Pakistan’s preparations for the Champions trophy have been anything but orthodox. Having seemingly recovered from the controversy over ball-tampering, they then lost the head of their Cricket Board and the captain, although he reinstated a day later.
The team was thrown into further turmoil by the withdrawal from their squad of their leading quick bowlers Shoaib Akhtar and Mohammad Asif for the alleged use of nandrolone, a proscribed drug that assists muscle bulk.
To some this will provide further evidence of the skulduggery inherent in Pakistani cricket. “The only thing surprising about the two Pakistan players failing drugs tests”, remarked former New Zealand wicket-keeper, Adam Parore, “is that it hasn't happened sooner”. He shared his doubts about players body shapes and their incredible ability to bowl 25 overs on a searing hot day whilst seeming to get faster.
In comparison to other sports cricket does not have a drugs problem. Most cases have involved the private recreational use of illegal substances, which can hardly be claimed to enhance performance. Yet they have led to lengthy periods out of the game for the likes of Graham Wagg and Ed Giddens. Compare this to the bravado that celebrated Freddie and the lads’ all-night drinking binge following the Ashes victory over Australia. One person’s drug maybe another’s poison, but it is clear that inconsistency and hypocrisy are frequent bedfellows.
If cricket has a drugs issue it is not pot, cocaine or even beer, but something far more menacing. Ex-England fast-bowler Angus Fraser wrote in his column in The Independent of the widespread use of anti-inflammatory or painkilling tablets taken by fast-bowlers.
Ex-captain Bob Willis had to endure ten injections in his knee on the 1974-75 tour to Australia. He still didn’t last the whole series, and spent the next winter on the dole queue. Central contracts now look after the top players in most countries, though the rewards to Pakistanis of £1500-2500 a month compare poorly to what most county cricketers can expect.
Ultimately, the fast-bowler is the proletarian element of any team, for to he lies the extremes of physical labour. To regularly thrust one’s all into the delivery of a ball at 90 MPH will inevitably have repercussions on the body. The career is short, and the rewards have to be enjoyed while they can, for they are an injury away from ineffectiveness.
I am not suggesting that cricketers have used banned drugs in order to stay fit or to speed up recovery. The use of nandrolone as an effective recovery agent is not scientifically proven. I am saying that there are intense pressures on players to maintain their fitness in the circus that has become world cricket. We have a Champions Trophy less than six months before a World Cup, and all teams will play major Test series in between. The time for recuperation is secondary to the opportunity to promote the game, play more cricket and make more money.
The bodies that run cricket create the conditions for abuse by making ever increasing physical and mental demands on players. This, if nothing else, highlights cricket’s place in the greater scheme of labour verses capital. If the 31 year-old Shoaib is served the recommended two year ban, we may not see him bowl again. Cricket will be poorer for his absence.
Wednesday, October 25, 2006
Wednesday, October 18, 2006
The Rise of the House of Tata
As England suffer in the heat at the Champions Trophy, recent events remind us that India is not just eclipsing the old country at her favoured imperial export, but is showing its muscle in the world of manufacturing as well.
The business world is rife with the rumour that Tata, the Indian multinational is to make a bid for Corus, the Anglo-Dutch concern responsible for what remains of the British steel industry.
Tata is one of the oldest business conglomerates in India, with revenues last year of £12 billion, the equivalent of about 2.8 per cent of the country’s GDP, and a market capitalisation of £25 billion. The Tata Group includes billion dollar divisions in software services, cars, hotels communications, chemicals, engineering and consumer products in a network of almost 100 operating companies.
Founded by Jamsetji Tata, known as the ‘father of Indian industry’, theirs was the country’s first Indian-owned textile mill, national airline and first integrated steel plant. They also had a big role in the development of cricket.
The Tatas were an important family within the small Parsi community that had fled Iran following religious persecution in the 6th century. Given sanctuary in India they were allowed to maintain their own customs and culture and as a result never became totally integrated. Under British rule they became useful social and economic middlemen adapting to Western occupations as they were not bound by tradition or caste laws. Furthermore, they were familiar with Indian customs and languages, and placed an emphasis on education.
