Financial Fair Play and its implications

Any self-respecting football fan is aware of the changes in the landscape of European football over the last 10-15 years as new money has come into the game. Transfer fee and player wage records have been broken, and broken over again. Clubs have gone from also-rans to trophy-contenders within a few seasons, by assembling super squads at astronomical costs. These have not only driven up transfer fees and player wages into the stratosphere, but also sidetracked player development initiatives, since winning via the more organic route takes longer.

It has also led to clubs running up losses while trying to win in the short term, and then owners abandoning ship, saddling clubs with huge debts, and often setting them back many years.

To counter this spiral from going out of hand, UEFA have come up with the Financial Fair Play regulations, or FFP as it is known in the football circles. What I am attempting here is to lay down what I understand from the FFP and how I think it will impact the game.

So, what is the FFP?
In it's simplest form, FFP wants clubs to live within their means. It wants football clubs to clear all their financial commitments on time and as per contractual terms, be it towards players, agents, tax authorities, other clubs or any other stakeholder. It also wants to ensure that managements act in a way that is beneficial to the long term health of the club, as against just short term success.

The aim of the FFP, as stated by UEFA, is not to make all clubs equal. Some natural differences exist amongst clubs in the same country, and also across countries. These reflect long-standing cultural, demographic and economic realities, and UEFA is not out to change this, in their own words. What it aims to do is to force football clubs to think longer-term over short term, and avoid the repeated crash-and-burn we have seen over the last decade or so.

The aim is not see a Champions League winner from Latvia in 2022.

UEFA can do this because it has a very lucrative carrot in its hands - license to participate in European competitions. Each year, every club (yes, every club) which intends to partake in European competitions, has to apply for a license from its national league/board to take part. These licenses are handed out by the national bodies in accordance with UEFA licensing regulations, which are tied to the FFP now. Clubs which dont clear the FFP hurdles will not be given a license from UEFA and hence cannot compete in the next season's European competitions.

The simplified math here is that the expenses of a club should not exceed its revenues, by more than a specified amount over any evaluation period.

So, what are the Revenues / Costs of a football club?

Source of Revenues

1. Broadcast rights - typically 35% of revenues (mainly in the big leagues, ~15% in the smaller leagues)
2. Sponsorship deals - typically 25% of revenues
3. Gate receipts - typically 20% of revenues
4. Other Commercial revenues (merchandise sales, etc) - typically 20% of revenues
5. One time revenues - prize mone, player sales, etc

Source of Expenses

1. Player wages
2. Player transfer costs
3. Other costs (Staff, administration, maintenance)
4. Investment into Academy / Stadium / Infra

So how does UEFA calculate the losses?

1. All revenues are allowed, including miscellaneous revenues from player sales
2. All expenses are deducted from this revenue figure, with the exception of
• Investment into building of stadium / infrastructure
• Investment into academies and in-house player development initiatives
• These are excluded from the calculations
3. Transfer costs are treated as amortized over the duration of the contract, and included in the expenses for each year
• For e.g., a player signed for a transfer fee of 80m on a 4-year contract will be amortized on the income statement (expensed, basically) at the rate of 20m p.a. for the next 4 years
• The balance of the transfer cost at any point is the remaining book value of the player
• In the above example, after 2 years of the contract, the player's book value will be 40m
• If any player is sold mid way through his contract, then the difference between the sale price and the book value is immediately recognized in the income statement as 'profit/loss from player sale'
4. Wages arising from any contract signed before 1st June'10 can be excluded for the 2011-12 calculations.
5. Apart from the above financial calculations, UEFA also requires all clubs to be up to date on their financial transactions with all their stake holders - player wages, taxes, transfer fees, etc.
• Malaga CF have been banned from participating in UEFA competitions due to violations on this clause
6. For the purposes of this article, let us call the final figure UEFA arrives at as 'allowable losses'.

Over what period are these financials evaluated?

1. Since different clubs have different reporting periods, UEFA has decided to evaluate any set of financials over 3-yr rolling periods.
2. Any club falling foul of the required financial discipline over the monitoring period will be punished for the season after the immediate one.
• for e.g. the first 3-year evaluation cycle was 2011-12 / 2012-13 / 2013-14. 
• These financials will be evaluated once the 2013-14 financials are reported. 
• If a club falls short, any penalty will be imposed for the 2015-16 season
3. The first evaluation cycle was a 2-season cycle of 2010-11 / 2011-12

What are the permissible loss limits?

1. For the first two monitoring periods (2010-11 to 2011-12 / 2011-12 to 2013-14), clubs are allowed to make 45m euros of allowable losses over the monitoring period, subject to
• the owner putting in an equity stake for any amount above 5m euros of losses over the monitoring period.
• Let us assume a club makes a loss of 40m over the monitoring period. On the surface, this passes the test, but only if
• its owner is willing to put in an additional equity of 35m, to cover the losses over 5m
• This investment has to be in the form of equity - meaning the club issues some additional shares which are then sold to the owner in return for his investment
• The owner might get his investment back if he is able to offload his stake at profit/break-even to another investor.
• This basically forces the owner to sink money into a loss making club, with no recourse - unless he can get another investor to buy his stake/club out
• While this may not be a problem for owners such as Roman Abrahimovich or Sheikh Mansour, majority of owners would be wary of getting into such investments too often, if ever.
2. For the next 3 monitoring periods, covering 2012-13 to 2016-17, the maximum allowable loss is 30m euros, over any rolling 3-year period, again subject to equity stakes beyomd 5m of losses
3. If the owners are unwilling to inject equity into the club, then the maximum allowable loss allowed is 5m euros over the monitoring period - break even for all practical purposes (5m of losses over 3 yrs)
• This holds for all monitoring periods until 2016-17 season

What are the punishments for breaching the FFP limits?

