The Reliance Carnival in Retrospect

Not many surefire rules of instant cricket can be formed –but looking back at the 27 matches, does provide food for thought. The importance of good ground and in-the-air fielding could not have been more epitomized and when the battle stretches to the last ball, every run saved was a run made. Also on display was the fact that good fielders broke bounds of age (Gavaskar, Emmings, Traicos –all over 38), it was a matter of will and they did it.

Interestingly, spin rather than pace was the piece de resistance of the bowling. The dream-come true was the revelation that spin bowlers were used effectively even in the final overs. The top five economical bowlers of the tournament were all spinners though the highest wicket-taker was Craig Mc Dermott of Australia.

The conventional one-day strategy of putting others into bat after winning the toss failed to strike gold. In the 27 matches that were played, 19 ended in favour of those batting first. The same applies to all the world cup finals to date-the team batting first-has lifted the cup.

Incidentally, no team could win a match when set to score anything above 250 runs in any of the 27 Reliance Cup matches. Though many were well on target midway in their pursuit, they crumbled in the end-the run rate of anything over 5 per over always proved to be the Damocles sword.

Many who were expected to set the stands ablaze failed; Martin Crowe, Des Haynes, Mendis, Shastri, Border. But new men lived up to the occasion-Boon, Navjot Sidhu, Rameez Raja, Simmons et al.
The Indian subcontinent has more than one reason to be in grief-two men who had nearly become living idols of cricket have reportedly called it a day with the Reliance Cup. Sunil Gavaskar and Imran Khan retired, though unceremoniously, on Nov 5 and Nov 4 respectively. Gavaskar, in a way was luckier than Imran, that he was able to fulfil his last cricketing ambition-that of scoring a hundred in a one-dayer in his penultimate appearance. Imran could not. He failed to cherish his ambition of lifting the Reliance Cup. Though both are still amongst the best in the business today, they have decided to go. Nobody is indispensable, but it is very doubtful that cricketing personalities of the same stature and aura would come again.

It is amazing, but not a single side, in not a single match bowled less than the stipulated overs in the time allotted to infringe the penalty clause. In fact, the complete quota used to be over with ample time to spare. If the money clause is a good a deterrent as it proved to be, it is here to stay. The reduction of the overs from 60 a side to 50 a side was instrumental in the close results as there was a reduced chance of the whole team being bowled out.

Another innovation adopted in the Reliance Cup was the use of neutral umpires in all matches. While it must be understood that neutral umpiring does not ensure perfect umpiring, it is at least a shade better than the previous pattern as it isat least impartial umpiring. Still, the standard of umpiring was satisfactory, if not ideal.

Despite spending crores of rupees on the equipment, Doordarshan left a lot to be desired-both in its telecast and the commentary. It seems that the Mandi House mandarins feel their job to be over only with the telecast of the game-and care little for the angle, the replays and proper coverage. If not from BBC and Channel Nine, Doordarshan can easily take a lesson or two from Pakistan TV which did a far more commendable job.

So the event proclaiming ‘Cricket For peace’ and which turned out to be a virtual money spinner for the Reliance Industries Ltd. That they can in the privacy of their four wall, call it the event of ‘Cricket for Money!’