During the 1840s a group of Parsis imitated British military officers playing cricket. Their enthusiasm was discouraged by an imperial order that insisted on racial segregation. Despite this, in 1848 The Oriental Cricket Club was formed. Two years later it was renamed The Zoroastrian Cricket Club, with funds from the Tata and Wadia families. They still had to wait until 1877, though, before a British team would grant them a contest.
Founded in 1887, the Tata group ranked alongside Birla as the largest business concern in India. Its association with cricket dates from the foundation of the Tata Sports Club in 1937. Following independence the Tata side dominated Bombay’s prestigious Times of India inter-office tournament, winning in nine of sixteen years. In the 1977-78 season they became the first company to boast of having two sides in the A Division.
Today Tata’s interest in cricket mirrors that of its wider commercial concerns. It employs leading players such as ex-captain Sourav Ganguly to promote products such as the ‘Sourav Fone’.
Corus is much larger than its possible suitor, ranked the world’s eighth largest producer of steel, with Tata Steel not producing enough to get into the global top 50. But this shows the ambition of a nation challenging China for dominance in the manufacturing sector.
There are obvious concerns that a takeover could result in heavy losses for the 41,000-strong European workforce, though it is doubtful that this will concern the Corus management, whose chief executive Philippe Varin stands to make up to £8.1m if the steelmaker is taken over. Varin, who has run the group for only three years, has 1.4 million shares and options in the company. Things might be changing, but when it comes to greed English capitalists can compete with the best.
The business world is rife with the rumour that Tata, the Indian multinational is to make a bid for Corus, the Anglo-Dutch concern responsible for what remains of the British steel industry.
Tata is one of the oldest business conglomerates in India, with revenues last year of £12 billion, the equivalent of about 2.8 per cent of the country’s GDP, and a market capitalisation of £25 billion. The Tata Group includes billion dollar divisions in software services, cars, hotels communications, chemicals, engineering and consumer products in a network of almost 100 operating companies.
Founded by Jamsetji Tata, known as the ‘father of Indian industry’, theirs was the country’s first Indian-owned textile mill, national airline and first integrated steel plant. They also had a big role in the development of cricket.
The Tatas were an important family within the small Parsi community that had fled Iran following religious persecution in the 6th century. Given sanctuary in India they were allowed to maintain their own customs and culture and as a result never became totally integrated. Under British rule they became useful social and economic middlemen adapting to Western occupations as they were not bound by tradition or caste laws. Furthermore, they were familiar with Indian customs and languages, and placed an emphasis on education.
During the 1840s a group of Parsis imitated British military officers playing cricket. Their enthusiasm was discouraged by an imperial order that insisted on racial segregation. Despite this, in 1848 The Oriental Cricket Club was formed. Two years later it was renamed The Zoroastrian Cricket Club, with funds from the Tata and Wadia families. They still had to wait until 1877, though, before a British team would grant them a contest.
Founded in 1887, the Tata group ranked alongside Birla as the largest business concern in India. Its association with cricket dates from the foundation of the Tata Sports Club in 1937. Following independence the Tata side dominated Bombay’s prestigious Times of India inter-office tournament, winning in nine of sixteen years. In the 1977-78 season they became the first company to boast of having two sides in the A Division.
Today Tata’s interest in cricket mirrors that of its wider commercial concerns. It employs leading players such as ex-captain Sourav Ganguly to promote products such as the ‘Sourav Fone’.
Corus is much larger than its possible suitor, ranked the world’s eighth largest producer of steel, with Tata Steel not producing enough to get into the global top 50. But this shows the ambition of a nation challenging China for dominance in the manufacturing sector.
There are obvious concerns that a takeover could result in heavy losses for the 41,000-strong European workforce, though it is doubtful that this will concern the Corus management, whose chief executive Philippe Varin stands to make up to £8.1m if the steelmaker is taken over. Varin, who has run the group for only three years, has 1.4 million shares and options in the company. Things might be changing, but when it comes to greed English capitalists can compete with the best.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)