UEFA's punishments for breaching FFP stipulations range from warnings & fines to complete ban from European competitions, and even withdrawal of European titles.

The entire process of vetting the accounts is to be supervised by a body called the Club Financial Control Body (CFCB). It is an interctive process, and clubs whose numbers dont stack up, are asked / allowed to provide any appendages / supporting documents which can help them get through.

The CFCB will also verify if particular transactions were conducted at arm's length. For e.g., sponsorship deals and naming rights will be compared to other similar transactions in the market to ensure those are fair deals as against an owner trying to get around the rules by getting his companies make up the revenue deficit.

FFP allows clubs which fall short of the requirements get away without any punishment if UEFA feels that the trend of losses is heading in the right direction.

Will UEFA really punish the big fish?

We dont know. There is a healthy amount of skepticism (justifiably) about UEFA's spine (or lack thereof) in walking the talk if some big clubs (with wealthy owners) fall foul of the FFP stipulations. We will not know until we cross this bridge. With results of the latest round of FFP investigations to be published in May, we should know soon enough about the strength of UEFA's intentions.

What impact will this have on the game?

So far so good. The mathematics is simple. But what impact will it have on the game? This is where there is scope for a lot of debate.

Let me attempt this by breaking the potential impacts down into positives and negatives. First the positives.

1. Forcing clubs to live within their means will ensure that all clubs remain in at least a decent financial state, and hence prevent them from driving themselves into the ground. This is undeniably a positive regulatory oversight, on a group of professionals who have often needed protection from themselves.
2. Not penalizing clubs for investing in new infrastructure is undeniably a positive too. The EPL is a shining example of how new infrastructure can help drive not only more people, but also a more diverse set, to the stadiums. Newer stadiums typically have better seats, better amenities and a safer atmosphere. This makes for improved stadium attendances and improving gate receipts. Italy, on the other hand, is on the other end of the spectrum - with old stadiums, bad infrastructure and falling attendance. 
3. Investing in stadiums also allows clubs to own their stadiums as against leasing them from local / govt bodies - and owning one's stadium can bring in additional revenues in the form of naming rights, as well as giving the club the flexibility to monetize the stadium in other ways.
4. The above point holds equally for player development initiatives too. I dont think the benefits of developing players through your own academy / system can ever be overstated.
5. This should also dilute the trend of moneyed clubs offering obscene amounts to poach young talent coming through smaller, or even medium-sized clubs. Some of the transfer deals of PSG / Monaco in recent seasons come to mind. It should allow the 'feeder' clubs to reap the rewards of their player development initiatives, allowing them to build.

Now to the negatives

Old Boys Club

1. FFP's stringent regulations around overspending, while commendable in their motive, could end up making the upper echelons of football almost impenetrable to any new member.
2. With the FFP in place, club expenses have to match their revenues. Club revenues are primarily driven by sponsorship deals, broadcasting deals and gate receipts - all of which favor successful and well known teams. Hence, the existing set of strong teams already have an edge.
3. Overlap this with the current player mentality where the best players want to be playing in the Champions League every season, preferably at a club which can conceivably win it.
4. Consider some recent history of the Champions League. 
• Barcelona have made the semifinals in every season bar one between 2005/06-2012/13.
• Bayern Munich have made 3 finals in last 5 years. 
• Real Madrid have now played 4 semifinals in a row, making the final this year. 
• Chelsea have played semifinals in 7 of the last 10 seasons.
5. Yes, football has always seen clubs enjoy 3-5 yr periods of dominance where they do very well, but generally it is one or two clubs who do so at the same time. And it moved in cycles. What these stats show is that increasingly only a handful of teams can expect to be in last 4 of the CL.
6. The FFP will do nothing to stop this trend. The super clubs which are currently doing well, are already very successful on the field, and have strong brands across the globe. FFP will make them even stronger as the combination of their revenues married to their record of recent success is so strong a combination, that they will continue in their current position.
7. We should take a hint from the fact that none of the top clubs, some of whom had mulled forming their own super league, have objected to the FFP. You would think that if a regulation threatening to end an oligopoly was being passed, the oligopolists would be the first to oppose it. Instead, we find top clubs welcoming the FFP.
8. And this concentration of power hurts the game in the longer term. Take the example of the Spanish league. It was a very competitive league till about 2007/08. Then various challengers fell apart and it became a two horse race. This combined with the strong European credentials of both Barcelona and Real Madrid has meant that there have been 4-6 classicos almost every season. This was very exciting when it happened the first couple of times, but there are only so many 'biggest El Classico ever'.
9. On the other hand, look at how the EPL now routinely markets itself as the most competitive league in the world - and rightly so. And where has the competition come from - Chelsea and Manchester City - exactly the kind of successes the FFP wants to prevent.
10. I understand that such success has come with its own cost of these clubs inflating player salaries and transfer wages, but that seems to be the only way any club can make itself from an also-ran to a consistent competitor.
11. Some might point to the recent successes of Borussia Dortmund and Atletico Madrid, but their best performers typically end up leaving quickly for bigger clubs, thus setting them back a few  years again.

