Comparison: Orion SpaceProbe 130mm F/7 Reflector and Celestron AstroMaster 90mm F/7 Refractor

I fell in love with the skies ever since I knew I could not learn astrology – the science of fortune telling, which is based on where all celestial objects are in relation to one another. Since I could not become an astrologer, I wanted to do the other thing, which was to observe the celestial objects. Although, I am not a professional astronomer, I can tell the difference between Ursa Major and Ursa Minor. I have tried studying the sky, with no viewing aides, ever since I was a teenager. About 5 years back, I purchased my first pair of binoculars to view some of the more brighter objects in the sky and when I thought I had enough of the binoculars, I ended up buying the Orion SpaceProbe 130mm F/7 reflector telescope from Orion. Since my first telescope, I have bought one more - Celestron 90mm AstroMaster refractor. As you can see, both telescopes are for beginners, and the reason, I haven't bought some of the bigger telescopes is because, I consider myself an amateur, with very little time to venture out and keep viewing the sky for hours on end - although, believe me, I would love nothing more. The reason for this article is to compare the two telescopes and help those who are looking to buy their first telescope.

Reasons for Choosing the Telescopes I Own
Very early in my celestial observations, I had realized the need to be portable, along with the need to have as much aperture as your money can buy. Given that portability is of more importance to me than aperture, I had decided to limit the weight of the telescope, mount and tripod to about 40-45 lbs. Of course, I could have easily bought a Dob, without an EQ mount, but at some point, I want to take up astrophotography and for that reason, I am more biased towards EQ mounts. The second and quite important factor is the aperture. Typically, as a beginner, you want around 90-150 mm (3.5in-6in) coupled with a long focal length. This allows beautiful views of the moon and planets. With the right eyepiece and filter, you should be able to resolve sufficient details in the moon and planets. Of course, with bigger apertures, beginners can also start looking at some of the not so bright stars in the night sky. Lastly, I wanted to keep my budget for just the telescope to be somewhere under $300, this would have allowed me to buy decent eyepieces and filters. I would say, if you are spending about $250-$300 on a decent telescope – both the above telescopes will be under $300, then be willing to spend at least $100 on decent eyepieces and filters, bringing your total cost to about $400.

Equipment Comparison
Before I start comparing the two telescopes, I want the readers to keep in mind the fact that the SpaceProbe is a 130mm reflector telescope, whereas the AstroMaster is a 90mm refractor. Although, the telescopes differ in aperture, this review is really helpful when comparing the two mounts (Orion EQ2 and Celestron CG3, which are used on these telescopes). In general, bigger the telescope, the more heavier it will be from a portability standpoint. On the other hand, a bigger telescope will collect more light than a smaller one and have that much more magnification. Additionally, reflectors and refractors have their own inherent advantages and disadvantages, which is beyond the scope of this review.

I bought the Orion SpaceProbe 130mm reflector from Orion's website (www.telescope.com). Orion promised a 4-5 day shipping of the telescope and the telescope duly arrived in 4 days. The telescope, mount, tripod and all included accessories were packaged nicely – ensuring double box packaging with all items safely bubble wrapped inside each box.

As far as the Celestron was concerned, I ended up buying that from www.OpticsPlanet.com. OpticsPlanet is an online retailer, with their warehouse and headquarters in NW Chicago suburbs. I live close by, and hence picked up the item from their warehouse myself. The good thing about OpticsPlanet is that they do offer free shipping on purchases more than $250. Besides, they do carry other brands, in case you are looking to compare them. They too, had the telescope and the supplied accessories in one box, double packed and nicely bubble wrapped.

The staff at both OpticsPlanet and Orion are knowledgeable and helpful. They will guide you in case you want a decent professional opinion about telescopes and/or accessories.

