Who says winner takes it all?

The winner dominates the headlines, receives all the accolades and of course the gold medal. What about the athlete who finishes last? Two laps down and a good five minutes after the winner touched the crossing line. She did not win any medals - but she would take the standing applause from the Zürich crowd which witnessed this tremendous attitude. I was also part of the crowd standing and applauding this athlete, the 24-year old Norwegian Runa Falch. 

Twenty-five athletes took to the track in what was going to be a see-saw battle for the top places. The leader positions swung like a pendulum before the field settled in for the final three laps. There.. at that precise moment in about 800 metres to go saw the real heros emerging out of the pack or leaving rest of the pack behind. It was close between the first and second placed coming on to the last lap and in the final turn to the finish line - the winner was from Great Britain, the bronze medallist from the recently concluded Commonwealth Games in the 5000 metres. The crowd hailed to the endurance of Jo Pavey as she managed to get hold of the Union Jack flag from the spectators area. The runners-up, the duo from France finished close to Pavey but came short to take the top spot. 

Ok, this is usual right. Every race ends up having a winner, a runner-up and a second runner-up who then become the focus and leave rest of the athletes behind until the time when they all gather to compete another day. The way I saw - that particular race was all about the two athletes. The winner and the final finisher. The race, the approach, the struggles, the accolades, the time and even the age were all strikingly contrast with these two athletes. 

A gap of close to six minutes and a gap of 17 years separated Jo Pavey and Runa Falch. Jo Pavey who turns 41 next month is also a mother of two children - a inspirational run saw her take the first place and thereby scripting one of the success stories of this year´s European championships and in athletics. While Pavey´s achievements were in a league of her own, very few could connect with what she achieved yesterday. An outstanding achievement and something I was very fortunate to witness it live. How many such instances do you see in today´s world of sports? It is a dream… which many aspire and a handful of them go on to live it. 

                        Jo Pavey proudly displaying her colours on and off the track           Image Courtesy - Telegraph UK                                         

What about Runa Falch? Just as the presenter was interviewing Pavey on her spectacular win, Falch had just began her 25th lap - the final lap. She trailed right from the start and yet she went on and on and on. It was no surprise to see the crowd standing up and applauding Runa Falch when she ran her final 100 m. To me that said it all.

Who says winner takes it all?

Runa Falch all by herself about to complete her race and being cheered by the crowd.             Image Courtesy - nrk.no

It was theatrical and if finishing 24th would have hurt her, the strong sound of the crowd would have soothed all the pain she endured in order to finish the race. This run from Falch to me was more close to the spectators present than Pavey´s. To me personally, these two athletes demonstrated a great example. There is no age limit to winning and if you do need to win and share the same experience as Pavey did, then one has to be prepared to run many such runs like Falch did. It was one of those days when you lose steam, lose sense of purpose or even direction. Luckily for Falch - she lost her momentum on the running track and there after all she did was to follow her instincts; absorbing the pain, agony, running all by herself and completed the race. In sports or in any field, there is no prize for finishing last. It all comes down to perspectives. And my view is that - ´she is now a finisher and not a quitter´. 

        Runa Falch after completing the race.             Image Courtesy - nrk.no

A NIGHTMARE TO FORGET - 2014 BRAZIL WORLD CUP

Courtesy: News Agencies 

I think it is the continuous pain in those 90 minutes which is unbearable. The focus constantly on those eleven players is intense and painful for the spectators rooting a particular team in circumstances which Brazil were in yesterday. It can be a devastating experience for fans present in the stadium; for all those watching on television or even those who use their smart phones to check the scores. How can one erase what they just saw?

Football is a beautiful game, it definitely is. I saw a different side to this beautiful game when a team that prides itself to be at the forefront of football went through such a horrible defeat.

Like me, many others have experienced such a defeat growing up and can share their most heartbroken sports stories to this day. Few analysis on the match, scrutinising few of the players who performed poorly, to place our own strategies and debating about it - we move on or at least we make an effort.

Whether the angry fans resort to personal abuse or protests - an athlete on the field will have scars which he has to live with for the rest of his life. C'est la vie!