Having said all of the above, I am still in-principle in favor of the FFP. There is a need for football to be more fiscally disciplined, and also allow for more long term team building as against short term team assembling. This also reduces the chances of particular presidents or owners driving the club to ruin through short termism.

In fact, in the NBA, the salary cap system enforced in 2010 has leveled the playing field a lot and also started rewarding teams for making smart choices. Obviously, there are differences between the two with one being a closed national league and the other a far more open proposition.

In conclusion, I think the FFP is a start in the right direction from the aspect of governance in football, as long as the governing body shows it is willing to punish even the biggest of the fishes which fall foul of the rules. This should start becoming clear over as the first few evaluation cycles are completed.

But I also think it could end up making the big boys of football even bigger, impacting the longer term quality of the product.

Why India has never been a really top test team?

A constant debate we see Indian cricket fans have is who was a greater test match winning batsman - Sachin or Dravid? Or maybe Laxman? The arguments are sometimes statistical, sometimes anecdotal. For e.g., Sachin scored six hundreds in Aus, but not one led to a win. Dravid scored one, the monumental 233/72* in Adelaide and that led to a win. Sachin scored a 241* and we couldn't close the series. So on and so forth. Fans of each player find enough examples (statistical or otherwise) to prove that their favourite was the greater test match winner.

But you know what else happened in Adelaide in December of 2003? Ajit Balachandra Agarkar took the only 5-wicket haul of his 26 match test career. And you know what happened a few weeks later in Sydney? Kumble and the fielding unit could not bowl Australia out.

The point I am essentially making is that such debates are moot. Test matches are won by bowlers. Batsmen can at best set up a test match win for their bowlers or save a test.

And as fans of the Indian cricket team, we have enough examples of the same. Go check any test match win, and you will find a good bowling performance in every win, though not necessarily a great century in each. This is also why Kumble is actually India's greatest test match winner, though sadly not in the category of corresponding greats from other test playing countries.

Ofcourse you might say that a perfect batting line up can chase 500 every time but the number of times even 300+ chases have happened in the history of the game should tell you how difficult such a task has been for even the greatest of batting lineups.

In fact, India's very own and recent golden age of batting did not have a great record it in terms of really big fourth innings chases. But the reverse can happen. You can be a very good test team on the back of a brilliant bowling attack and an average batting line up. Naturally, to dominate the game for a longer time and remain at the top, you would need both the departments to be firing but even then, you would need definitely need a world class bowling unit as a starting foundation.

Let us look at the great WI teams of 1980-1995. Starting from after the away defeat to NZ in 1980 and ending just before the home loss to Aus in 1995, WI played 29 series with a record of 20-0-9. Of these, in the first 20 series, their record was 15-0-5. Of these 5 drawn series, 3 were against Pakistan - 2 in Pakistan and one in the WI. The other two were away in India and NZ.

So in those ten years, only one team managed to stop the mighty WI winning a test series at home, and that was Pakistan. In fact, during a 3 year spell, Imran's Pakistan held the WI of Richards and Marshall to three 1-1 draws. If you have the time and the inclination, do check the series scorecards of these three series. You will see that there are bigger names in the WI top six than in Pakistan's, but that is nullified when Wasim, Waqar, Qadir and Imran hold Marsall, Walsh, Ambrose and friends to a draw.

Look at it another way. In the last 25 years, the strongest test teams have been Aus, SA, Pakistan, England, India and SriLanka, ordered by win percentage.
(http://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine/stats/index.html?class=1;filter=advanced;orderby=percentage_won;spanmin1=15+Feb+1989;spanval1=span;template=results;type=team)

Now think of all the great players in that period. The general consensus in the batting list is Sachin, Lara, Ponting, Dravid, Kallis, Waugh and of-late maybe Sangakkara and Chanderpaul, in no particular order. The bowling list similarly would include Wasim, Waqar, McGrath, Warne, Murali, Donald, Pollock, Steyn, Ambrose, Walsh, Kumble and so on. Do see where the Indian bowlers rank in terms of averages.
(http://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine/stats/index.html?class=1;filter=advanced;orderby=bowling_average;qualmin1=150;qualval1=wickets;spanmax1=14+feb+2014;spanmin1=15+feb+1989;spanval1=span;template=results;type=bowling)

There is no explanation for this apart from the historically inferior quality of Indian bowling. Pitches cannot be an excuse since Pakistan and SriLanka don't have pitches which are much different. Look at SriLanka's test record for the last 25 years. It is fairly impressive for a country with only 32 years of test history. But during those 32 years, for close to about 20 years, they had one of the greatest test bowlers and look how much that helped them.