The OTA for both telescopes is steel, which feels good and sturdy. As far as the optics are concerned, optics for both telescopes are well coated glass. The only thing about the Orion SpaceProbe 130mm F/7 telescope is that the primary mirror is spherical and not parabolic (giving rise to spherical aberration). They do sell another telescope, same size aperture, but short focal length (F/5) with parabolic mirror (which will get rid of the spherical aberration, primarily for deep sky viewing). It is really up to the buyer, what they want to observe in the night sky, if you are more into planets and moon, then go with the long focal length, the spherical aberration won't hurt you, if you are however thinking of deep sky objects, then a shorter focal length without the aberration is better. Beginners, should likely stick with the longer focal length. The reason being, it is very difficult and frustrating, finding DSO (especially if you don't know your way around the night sky) and very easy to loose interest in celestial viewing through a telescope. For beginners, I strongly recommend, viewing the moon and planets, before graduating to DSO and not so bright stars.

With regards to the tripods and mounts, the SpaceProbe comes with the EQ-2 equatorial mount, with the tripod being made of aluminum. The AstroMaster on the other hand comes with the CG-3 equatorial mount (which is the same as the EQ-2 Orion mount), however, the tripod is made of steel, making it a bit lighter as compared to the Orion tripod.

Although, the AstroMaster tripod and mount are lighter as compared to the SpaceProbe mount and tripod, I like the rigid and sturdy construction of the Orion mount and tripod more than the Celestron's. As far as the Celestron mount is concerned, I have noticed that it seems to rotate in either axes, even when locked. I have tried balancing the telescope, but so far, I do see the telescope and mount rotate if I try to view objects directly overhead. This seems like an apparent design flaw as far as the AstroMaster is concerned. I am guessing, you can correct this by buying the right counterweights.

From a portability standpoint, however, the Celestron wins hand's down. I believe there are two reasons for this. The first one is the fact that the AstroMaster comes with a dovetail plate attachment, which can be easily removed and fixed back onto the equatorial mount. This allows for easy dismantling and re-attachment of the telescope, thereby making it easy to carry the two (mount/tripod and telescope OTA) separately. The SpaceProbe on the other hand, does not come with the dovetail plate attachment, however, you can buy it separately, but you are paying extra for that. The second reason for extra portability on the AstroMaster is the way the accessory tray is attached to the tripod legs – no screws to tie to attach the plate to the legs – making it easy to remove the plate and folding the tripod legs, subsequently making it easier to carry the tripod/mount. Again, I cannot emphasize enough, the fact that I am really trying to compare apples to oranges – portability on a smaller scope is always going to be better. The important take away here is the fact that a dovetail plate mounting will significantly improve portability.

As far as setting up the two telescopes is concerned, setting up the SpaceProbe takes about 30 minutes, whereas setting up the AstroMaster takes about 20. Again, this might be important for beginners, because there aren't many parts to play with as far as the AstroMaster is concerned. However, that being said, the SpaceProbe just feels more secure and rigid. With all the different parts on the SpaceProbe, you can easily point out a failure point – if there is one. On the other hand, with the AstroMaster, it is that much more difficult, since all parts are pre-assembled. Also, ensure you read the manual for the SpaceProbe a couple of times, before you actually get the telescope, this will help you get really familiar with all pieces before hand, speeding up the setting up process significantly.

As far as the accessories are concerned, both telescopes come with a set of two eyepieces – 25mm and 10mm. None of the eyepieces are Plossl and pretty much provide the same magnification, since the telescope focal lengths are almost the same (SpaceProbe, 900mm and AstroMaster, 1000mm). However, I've liked the Orion eyepieces better than the Celestron eyepieces – no real reason, it's just that they feel well coated and seem to fit most of the filters very well, meaning the threads in the eyepieces are well made. Other than that, there is not much of a difference in the two sets of eyepieces. I would highly recommend getting at least one more eyepiece, and get a decent one at that – probably, a Plossl 6.3mm for exceptional planet views. I typically don't recommend a Barlow lens, the primary reason being, adding another piece of optic in the telescope tube, really decreases the amount of light being absorbed, and the really nice Barlow lens will cost you that much more. I would rather spend the money in buying decent eyepieces.