And there are players who missed taking part in the game - through injuries (Neymar Jr), penalty (Thiago Silva) who watched their team blown away in those six minutes conceding four goals. Such were the levels of shock that Miroslav Klose, who netted his 16^th goal (World Record) of the World Cup was mentioned briefly in the game.

The game shall be remembered for the grand Brazilian defeat than Germany's outstanding win.

For the younger fans, the passionate fans - the defeat could be a blow and even come as a shock. Many tears were shed and it will only take few years to realise, I shed those tears for what? One will probably look back in a different way and till that time, you too as a fan has to live with it.

A certain youngster in 1950 was passionate about football and saw his countrymen mourning to the loss against Uruguay at the finals held in Brazil. And that youngster went on to play a pivotal role in guiding the national team to three of the five titles they have won - a feat no team has matched so far. And the same athlete used those golden words while describing the sport in his autobiography - 'A Beautiful Game'. It turned the Brazilian football and to an extent the global football completely. Football without Brazil is like Formula One without Ferrari. Unimaginable!

Such is the beauty of sports that - it moves on, it provides opportunities to improve and the only thing that asks an athlete in return is his willingness to participate. I am not sure how many of the athletes will turn up in Brazilian colours come 2018 in Russia. They need not seek revenge or look for redemption - because none of it actually exists except in our perceptive thoughts. The defeat however crucifying it maybe is part of the game just like the win.

It is hard, awkward, baffling, embarrassing, rough, rocky, arduous, delicate and add any other adjectives you like - the history shall not be erased if even Brazil were to win the next three World Cups in a row.

Some will move on with time, some prefer to stay with the result for rest of their lives, some will always be finding ways to cope with the defeat and some - they just don't care.

That to me is 'Sports Imitating Life'.  

FEDERER vs NOVAK - WIMBLEDON 2014

                                                                      A clash to remember                                         Source: ABC

In the end the satisfying part of watching a Wimbledon finals was that - it involved two humans at the peak of their individual skills exhibiting their repertoire, physical reserves that seemed invisible to themselves and acute mental awareness in spite of times when the title seemed to run away with the other person.

A LOOK BACK AT THE THIRD SET

My moment of the third set was the games leading up to the tie-breaker and the tie-breaker itself. Two clearly matched opponents - nullifying each other's strokes of geniuses. Then Novak wins a crucial point, he is excited and he urges the crowd to cheer him on, loud and more loud. He sensed, the third set was all his and that it was.

FEDERER GOES WILD

If looked in isolation, having missed the championship point, Djokovic was never the same player for the next five games. Trailing 2-5 and with opponent having a break point, Federer boxed his way out, cornering Novak to one corner or the other, exhibiting some of the aggressive tennis seen in the match. It was counter-attack on a player who started to grunt more, losing energy with each stroke. He did not have a clue and if the tie break would have gone Federer's way in the third set, it would have been curtains for Novak. It was that phase of the match, irrespective of who the opponent was - 'Federer was in a class of his own'. He won the set 7-5 and the match proceeds to the fifth set.

NOVAK GETS A BREAK

At the beginning of the final set if one were to have analysed the fitness levels of these two great athletes - the younger Novak (by six years) would lose hands down to Federer. It was advantage Federer all-over. Novak takes a medical time-out to sooth his aching calf and ankle muscles and to bring his mind in order. In boxer's term, he was just handed a series of 'deadly punches' which he just could not defend, denting his confidence a little. He was anything but cheerful in the fourth set and that spoke about his mental health - which was shattered by the assault of Federer. The momentum was with Federer and now the brakes have been applied by Djokovic.

THE HUSTLER

Federer was calm and went about his tennis in the final set with a similar approach as he did in the fourth set. Novak ensured he held on to his serve - which at that point was the only sensible thing to do. He had no chance whatsoever to score a point of Federer's serve - never mind breaking the same. Three games in which Federer served - he gave nothing at all to his Serbian opponent. On the other hand, in contrast Novak struggled and Federer's plan was to break Novak's serve early. He had his chances but Novak was better to fend any such threats. 4-3 to Djokovic and Federer to serve.