India's neighbours to the west have not had a single batsman in the caliber of Sachin or Dravid in the last 25 years. But during this period, which includes India's golden period of 2006-11, and the corresponding disaster for Pakistan, India still have an inferior win percentage. India's win-loss is better but the number of draws India have are also far higher - the result of regularly observed inability to close matches which they have dominated.
(http://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine/stats/index.html?class=1;filter=advanced;orderby=win_loss_ratio;spanmax3=14+jul+2011;spanmin3=1+jun+2006;spanval3=span;template=results;type=team)

The weakness has got so worse recently that when India prepared turning pitches against England, it backfired and led to a home series loss. This was the nadir as it took away the single solace an Indian fan had - a turning pitch with Kumble from one end and Bhajji from the other. But retirement in one case, and a proclivity to bowl flat yorkers in the other, led to this advantage also vanishing. While the optimist might take some comfort in the two recent home series wins against Australia and WI, one suspects those wounds were more self inflicted by the opposition than of our doing. I believe that if Aus were to tour India in Feb of 2014 rather than 2013, the series might have been far more competitive.

Also, really good bowlers can reduce the impact of the pitch to a great extent. During England's recent series win in India, James Anderson was cited a huge factor by both captains and the series had no matches at Trent Bridge, Headingly or Lords. Dale Steyn, Marshall and McGrath managed to influence series' in India whenever they played, and India did not roll out Barbados or Centurion for them. As we have seen recently, the pitch doesnt seem to matter to Mitchell Johnson whose best performance this summer has been at the sub-continental Adelaide.

In fact, the biggest worry for Indian fans was how they would replace the retired batting greats, and after just 4 tests away the batting already looks in fairly safe hands for the next 8-10 years. There was never a fear of replacing bowling greats, because in the true sense, India never had them - outside of Kumble at home.

The bottom line is that India could field a batting line up of Gavaskar-Sehwag-Dravid-Sachin-Pujara-Kohli and the results wouldn't look much different that they historically have, if they played against top class bowling attacks. After all, a bowler has the entire day to dismiss the batsman, whereas the batsman needs to play error free for an average of 270 balls to last an entire day. Even basic probability will tell you who has a greater chance of impacting the results.

So till such time that India can field a world class test match bowling attack, regardless of how good the batsmen are, India will remain at best an above-average, competitive test side and at worst, an absolute disaster. The likes of Kohli, Pujara and Rahane will score truck loads of runs the world over, and earn a lot of respect, but not correspondingly high test wins until India has a bowling attack which can consistently take 20 wickets.

Just like in basketball, where scoring /attacking is more fun to watch (and earns more endorsements and awards), it is on the bedrock of a strong defense balanced with good offense that wins titles and leads to true and sustained greatness - so in cricket, batting draws more crowds, popularity and endorsements, but the foundation of a truly great test match side is a strong bowling attack.

Buildings without strong foundations may look more attractive for a while, but often don't last very long.

Role of Fitness in the evolution of sport

In 2001, Ivanisevic and Rafter played in one of the great tennis matches of all time, a thrilling 5-set Wimbledon final which Goran won 9-7 in the fifth. 13 years later, the thing I find most remarkable is that it took only 3 hours from start to finish.

Almost 11 years later, Novak Djokovic beat Rafael Nadal in an Australian Open final, which also went the distance, ending 7-5 in the fifth. This match lasted nearly double the time of the 2001 Wimbledon final, setting an all time record for a tennis match at just under six hours.

Many things were different of course, from the slower surfaces of recent years, to the baseline/defense dominated games of both Nadal and Djokovic, when compared to the big-serve-and-volley games of both Rafter and Ivanisevic.

But the biggest factor for me is the overall improvement in the endurance and persistence of the tennis player over the past decade. It is not that tennis did not have counter punchers / base liners earlier or that earlier players were physically unfit, but definitely the fitness levels of the current crop of top players is like nothing ever seen before.

After all, for a match to last nearly 6 hours, both players need to be fit enough to contest the match for that long. I think the root of this trend was the search for a solution of Federer's absolute dominance over the game during 2003-07.

Rafael Nadal was the first player to solve this, by learning to defend everything that Fed threw at him, and forcing him to hit extra winners to win the same number of points. Of course, this is not to say that Nadal's tennis acumen, shotmaking ability and his mental strength count for nothing. But he first needed to be fit enough physically to be hit a winner after 4 hours of mostly defensive tennis.

Djokovic followed Nadal, and soon we saw Andy Murray too employ this method successfully. The blueprint was the same. Defend, run, defend, run, defend and then counter-attack. They turned what used to be a battle of shot making skills into a battle of attrition first and shot making then.

Similarly, in football, we have seen many teams achieve success using the tactic of pressing. Pressing is basically an aspect of the game where the player doesnt need any special footballing talent (relatively speaking). Just a willingness to work hard, stay organised and fitness. Ofcourse the teams which achieve most success with this are those who have very good players, committed to pressing but also skilled enough to make use of the ball when they have it and thus doing very well. It is different from sitting back and playing on the counter because I think pressing a more active form of defense as against sitting back, which is more passive.