Lastly, the focuser. The focuser on both telescopes is made of plastic, which for a beginner, should not matter that much, but at some point, you may want to think of upgrading to either steel or aluminum focuser wheels. These will give you more stability and less vibrations when focusing an object.

Overall, I would say, the Orion SpaceProbe provides more stability through its rigid and sturdy construction, and although the AstroMaster is light and easily portable, I would prefer the SpaceProbe for its exceptional sturdiness – which is very important and I will discuss in the next section.

Performance
Before I start comparing the two, one should always remember, that reflectors and refractors have their share of inherent weaknesses and advantages. It is not the intent of this review to go into the details of those.

On the first night out, with my SpaceProbe, I saw the moon like never before. The views were really sharp, with most of the details on the moon easily resolved with the 25mm EP. Higher magnification, further improved the details on the moon. Comparing the views from both the telescopes, I can definitely say that the SpaceProbe outperformed the AstroMaster by quite a distance. Images of Jupiter have been fantastic as well, with me being able to view the 4 moons of Jupiter quite easily, on both the telescopes, using the lowest magnification. Higher magnification on the SpaceProbe has resolved the bands in Jupiter quite nicely. The problem with the AstroMaster is the fact that it is not an APO, which causes Jupiter views to have shades of blue and orange on its edges. Of course, you can get rid of those by using the right filters. I am yet to see the other planets with the AstroMaster, so a comparison would be inappropriate at this point.

The most obvious advantage of the SpaceProbe over the AstroMaster is the aperture size. It has almost 95% more light collecting ability than the AstroMaster, which really makes the performance comparison a little more biased towards the SpaceProbe. Having said that, because the SpaceProbe is more heavier and sturdy than the AstroMaster, it takes vibrations very well. I distinctly feel less vibrations and less shaking time with the SpaceProbe, which is the primary reason why I would rate the SpaceProbe higher than the AstroMaster.

The one advantage the AstroMaster has is with the finder scope. The finder scope on the AstroMaster comes with a red-dot, making it easy for you to point and see objects in eyepiece. But then again, if you are thinking of going with the SpaceProbe, think seriously about a Telrad. I have only heard good things about it and even people with red-dot finder scopes, prefer to have a Telrad.

Conclusions
In general, I would recommend the SpaceProbe to a beginner than the AstroMaster. Portability for both the telescopes is almost the same, however, a bigger aperture makes a huge difference. Besides, the sturdy and rigid feel of SpaceProbe is always more welcome than the “plastic” feel of the AstroMaster. In conclusion, I have noted the pros and cons for both telescopes. Please note, I have tried not to include advantages / disadvantages based on aperture size and inherent advantages / disadvantages of reflectors and refractors telescopes.


Orion SpaceProbe 130mm F/7 EQ Mount
Advantages:
* Well built, rigid construction, giving you a heavy feel (but not necessarily less portability)
* Ability to take vibrations well
* Better accessories, especially supplied eyepieces are very well made
* Sharp images with well collimated optics
* Easy collimation with the provided collimation cap
Disadvantages:
* Collimation may be intimidating for beginners, but there is no reason you cannot master it
* Finder scope and its calibration with the telescope. If not properly aligned, chances are, you will never find the object that you are looking for, get really frustrated with your hobby very quickly. Strongly recommend buying a Telrad, or ensuring proper calibration every time you take the telescope out
* Lack of dovetail plate attachment

Celestron AstroMaster 90mm F/7 EQ Mount
Advantages:
* Easily portable, primarily because of dovetail plate attachment to the mount and easily removable accessory plate from tripod legs
* Better finder scope, with red-dot pointer, making it significantly easy to point and view celestial objects
Disadvantages:
* Construction and materials give you a “plastic” feel, which although makes the equipment light, makes it susceptible to breakage
* Mount and counterweights not given enough design thought in the overall construction
* Shaking time is noticeably more than in Orion

