'Joker card' a departure from protocol

Hyderabad: Retention of players for this year’s IPL has been a challenge for all franchises, what with the ‘joker card’ factor also introduced. Through this, a team owner can reclaim a player from the auction (which happens on February 12) through a sort of veto or first right of refusal at the best price the player commands.

Both retention and ‘joker card’ are departures from the original protocol of the tournament which stated that all players would have to be auctioned every three years. To create a level playing field for all franchises this was considered imperative.

The IPL was seen as a tacit expression of free market economics but as so often happens in such environment, owners and businesses (in this case franchises) can get overly ambitious and/or insecure and tend towards becoming monopolistic.

Therefore, by the time the first three-year period drew to a close, the IPL was riddled with demands from financially stronger franchises that they be allowed to retain some number of players.

The weaker franchises complained, realizing that they could lose out to the sheer money power of the ‘big fish’, and there was also some minor controversy. But their opposition was fairly easily overcome and by the end of the six year period a new protocol is in place.

In the new system, a franchise can retain up to five players and also use the ‘joker card’ in the auction with fairly heavy amounts deducted from the total kitty of player fees in a graded way. This effectively meant that it is possible to retain more than half a playing eleven, which can be a huge advantage.

The flip side to this is that if a team decides to retain the maximum of six players, the money available for the remaining comes down substantially and could hurt the overall composition of the squad. The IPL season is fairly long and there is always the threat of injury or breakdown. Money unwisely spent could cost dear.

To the purists the complexities of such financial management - and inevitably some greed - creeping in diminishes the sport. But let’s face it, the IPL is as much business as it is cricket. If checks and balances are sound and corruption is kept at bay, even the business aspect of the event is engaging.

As things panned out on Friday, the last day for franchises to announce their retentions, a mosaic of fascinating strategies deployed by different franchises emerged which have added to the suspense and drama as we head towards the climax in February.

For instance, Mumbai retained five players, Delhi none while the others were somewhere in between. It’s not just the numbers alone, but also who has been retained that are the talking points.

For instance, Mumbai have let go of Mitchell Johnson, one of their key players last season and destroyer-in-chief of England in the recent Ashes series. Everything pointed at Harbhajan Singh being off-loaded, instead the Aussie paceman finds himself in the open, as it were.

There has been talk that Harbhajan’s retention came at the behest of his good friend Sachin Tendulkar who still carries a lot of clout with the Mumbai Indians. With no official statement from the franchise on this, it is difficult to substantiate the conjecture. My own belief is that Harbhajan still has value for MI who can now chase Johnson as the ‘joker card’. At the other end of the spectrum, Delhi have not even retained Virender Sehwag, their original icon player. In a sense, this adds to the dashing opener’s woes. Perception matters greatly in Indian cricket as we know.

But some argue that this is clever tactics by the Daredevils who are now flush with funds to pick from in the auction. So, while it may seem now that Sehwag has been dumped, he could still be back with the team, though with the terms of endearment redefined. These are but two of the many variations and vexations that this season’s IPL has thrown up in the first stage itself. Next month’s auctions now has the makings of a gripping climax to this cloak-and-dagger drama.