In fact, even in the current season, we have seen Southampton and Roma both being successful by pressing relentlessly. Teams with better players and bigger squads manage to make it last for more than a season. Teams like Southampton struggle to make it last beyond half a season.

But the other thing you hear with pressing is, can they keep it up for an entire season? Or you hear that players get tired. Sacchi's great Milan side were tired by their third season, and they meant physically tired. Barcelona were able to sustain it for a while longer because once they won the ball back, their ability to retain it for great periods tired their opponents out, allowing them to dominate the game. But by their fourth year under Pep, they were also beginning to look tired.

Similar arguments have been around for Nadal in terms of his body's ability to cope with such demands for an extended period of time. Yes, the knees have suffered and he has been injured seriously a couple of times. But only two men in history now have more slams than him, and when he finishes, there might be no one ahead of him.

Moving on to the NBA, it is called hustle. The current Chicago Bulls' coach is known for his '100% effort every possession' theory, which some analysts critique for burning out players before the postseason. But it has also allowed the Bulls to stay afloat in the extended absences of Derrick Rose, just by the sheer ferocity of their defense, which stems from their hustle on every possession.

In fact, there are often 6-8 teams in the NBA whose starting units are fairly matched. But because the average NBA player plays around 30-35 mins per game of a 48 minute game, the quality of the substitutes becomes the difference. What if starters could play 45 mins a game? Mind you, the constraint on minutes per game is the physical limitation of the players, and not strategic alterations. It is fine to have substitutes for strategic flexibility, but that is a secondary concern at this point.

This weakness of the bench is held up as the prime reason why the surprising Portland Trailblazers are not considered championship candidates this season, despite being 3rd in the west, not the inexperience of their players in high pressure playoff situations or the heavy reliance on three point shooting which often hurts teams in the postseason, or the below average defense, again a death knell in the playoffs.

Similarly, in cricket, teams need to have a bowling attack of 4-5 good bowlers as against 3 good bowlers because typically an average fast bowler cannot bowl a spell of more than 6-8 overs. This also impacts the game from a strategic perspective, as A batting side can try to see of Steyn and Philander in the hope of attacking the fourth bowler. The batsman knows that Steyn will only be at him for 6-7 overs at best.

My contention is: what if athletes become such physical specimens that they can press for 90 minutes as a matter of routine, play 48 minutes every night for entire seasons or bowl unchanged from one end for an entire day?

I am not implying that current athletes are in any way unfit or inferior from a physical standpoint. On the contrary, I find them very impressive in their current form too but what if a generation or two from now this kind of fitness became the norm?

Djoker has become a right handed Nadal in the last 3 years. And not having the congenital problems that Nadal's foot has, he has remained largely injury free too. What these men have also done is taking tennis fitness to a new level. To compete against a fit and firing Nadal or Djokovic, you not only need the highest level of tennis skill but also the physical ability to keep at such a high level for 4-5 hours.

Look at Stan Wawrinka's recent grand slam matches against Djokovic. He not only needed to play brilliant tennis, but needed to summon it for 5 hours. It did not make for bad viewing or mechanical tennis, but on the contrary, raised the quality of play to unbelievable levels.

Such an evolution in the fitness levels can lead to strategic changes in sports. Teams will still need backups to guard against any injuries or to have alternatives in terms of playing style, but not forced to have them to essentially have fit players to complete the game. Captains in cricket will be able to plot test victories with 2 or 3 good bowlers, as long as they remained fit. NBA teams will be able to ride their starting fives to titles, or maybe have 6-7 deep rotation for an entire season.

I think it is important to point out here that we are talking of players who are already amongst the top few in the world and competing for being the best in their respective fields. A marathon runner might have the stamina to bowl 45 overs unchanged from one end, but that is useless unless he has the skill set to make it matter. The clearest example of this is David Ferrer, who is often spoken of as the fittest player on the men's tour but his obvious shortcomings (relatively speaking, again) in terms of what are traditional tennis skills (serve, shotmaking) have put a ceiling on his achievement potential.

I think tennis shows that a lot of these sports could move to a different level by advancing the physical fitness levels. Sport specific skills will always be important and decisive but the ability to display them for longer periods of time will not just elevate the spectacle, but also be the difference between success and failure at the top.

Alex Ferguson: from the other side

Alex Ferguson

I used to disregard Alex Ferguson, as another of British football's overrated products. Then I used to hate him, for succeeding so often. The hate then turned to grudging respect, and even appreciation for all that he had achieved. That respect became admiration, occasionally jealousy, and then finally when he retired, it became the respect I reserve for those I consider the greatest in any sport - whether I liked them or not.

Alex Ferguson at United reminded me of the typically Indian middle class father. As a son, you might be more talented, gotten more opportunities and learnt everything much faster than him - but at home, daddy was always the boss. Even though he wasn't perfect, he was right far too often in almost everything. He gave you all the freedom you wanted, and deserved, but the moment you started getting too big for your shoes, you were put in your place. It did not matter if you had just topped an exam, or won 3 man of the matches on the trot.