Impact of Gujarat Elections on India's Future Elections

There is something about Narendra Modi that sets him apart from the rest of the political leaders in India. It is the fact that Mr. Modi is one of the most aggressive leaders in Indian politics. He represents the new face of India - an India that is vibrant, aggressive, has the in-your-face attitude and a never-say-die spirit. He also provides something that most politicians (at least in India) do not provide - transparency. In fact, so amused was I when I heard Mr. Ashish Nandi lay out the characteristics of an Indian politician - someone who should be intelligent, but should not exhibit his/her full intelligence when in public; a person who is not 100% in-corrupt, etc. that I could not help but ask the question - is that what we really want our politicians to be like? I am not sure how Mr. Nandi came up with those characteristics and I am not even sure how he made the generalization that everyone wants leaders with those characteristics, but I am pretty sure there was no scientific thinking involved in his characterization and generalization. I can only wish that most Indian politicians look at Mr. Modi and try to imbibe some of the values that he has as a politician in their own roles.

So what is the significance of the Gujarat election results - especially on the national political scene? I am not going to discuss which party will form the next government, I would much rather discuss the observations from the recent Gujarat elections and how they impact future elections in India, be it at the national level or at the state level.

One of the most significant lessons from the Andhra Pradesh elections (when Chandrababu Naidu lost) and the parliamentary elections of 2004 was that by merely focusing on "development", an incumbent party could not win an election. The primary reason why development cannot be used as the sole agenda item is because the positive impact of development takes a long time to filter to the masses. A significant portion of the Indian population has to worry about their means for daily livelihood and cannot comprehend how development will have a positive impact on their lives either in the near or the short term futures. Neither can these under-privileged people think beyond their present circumstances nor can they relate themselves to the "development" taking place around them (which until now has not permeated to the under-privileged strata in India) and this obviously has a negative impact on the election results of those parties that use "development" as the sole agenda point. A corollary to the above lesson is that there is a need to have at least one issue on the agenda to which the masses can relate themselves to.

In light of the above lessons, the current elections results from Gujarat are interesting to analyze. There are 3 distinct observations that can be made based on the results -

1) "Development" CAN be used as an agenda item, provided, the leader is strong enough to make the masses see how future development will help them in the near and short term future. Of course it helps to have someone who has delivered on promises of past agendas/election manifests, is strong willed, aggressive and resembles the current and younger Indian generation. It also helps if the leader has strong opinions about some of the most pressing issues facing the general public and is willing to take a stance - unlike most politicians who are very centrist (don't have a specific point of view about an issue). It is possible that the point of view might not be shared by the general public and might not even be correct, but at least the leader is providing transparency in the election process even before he/she gets elected. (I guess it also helps if people just keep going back to history and try and cast an eye on communalism and keep harping the same old stories about someone being "Maut ka saudagar"!)

2) As we mature in our democracy, I foresee a change in the way future elections will be held - there will be more emphasis on the person who is being projected as the future CM/PM, very similar to the presidential elections in the US, where people traditionally align with a political party and eventually with a single presidential candidate (but not necessarily from the same political party to which they are aligned). One of the reasons why Congress failed in the Gujarat elections was because Congress could not project a strong CM candidate to stand against (or even up to) Modi. Of course some might argue that NDA lost the parliamentary elections of 2004 even when Vajpayee was projected as the PM before the elections - I can only say this - the move was bold and well received by the intellectual class, but on hindsight my feeling is that it was a bit premature. Going forward however, my belief is that whoever has a strong future CM/PM candidate will more likely win an election rather than any one party winning an election based on its manifests - which are most likely thrown in the recycling bins once the elections are over. A brand image for the projected PM/CM candidate will have to be created and projected to the masses who might choose to buy into the "brand" or not.

