshly about the fast diminishing standard of India’s domestic circuit. ToI takes a look at what all was appalling.

Flat pitches

The promise of making the 22-yard strip more exciting failed disastrously. The two semi-finals were played at Nagpur and Chennai, respectively. At both venues, tracks remained flat at best, an absolute downer if seen in the backdrop of the neutral venue theory proposed to improve the quality of cricket.

Out of the 56 matches, 29 yielded a result and it should be taken into account that most venues where matches ended in a result, weren’t the leading international stadiums. Instead, lesser known grounds in Valsad, Ratnagiri, Mysore, Bhubhaneshwar, Ghaziabad and Cuttack delivered.

No takers for overseas player

Another BCCI decision which failed was one with respect to introducing one overseas player among the four guest players in each team. The rule dictated that cricketers who have played either 20 ODIs or 10 Test matches can only be invited, which in the end proved to be senseless.

Three associations - Baroda (Dilhara Fernando), Bengal (Muttiah Muralitharan) and Maharashtra (Emanul Haq Jr) - went ahead and signed foreigners out of which only Haq Jr turned up. The rest were either deprived in terms of spending or did not have a choice.

That Muralitharan couldn’t turn up for a single game for Bengal either suggests that Cricket Association of Bengal simply used the off-spinner’s name to publicize their campaign or that the star spinner simply wasn’t available. In any case, the BCCI needs to do a rethink.

Semis of four days makes no sense

The BCCI seems to be struggling to accommodate domestic cricket. If not, there is little reason to believe why the semi-finals were of four days duration and not five. Several players who were a part of the semi-finals admitted to the ToI that ‘‘four-day match doesn’t make any sense’’.

It is understandable, they say, that matches throughout the season are played in four-days format to squeeze in the number of games but ‘‘at least the semi-finals of the tournament need to be for five days, simply because there can be a straight result". True. It makes no sense that the team entering the final does so by way of first innings lead. Five days can ensure a good match.

Poor umpiring

One thing that has unanimously been accepted this season, is that the level of umpiring in the Indian domestic circuit seems to be going from bad to worse. Amesh Saheba’s poor show in the semifinals between Mumbai and Saurashtra and again in the final at Hyderabad was the most glaring example.

Net run-rate rule

The net run-rate rule left players and coaches confused. Teams expressed dismay and surprise over the rule for the final which said if a team’s first innings was left incomplete, the winner would be decided on the run-rate.

‘‘Isn’t it starnge? If we score 700 off 200 overs and then UP are 150 for 9 in 30 overs, they will win. In a four-day or a five-day match, there’s no need to decide the winner on the basis of better run rate,’’ Mumbai skipper Wasim Jaffer said before the match. For the semi-final too, the BCCI guideline that the net run-rate calculated from previous games will decide the winner in a knockout game in case the first innings is not completed, did not go down well.

Neutral venue

Sachin Tendulkar gave his verdict on the neutral venue policy adopted by the BCCI, saying it made no sense. ‘‘You don’t have the atmosphere at a neutral venue. If you play home or away, you have the home crowd rooting for its team while the other side will be up against it. This is a part of the learning process for the young cricketers,’’ Tendulkar said. Despite having neutral venues, the board failed to provide sporting wickets which left the bowlers toiling away in the dust.