As you grew up, and started talking more sense, you even got more responsibilities and power at home, but in the end - daddy was always the boss, and far more often than not, right too.

In an increasingly super star and media driven world of sports, he stood as a the still-respected father. Whether it was Beckham or van Nistelrooy, it did not matter how big the star was, what his performances had been and how much he meant to the continuing success of the club. Just like at home it did not matter to daddy whether you were more talented or your brother - everyone had to fall in line.

Having said this, he was not a dictator. As I have said enough times by now, he was like Pappa at home. Strong enough that you fear him when you do wrong, but he gave enough love that you knew he was always in your corner. Like Pappa, he was also very good at coaxing things out of you which even you did not think were possible of you. Just look at the number of average to good players he has made look good to great, and the phenomenal self belief and attitude which allowed United to sneak many a victories in the dying seconds of a game

You get the point, dont you?

Being a really great and consistently successful football manager requires two sets of skills - tactical football acumen, and man management. That Fergie was a class apart in the second is beyond doubt. In fact, a very famous school of thought that goes around in sports (not very wrongly, I may suggest) is that a coach can get stale in 3-4 years, as the players need to hear newer messages. We see it all the time - either this happening, or we see coaches (like Pep Guardiola) who leave stating this as their logic. In the face of such trends, and the tantrums of the modern day footballer, what Fergie pulled off was extra terrestrial. He may or may not be the greatest football coach ever, but he must the greatest man manager in sport. I cannot recall a better one, or even anyone close. Jose Mourinho is considered a great motivator too, but he doesn't seem to outlast that cycle of 3-4 years anywhere.

Now, about the tactical side of Fergie. As I read in some recent piece, Fergie's style was the scorecard. He was a winner, who probably did not care how. Under him, United generally always played attacking soccer, and if I had to pin him to one style, then it would have to be that of a counter-attacking team that liked to use pacy wingers. But really, his only style  was that of winning.

In the debate around the greatest football managers, where Fergie often seems to lose out is that he did not have a particular style that he inspired (catenaccio, total football, tiki taka). While those who point this out have their right reasons, I feel it allowed him to flexible. The other benefit is that what we see with all the a/m styles is that there very soon emerges a counter-style that is designed specifically to beat the dominant team, which then fails to recover quickly, because their ego about the righteousness of their playing style leads to their downfall.

The other thing I find missing in Fergie's glittering resume is the absence of any of his United teams to have 4-5 year spell of consistent domination at home and in Europe. As we survey the greatest teams in football, this is a common thread that runs through all of them. While it must be said that building, re-building and then doing that a few more times at a single club for 27 years is by itself an unparalleled achievement, even the most die hard of Fergie and United fans would agree that this is somewhere he did fall short. Over 27 years, he had many chances to build exactly such a team which could be remembered amongst the greatest of any era.

As someone who hated United until Roman came along, it is needless to say that I have often said to myself - 'bas ek baar ye buddha retire ho jaaye, dekhte hai kya karte hain ye!' You see, Alex Ferguson did not play like Lionel, but he could keep United stable, keep them in contention and attract top talent. While Barcelona are not concerned domestically with United, we do compete with them to be the best in the world - and as long as they had SAF in their corner, they were always assured of either being fairly good, or recovering quickly.

I am not sure about who is the greatest manager in football, which is a sport where finding a 'greatest' for even a single position is a very useless activity. I is the only truly global sport, and that is reflected in the richness of the game, which allows many successful players, coaches and systems to co-exist - taking their turns at the top.

So, in the end, I am obviously happy to see him go. I want to see how United copes without him on the sidelines. My feeling is that United will do okay - they will never be as stable as they were, but I do not see them spiralling into failure as well. Just that United fans will also have to get used to new managers every few years, with the occasional bout of instability.

But, having said that, I am also in awe of what he has achieved, and can only hope that my favourite sport teams are someday lucky enough to find a man who can last successfully for 13.5 years!

Lastly, while SAF received all the coverage and praise he deserves, I thought not enough people praised the United board and management over the years to have had the good sense to keep him there, and ensure he feels like coming to work everyday. Even if every club was gifted an Alex Ferguson today, most would never have the sense, the patience or the good fortune of keeping him this long.

One of those things money can't buy.

A day will come, when Rahul Sharad Dravid will issue a prepared statement, and say good bye to test cricket in as understated a manner as someone of his stature can. It may not generate enough headlines, and FB status messages, and we might trash a few teams here and there too, without missing him much.

Then, one dark/dank morning, on a seaming pitch at 10/1, the captain of India (and the rest of us) will suddenly realize that there is no longer a Dravid to send to war. And thus we shall realize what we would have lost.

As much as I enjoy the flamboyance, the flair and the elegance of the rest of the Indian batting order, there is even today a satisfaction, an assurance that all will be well, when one sees that Britannia willow come down, ball after testing ball, and keep it out, or leave it with such assurance. That upright pull shot, and that cover drive to a swinging ball are as beautiful shots as you will ever see.

Even today, for me, the measure of the toughness of a pitch/situation is how an in-form Dravid is handling it. If he can't, well, who on earth can? If a good ball gets Dravid, well it could have gotten anyone else. It is mark of respect for the bowler.