3) Lastly, if we take a look at the Gujarat election results, we find that 117 seats went to the BJP, 62 to Congress and the remaining 3 went to others. What that tells me is that we are slowly but surely progressing towards a 2 party political system - again, much like the US. The trend is not new - during the 2004 parliamentary elections we really only had two major conglomerates (NDA and UPA) contesting the elections. At least for central elections, my belief is that we are already in the phase where regional parties will either be wiped away (less likely) or will merge with either UPA or NDA (more likely). It will be a consolidation of sorts - with only the NDA and UPA remaining as the two main political outfits contesting future elections. This trend reinforces my belief that in future elections, it will be imperative to have a strong leader being projected as the future CM/PM in order to win an election.

All the above observations lead me to believe that India is finally gearing towards a more mature electioneering process where leaders will have strong leadership qualities and provide transparency even before they are elected, which will ultimately provide the electorate a better picture (better than the election manifests anyways!) of what to expect in terms of governance from the elected leaders. I also believe that we might move more towards the presidential form of democracy in the long term future.

Upheaval Time for BCCI

And so it has finally happened! ICL paraded 44 cricketers from the Indian domestic scene and made a bold statement of intent to the BCCI and to all their doubters. Most had reckoned that BCCI would slay the beast even before it could stand on its feet. I have long been an advocate about something like the ICL - just not in its present format and definitely not at this time.

However, the fact of the matter is, we live in a capitalist economy, where money is the sole criteria for most of the things that we do. Some editor on cricinfo questioned what would the players play for since they are not playing for a country, state or a club - the answer is quite simple - MONEY. What more do you need? Which domestic cricketer in India makes $75K (approximately Rs. 3.3 M or 33 Lakhs) in one year?

It will be better if the BCCI wakes up to this reality and embraces ICL - BCCI needs the ICL as much as the domestic cricketers do. And it's not only for their money and TV experience. They need ICL's management expertise more than anything else. It will be nothing short of a miracle, and one that is bound to happen, if the ICL manages to conduct a 50 over tournament sometime next year. And it will be tribute to ICL's management team for making it happen, whenever it does. To conceptualize and implement, even something like a Twenty20 tournament, with whatever players the ICL has mustered so far, is something to admire. Of course, some might argue that the tournament is still not underway, lacks the infrastructure and is not able to come up with a schedule. My only point to them would be - talk to Lalu Prasad Yadav. It's a different story that Lalu has vested interests in ICL (his son being one).

Sanjay Manjrekar pointed out that BCCI needs a nudge to professionalize itself. I believe it has long been nudged by various people, but BCCI never yielded to those demands. Of course, if they don't yield now, I am willing to bet that they will no longer be in existence. ICC is supposed to rule on the ICL, and I think I know how that meeting is going to go. It is going to be fractious to say the least. On the one hand, they need BCCI for their financial strength, however on the other, they want to make sure that BCCI is not a monopolistic body and does not have the same negotiating power that it does now. At this point in time, it will be too early to approve ICL, however, given some time I am pretty confident that the ICC will approve the ICL. They won't have a choice.

It is indeed time for some serious upheaval for the BCCI, regardless of whether they mend their ways and professionalize themselves or not. If they do mend their ways and become professional, the possibilities will be endless!

Global Warming in Cricket!!

Its funny what global warming is doing to cricket - we just witnessed an Indian Summer after an English Spring in England. It surely was a team performance, something that should make Rahul Dravid and the Indian cricket fans really proud. They can finally start believing in themselves and start winning more games/series and not just the odd game (as has happened in the past 4-5 years). I am hoping this win spurs more youngsters to play the game and secure a bright future for India in cricket in the years to come, just like 1983, when Kapil's devils won the World Cup and spurred a certain Sachin Ramesh Tendulkar.

A lot will be said about Rahul Dravid's decision to not enforce the follow on yesterday. My take on it was completely different at the time when I first read that India had not enforced the follow-on. I was of the opinion that it was a stupid decision (not defensive - that would be different, but stupid). I never considered the decision to be defensive - Rahul was out there to win the series, and the scoreline rarely matters in a series win. From that perspective, Rahul's decision was spot on. My only concern was that after not enforcing the follow-on, he should have batted on and not even declared. He should have gone the full distance, letting England prise out 10 wickets rather than declaring at 6 down. God knows what might have happened had KP got into the act and smashed our bowlers all over the Oval. That, was my problem with Rahul's decision making process yesterday.