Up until that game, Novak was playing with minimum effort, doing just a little to defend and hold on to his serve - as though he knew he wanted to use his reserve energy some other time. He upped his ante in the eighth game and took the game to a far amount of distance - an indication that he was back.

He felt and it was seen, he could now dictate terms. He almost broke Federer's serve. The next sensible thing Novak did was to go 5-4 and then play his final set of cards. He knew, he can win if he can break Federer's serve right there in the tenth game. If it were to extend any further, he would lose it. Physically he looked much more drained than his Swiss opponent. As he was in the process of winning the ninth game, he urged the fans to cheer him. A similar trait - which kept him going in the third set.

    

Now, this sort of mindset is what keeps a champion like 'Novak' advance to his goal. Beyond a limit, exists a zone where his mental ability counter balances his physical ineptness. He sensed, this was it - Carpe Diem!! Novak broke the serve and Wimbledon was all his!

    

THE CHAMPION

Novak Djokovic won his second Wimbledon title and finally managed to erase his losing streak in the Grand Slam finals. He knew he had slipped on more than few occasions in the match and that was the beauty of this finals! His seventh title was something he would cherish a long time to come. He has won seven trophies out of fourteen finals that he has participated and a first against Roger Federer. He knew it was special! and he knew he had to snatch it from Roger - especially if you look how the last hour of this match panned out. He is courteous enough to say it in public, acknowledging his family, support staff and specially to Federer for handing over this championship to him.

THE JUICE

For Federer, he surprised himself to an extent that he could go this far a distance. Maybe it is to do with Wimbledon or maybe it is to do about him. Actually it is do with him. He along with three other champions come to my immediate mind as I write this. Michael Jordan, Sachin Tendulkar and Michael Schumacher. After all they have achieved in their respective sporting careers, having stayed on top for so long, the fear of losing the sheen from their illustrious career never came in their way - as long as they knew they were giving 100% and enjoyed the process of being a competitive athlete.

In the 1995 action thriller 'Heat' - Robert De Niro summons his gang of bank robbers (three) before committing one last heist. Though he is a criminal, he displays his humane touch asking his three buddies if they want to back out and live the rest of their lives with 'huge sums of money' they made and start a new life. He would not judge if they backed out. Val Kilmer says 'The bank is worth the risk, I need it brother'. De Niro turns to Tom Sizemore, who hesitates to back out - " Elaine takes good care of you. You got plenty put away. You got T-bonds, real estate. If I were you, I would be smart. I would cut loose of this."  Tom Sizemore looks in the eyes of De Niro, turns around to look at his other mates and turns to De Niro and says - "Well, you know. For me, the action is the juice, I'm in".

Michael Schumacher wins the race from the pits!

                                                 Michael Schumacher's last lap was in the pit-lane                             Image Courtesy - Daily mail 

The race at Silverstone is always nostalgic. It is at this very circuit the first race of the modern F1 championships was held on 13^th May 1950. British Grand Prix over the years have been hosted by other circuits and personally this remains my favourite British circuit among the others.

In this post, I would not be writing about Silverstone or its history or its struggles to stay relevant in the modern business of Formula One. Instead, I would like to look back on a 'wet' afternoon in 1998 when the race leader pitted on the last lap and yet emerged victorious. Protests were lodged by McLaren-Mercedes and the final verdict didn't alter the results of the Grand Prix. Instead it cost the jobs of the three stewards who awarded the penalty - unclear and ill-timed.

McLaren Mercedes was the car to beat. Ferrari was close and yet so far. In the eight races prior to the British Grand Prix that season, McLaren had won five (Mika Hakkinen four out of them) and Ferrari had three. If at all, the only consolation was that - the last two races were won by Ferrari and Michael Schumacher. Ferrari was not a force to reckon with at all - it was Michael Schumacher who drove not just the car but also the team forward ever since he took the seat in 1996.