While we often divide cricket fans in India by either being a SRT fanatic or a Dravid fanatic, I think (and have always done so) that each has had the career that he has had because of the other. There is a reason that it is most prolific batting partnership in the history of the game, and there is no one else even close. And while it is true that SRT will always have a special place my heart, the way I look at it is this way:

SRT was a born genius, something magical, and probably un-attainable by most of us. Dravid is an inspiration - he showed you that with a little bit of talent, and lots (and some more) of hard work, you can still be the best in the world. SRT might be on the wall poster, but Dravid is what I will identify with. And while Dravid doesn't generate anywhere near as much hysteria as SRT, it is what suits his persona perfectly. Imagine all that hype around Dravid. It just wouldn't be Dravid anymore :)

I will not say 'Respect' today. For me, he had that many moons ago. I will just say - savor it. It is priceless. There indeed are somethings money can't buy. The Indian Test Batting Line Up is definitely one of them, and at numbers three and four, we have probably the greatest 1-2 punch ever, and the beauty is, they are at such stages in their careers, that they could score 10 consecutive ducks, and nothing would ever change. Amen.

The Cup of Joy Overflows

Finally, the day which a billion of us had dreamt up for so many years - almost to the point of it becoming an obsession - has come!

As discussed countless times with DK, Dewan, Jha, Akshat, Captain Desai, HVJ, Dadu, Gumboo, Gattu and many others - there is only one thing we most definitely wanted to see in 2011 - and for a change, we got it!

Needless to say, there is not much I have been able to think of over the past 12 hours. Considering that I never even got close to playing for India, and I still cannot get over it, imagine how the players feel!

A few random musings overflowing from my cup of happiness :)

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

• Power of Team India: It stopped traffic on the roads of Dubai. In over 16+ years in this country, I have never seen anything even remotely close to this. If you wanted to know how many Indians lived here, yesterday night 10 pm was a good time to check. People started dancing on the roads, blocking cars, blowing horns. Heck, one guy even dunked people (XL-style) from his balcony (ala Chhatri :P).Team India might be hype redefined, but do not for once under-estimate it's power to touch lives. Bleeding Blue, and proud of it! 
• In all this hoopla about pressure and achievement, we strangely never discuss how the players must have felt. Many Indian fans have made the assumption that the player is on a job -  to win the match 'for us'. If you ever played sport at even gully level, and have some amount of self-respect, you should know how it feels to lose a game.Also, regardless of what the fans feels, our players are people who not only have highest order of cricket skills, but also those who have had the mental strength to fight as well. And while the scars of the match-fixing scandal still run deep in some places, may be it is time we also gave our players some respect. Why should we assume that he wins only for the fans? As a player, even these guys may not win another WC in their lives, but that probably never crossed a single mind yesterday night. Yes, they get the money, but do Virat, Guatam, Viru, MS, Yuvi, Zaheer, Bhajji and friends (For obvious reasons, SRT is excluded) look like they would be happy getting paid and a silver medal? Answer that honestly from what you have seen, and not what you have heard about match-fixing claims that never get substantiated (like bookies claims that Pakistan was winning the semi!)It is time we grew up as sports fans. 
• Ravi Shastri was again there when MSD hit 'that' six. Lucky Bastard. 
• Poonam Pandey entrered the Guinness Book of World Records for causing the highest number of KLPDs at any one time. 650 million men is a big number. 
• India beat all former WC champions it faced, which were the last four matches it played - WI, Aus, Pak and SL. 
• Sri Lanka could not beat any former WC champion it faced. Lost to Pak and India, and the match against Aus was washed out. Their wins came against NZ (twice) and England. Not the greatest of oppositions in the sub-continent for them. 
• India outfielded SL. How often has that happened? As Viru said, '38-years old SRT throwing himself on the boundary'. But even more surprising were the efforts of Zaheer and Munaf.Make no mistake, this effort does not come by randomly. It just proves Dhoni's excellence at extracting more than 100% from every member. And one cannot just say that it happened because it was a WC final. SL were also playing the same game, yet their fielding standards actually dropped.Another smart thing that MSD did was to ensure we peaked at the right time. Except Aus in 2007 (and to an extend SL in 1996), hardly any in any sport has won the WC at a canter. 
• Yuvraj's fielding told you he was not going back home without the WC. With Yuvi at point, Raina at cover, and Kohli at Extra, India's offside cordon rivalled any in the world. And with younger players bound to come in, it can only get better. 
• It  is time we evaluate the role and performance of Bhajji. Yes, we won the WC, and he got Umar Akmal, Afridi and Dilshan in the big games, but he resembles Ashley Giles more than Graeme Swann.Also consider that we now measure India's best spinners against English spinners as yardstick. I am sure we have better to offer. Ojha and Ashwin should definitely be given a look in. 
• Piyush Chawla must have been the luckiest WC winner ever. Might as well have taken an injured Praveen and given the medal to him. Possibly the only purpose Piyush served was to make others feel that if he can play in the WC, then so can anyone else. 
• SRT not playing after 200* was indeed a blessing (and possibly planned) to give real-pressure exposure to the likes of Virat and Raina. It also helped in a way that Sehwag was often injured. 
• While Viru's impact may not have been massive, one cannot overstate the importance of his assault on Umar Gul in the semis. One, it dented Gul. Two, it gave India a massive headstart. And when you saw how people batted on it in the 94 overs after Sehwag was dismissed, only then the importance of that knock sinks in. 
• SRT does not finish as the higest scorer. He has done it twice before, but failed to get the winner's medal. It was fitting that when he finally won the cup, it was with a team that deserved him as much as he deserved that team. 
• MSD might be lucky to have such great players around him, but along with that, he is also smart, a great motivator, grounded, calm, courageous and has balls of steel. Not a bad man to captain India I would say! Eventually, who cares what he is - only two India Cricket Captains can claim to have won a WC of any kind - and he is one of them! 
• In some way, most of the current Indian team is no different from us fans in one aspect - they wanted to win it for SRT. How often does the entire team say this in unision? I think a reason could be the time gap between when SRT started playing and when the rest did. The closest would be Bhajji (around 1998), 9 years on from SRT debut, with the last one being Ashwin (2009?), around 2 decades after SRT's debut!Basically, these guys also grew up idolising SRT much like the rest of us, and so harbour almost the same feelings. 
• And while India has produced many great players in the past 28 years, there are a few amongst them who also probably (or surely) deserved some piece of this win, who have laid the foundations, brick-by-brick, in getting us here. My heart goes out to (in random order) - Ganguly, Kumble, Dravid, Srinath and VVS. (Note: VVS was never a great one-day player, but then good performances in one format do rub-off on the other formats too) 