Sledging and Jelly beans

I could not resist. I had to write. I mean, even when we played a cricket match, when still at school, did we not through jelly beans or sweets or even chewing gums on our opponents to disintegrate them mentally. That would have been ridiculous and would never have been allowed by our coach, a former military guy. He would rather we focus on our skills with the bat and ball rather than learn English for a game of cricket. It was stooping to the lowest of any standards. I wonder if Cook, when he played for his school team, ever did something like this. And honestly, I am not sure what Vaughan was doing when he said he believed his team that no one was "throwing" jelly beans, rather they were left there after a drinks break. In fact his statement was made to look ridiculous in light of Peter Moores' statement the next day, when he acknowledged that jelly beans were indeed "thrown" at Zaheer. He went on to add that the incident was being blown out of proportions and should be forgotten. I beg to differ on that. I don't think the incident has been blown out of proportions and in no way should it be forgotten. It would only take one jelly bean, on a length, for the batsman to get out. Are we saying that I can walk with jelly beans on my person, and then when I jump across the pitch, on a length, to let one fall off around the length area so that it would aid my bowlers get a wicket? Of course, if I was caught, I would plead ignorance to the whole episode when I am summoned by the match referee in his office.

India, on their part, replied back with interest to whatever sledging England had on offer. But does the fact that England were the instigators, absolve India of any wrong-doing? I don't think so. India were as guilty as the English. Yes, they stood up to the sledging and paid back with interest, but I am not one for letting my mouth do the talking. I would much rather let my bat do the talking. I was surprised that Rahul in the post match conference said that he was happy his boys had played tough cricket. I would have been much happier if he had censured Sreesanth a bit more in the press conference. There is no place for body contact in the game of cricket, and Sreesanth should be taken into a corner, and told so in no uncertain terms about the consequences of body contact, if it was to be repeated.

All of the above, brings me to the role of match referees and umpires and their say on what goes on in a cricket field. What I have noticed so far is that umpires rarely come in and have a tough word with the offenders. They let it drift, sometimes to a point where sledging becomes personal. I think that has something to do with the advent of match referees. Ever since match referees were introduced in cricket, umpires seem to think it is one less thing that they have to worry about. I don't think Dave Shepherd or Dickie Bird would have allowed any of the nonsense that took place in last week's game at Trent Bridge. I remember, even in our school playing days, how we would respect the umpire. We would be afraid, if the umpire were to pull us up for being a total idiot on the field. I believe that the umpires should be given more powers for any on-field non-behavior. The best way would be to penalize the offending team by awarding runs to the opposing team. And please, someone, do away with the financial penalties. Who cares about money received from playing a test match anyways?

More than the fear of being penalized all players should realize that they are on the cricket field to play tough cricket, with skill and talent, and not with their mouths. They might be role-models for millions of fans. They are there to preserve the integrity of the sport. And lastly, they should always ask the question - would I speak like this to any one, if my child was around? I am pretty sure, the answer to the question would always be a resounding NO. My advice to all those playing with their mouths - get a perspective - cricket is a sport after all.

Indian Summer in England 2007

Are we going to see an Indian summer in England this year? I really hope so - it's the best chance for India to get some momentum going. The Indian team is on the verge of bringing in the new and there will be significant changes to the personnel in the next couple of years. In fact, if things don't go right for the Indian team, this tour might as well be the end of the road for the likes of Sachin, Saurav, Laxman and Dravid.

So, what is going right for the Indians this summer and what is not? Let's start with what is not. The fact that we don't have a coach in place for such an important tour has to be an issue. It is more a matter of inconvenience than anything else. Other than that, I feel, we will miss Harbhajan and Sehwag - Sehwag more than Harbhajan simply because to my mind, he is such a canny bowler and breaks partnerships at crucial junctures in the game. Besides, their replacements are hardly proven in English conditions. Harbhajan at least has the experience of playing for Surrey which might have helped. The last and most important thing is, we have inexperienced bowlers who will think that they have to perform well in a place like England which is renowned for its swing and seam conditions. If they don't then they will be labeled as players who could not perform even when the conditions might have suited them. Just imagine how much pressure this puts on newcomers. It is like the pressure on bowlers of a team that wins the toss on an overcast day, on a dodgy track (which might do something or might not) and have to bowl and do well - multiplied by 10 - because they are actually trying to make an impression for the first time. I think the Indian bowlers are going to be under tremendous pressure and the English will be well aware of that.

To mitigate the experience problem, what we do have is - people who have wonderful experience playing in English conditions - Zaheer, Rahul, Sachin and Saurav. The fact that we have a bowling coach (and one who has done well in English conditions) should go some way to mitigate the experience issues.

The other things that are going right for India are, that we go to England during the later part of the season. Usually, during the later part, the weather conditions are pretty decent for batting and we do have a strong batting line up - one that has done well consistently in England. Rahul, Sachin and Saurav have done well in England every time they have been there. We also have the luxury of playing a couple of warm up games and a couple of one-dayers - that should help us get used to the conditions like nothing else. I have not seen Rahul after the CWC, however, I am hoping that he has learned a lot more and is a better leader than what he was during or before the CWC. To my mind, if Rahul can exhibit even 10% of Saurav's leadership qualities, we should be able to draw the test series and comfortably win the ODIs.

This is what I expect to see in England this summer - we either roar like the lions that we have promised to be so far and never been, or we start to see the end of Indian cricket. A vigorous Indian cricket team is like no other and even good for the game in general and I just wish that we can stand our own ground and be worthy competitors. I am thinking it's going to be a 1-1 tied result for the tests and we will comfortably win the ODI series.

Let it be an Indian summer this year in England........

Enter Mr. Ford - Really?

I am taking a break - at least I can! Just spare a thought for the guys who are turning up in 40 degree centigrade heat and probably 90 percent humidity, playing insignificant games, just to fill up the coffers of the some board that will help cricketers from the Asian and African sub-continents. On the face of it, it is a noble plan, but imagine what the guys who play the sport must have to endure physically. I play league cricket in the Chicago suburbs, where the temperature rarely goes above 25 degrees centigrade (agreed there is a lot of humidity around), but even then, if it is an afternoon game, I am thinking, why the hell am I playing in the league? Of course, for us in the US, playing any form of cricket at any time of the year is a bit of a luxury, but for the guys who do it day in and day out, these are nothing but insignificant games.

All right, enough said about cricket in hot temperatures. What I really wanted to talk about is the role of a coach in modern day cricket and and what to make of all the shambles about finding a coach for the Indian cricket team.

A few people, including Ian Chappell (who is the most vocal about it) and Sanjay Manjrekar (who is no more than a sounding board of Ian Chappell's these days), have questioned the role of a coach for modern day cricketers and are implying that there is no need for coaches at the international level - because what that means is, the grass roots system that produces cricketers is not working. Ian Chappell seems to think that by having a national team coach, the finishing school instead of being the state/club teams that exist in most countries, is international cricket. Chappell's definition of a cricket coach seems to be dated and is way too old. I don't think that an international coach's job profile would be anything like what it used to be even 15 years back - in fact Kumar Sangakara feels that the modern day coach's main job is to perform the back room operations and make sure that they create an environment for the cricketers to produce their best on the field. In that respect, I believe the modern day coach's role might be more similar to what the managers of yesteryears used to do - and maybe that is where the disconnect between Ian Chappell and the rest of the world, who demand a good cricket coach for their team, lies - nomenclature.