Thank you Team India. For winning it while the great man was still there. For allowing him 'THAT' smile. For letting us have this heaven.

Quarter Final Predictions

So, after a 100% prediction record in Round 2, I am all the more encouraged to stick my neck out in the quarters too.

Here we go...

BRAZIL v/s THE NETHERLANDS

I shall break the teams down by positions, and see who has the upper hand (at least on paper and as per the form book)

Defence: The easiest analysis of this match. Julio Caesar is easily 2 notches above Stekelenburg (or whatever it is!). And the back four of Brazil has arguably been the best so far on display in South Africa. Not only are they stronger defensively, but even offensively Brazil’s back four have been massive. Maicon is better than the best wingers on most teams, Lucio has had 11 solo runs out of the defence in this WC, which is the third highest number of solo runs in this tourney, amongst all players, and Juan scored the opener in the second round defeat of Chile. While the Dutch defense has not made Robert Green blunders yet, it is also true that it is yet to face a line-up anywhere as potent as Brazil's. van Bronckhorst at left back will be found out by Maicon /Alves, and the central defenders are not exactly Cannavaro and Nesta (2006 versions ofcourse!). Advantage Brazil.

Midfield: Both teams have an array of talented players (the Dutch more than the Selecao) but have so far been pragmatic and clinical, without being adventurous. Both have been content to sit back and hit on the break. The Dutch have skipper van Bommel and de Jong, whereas Brazil has 2002 veteran Gilberto Silva along with anyone of Ramires, Elano, Felipe Melo or Kleberson. These pairs have provided the base from which talents such as Kaka, Robben, Sneijder, Robinho and van Persie have launched themselves. The only place where Brazil might have an edge here is the performance of the defensive midfielders, especially with van Bommel known to be a short fuse.

Forwards: Both teams possess an array of attacking talent that could win the WC. Robin van Persie, Kuyt, Elia, Fabiano and Nilmar are all capable of winning matches on their own. Fabiano has been in good form, Kuyt will always give a good fight, but van Persie is yet to rise to occasion. Elia has been impressive but the depth of the squad and the requirements of the formation means that he will mostly start on the bench. Equal here.

My pick: The match will probably not live up to the hype, but Brazil’s stronger defence and clinical attack should seal the day.

URUGUAY v/s GHANA

Defence: Both these teams have been very strong at the back, and the goalies have also been steady. Not much to choose here. While Uruguay have more experienced campaigners such as Lugano marshalling the back line, Ghana have done brilliantly to reach so far without Essien, and their back line has not been breached easily. Uruguay might miss the services of Godin, but overall, this should not be the difference. Draw.

Attack: Ghana has benefitted massively from the play of Anthony Annan, their holding midfielder and the wingers have taken advantage of this. Uruguay have been compact in the middle, but have re-jigged their system to make Forlan play in the hole. Forlan is extremely dangerous here since he has two good strikers to feed into and he is no slouch at finishing either. Ghana have created many chances, but wastefulness has often stopped them from scoring more. Gyan Asamoah has been inspirational upfront, and he could prove a difference maker. Luis Suarez scored a brace in the second round, and he seems to be peaking at the right time. Advantage Uruguay.

My pick: Defensively, both teams are compact and rugged, and the difference could be in the attack. Both create chances, but Uruguay has the luxury of two top notch finishers, and in what I expect to be a tight game, that could be vital. Ghana will surely have the home support, and if it goes to penalties, but I think the Latinos might just shade this. Expect extra time in this one.