Going by the definition that Kumar Sangakara provides, there is no doubt in my mind that a coach plays a vital role in the game of cricket today. In addition to man-management, they are also involved in studying the techniques of their own team as well as those of the oppositions and serve as a sounding board for the captain in terms of strategy. A person sitting 75 yards away has a different view of the game then the captain on the field, and sometimes the view from the outside can be of help. A coach also takes off some the pressures of playing modern day cricket. In this day and age where cricket is played almost 365 days a year, it is very imperative for the cricketers who are playing day in and day out to maintain a sense of perspective, and this is another area where the coach should help out. An international coach should not be involved in thinking about and executing on processes - a la Greg Chappell. Instead, he should be able to work with the team that is "given" to him, within the processes that exist and create an environment that will help the team feel comfortable in each other's company and help them give their best on the field. Processes should be left for the administrators and the grass roots level coaches to identify and implement.

Onto Graham Ford's declining the offer, it really remains to be seen what the real reasons were for refusing the offer. Of course, he is well within his rights to refuse any offer, but if his official reasons are that 1) he cannot leave Kent at this time - so soon and 2) he has to think about his family before the job - then both are ludicrous, given the background in which they were made. When Ford was offered the interview, he would have been told that he would have had to join the Indian team pretty soon - there was no point in having him joining the team after the Indian team had completed the English tour. The second reason, to my mind, is even more ludicrous than the first one - in the sense that being employed by Kent, he is away from his wife (who is a cancer patient) and kids most of the time anyways. I think he's just shielding some of the main reasons behind his wife's illness (don't get me wrong - I wish his wife recovers from the deadly disease as soon as she can) - but it is simply not professional. If this was just a gimmick so that Kent would have increased his pay-check, then it was a lowly gimmick. If he was not happy with the offer that BCCI was making, then he should have told so in no uncertain terms at the time of the interview - why tell the BCCI that he only has to decide on "when" he is going to join Team India? Of course, he would then have put the ball in BCCI's court and it would not have been his decision - but by taking the decision that he has - he has implied that he never really wanted the position in the first place.

Of course, all of the above does not absolve the BCCI from conducting what has to be the worst job interview - it almost seems to me that they lack a process to select anyone - let alone a coach. It just seems to me that they put a hat on the table and just throw in some random names - if the name lands in the hat, that person is eligible for an interview and then you repeat the same "process" for making an offer. How else can they explain the names that they came up with? If Mr. Gavaskar was against a foreign coach, he should have said so, if the players were so very much in favor of a foreign coach - then was there a way that they could have voiced their opinion? What about the others on the committee? I did not hear a word from Venkat, was he even involved in any manner - did he even make it to the meeting? And the most idiotic thing of all was, after talking with Graham Ford and John Embury for just an hour each, the committee came to a conclusion that Ford was the right person for the job - excuse me, but on what basis? On the basis of a presentation that at best could have lasted only 30 minutes? Was his presentation so penetrative, that the committee could make out how good a coach he would be? Or was it because the players wanted him as their coach? Besides, by offering him just 1 year on the job, the BCCI were making him look like a sacrificial lamb. Just take a look at our next few engagements - against England in England, against Australia in Australia and then Pakistan tours India - wow! All those teams are significantly better than India, so the chances of us winning any of those series are quite low. In the light of that fact and given the fact that Ford was not offered a longer tenure and not even allowed to have his own support staff, it would have been stupid on Ford's part to even think about the job. I am sure he must have been told about his tenure and the fact that BCCI would not allow Ford to have his own support staff (BCCI has been saying that ever since Chappell left). All of the above, just makes Ford's decision to even come for an interview way too strange.

I think, it is high time the BCCI becomes a professional body. They need a working CEO and some VPs at the top, with some really shrewd managers to run the show for them. There is no reason why the BCCI cannot become richer than what they are today, but they have to clean up their act now, otherwise, we are headed towards a point when cricket will no longer enjoy the singular status that it has enjoyed for more than 25 years in India.

As people say, the best way to destroy something is to hand it over to the politicians - they are always very efficient at dismantling things - never the ones to do anything constructive. Mr. Sharad Pawar, I would seriously urge you to leave a lasting legacy, that is how you will be judged in the end.