PRE-RACE  

McLaren cars were the quickest on all the three practice sessions and on the pre-race warm-up. Mika Hakkinen courtesy of a swift lap put his team on pole ahead of his immediate rival Michael Schumacher.

With heavy rains on the race day morning, the track was not completely dry and this prompted many of the teams to start the race with intermediate tyres. The two Stewarts took the brave decision to start with dry tyres!

THE RACE

There was no major shakeup at the top for the first 12 laps of the race barring for David Coulthard moving to the second position - a move aided by the unsurprising choice of Schumacher and Ferrari to go with a dry set-up, hoping the track to dry as the race progressed. Then Michael Schumacher clocks in a stunner of a lap, 1.6 seconds quicker than any other car on a track that was starting to get wet with dark clouds looming around the 5.89 km circuit. These harsh conditions of wind and wet track made driving a little difficult as the first of the casualties happened to be Damon Hill on lap 13 and Heinz Harald Frentzen two laps later.

RAIN, RAIN - WHY YOU BACK AGAIN?

Rain upset the strategies of all the teams forcing the drivers to make an unscheduled pit stops. From lap 18 onwards, the pit lane saw a parade of cars making their way in to make this change - some like McLaren on Bridgestone and few other like Ferrari on Goodyear. Most of them braved the track with intermediate tyres (Michael Schumacher and David Coulthard) while Mika Hakkinen was given a fully-threaded wet weather tyres.

DRAMA

Up until the lap 35, Mika Hakkinen controlled the race and drove around the circuit comfortably than most others could manage. Coulthard had to win the race to keep his championship alive managed to put in two stunning laps to catch Hakkinen. The track became wet with a fresh round of downpour and in a moment of frowziness while overtaking a back-marker, Coulthard slid off the track and off he went on to the gravel. David Coulthard retired from the race on lap 37.

Mika Hakkinen having the advantage of wet-weather tyres had built a lead in excess of 40 seconds to the now second placed Michael Schumacher. Was this lead under the treacherous weather conditions enough? It sure was, unless you make any mistakes!

SAFETY CAR

Mika Hakkinen had a 'heartbeat moment' when his car on lap 42 turned 360 degrees at the high speed exiting corner 'Bridge'. He lost control for few seconds before recovering and turning the car on the circuit in the right direction - what reflex!. A deficit of 10 seconds would not damage his chances of victory, though there were concerns if his machinery and aerodynamic parts were intact.

Safety car was deployed to aid the drivers on track. Yes, it was such a race that - by the end of it all, only nine cars out of twenty-two were on track when the chequered flag was waved. Unsurprisingly, nine of those thirteen cars were as a result of 'slippery' track conditions.

The advantage built up by Hakkinen went in vain as Michael Schumacher and him were separated by a lapped Benetton car. On lap 49, the safety car went into the pits. Two laps later, Hakkinen straight-lined his car at Beckets - which put Schumacher into the lead and he was away! The damage caused by that spin on lap 42 was clearly visible as Hakkinen soon came under pressure from the second Ferrari of Eddie Irvine.

MELODRAMA

While Michael was leading the race, behind the scenes at the steward's control room there were discussions surrounding his overtake manoeuvre (to lap) on Alexander Wurz's Benetton on lap 43 - under the stationary yellow flag (safety car period). Normally in such cases back then, the penalty verdict must be informed to the team (in this case Ferrari) within 25 minutes of the time of the incident under investigation. The trio - Canada's Roger Peart, India's Nazir Hoosein and Britain's Howard Lapsley took about 24 minutes to make the decision.

The decision of the penalty was handwritten and it stated '10 seconds penalty' to Michael Schumacher. It was brought to the notice of Ferrari seven minutes after the decision was taken by the three stewards. The verdict did not specify if the penalty was a 'stop-go' (Article 57C) or whether 10 seconds would be added to Schumacher's time post race (Article 57E). To top it all, the official who delivered the note to the Ferrari did not know which rule was to be enforced.

While all this confusion was going on, the race was reaching its climax with just about two laps to go. Ferrari pit-crew were ready but were waiting for the instructions. Keeping in mind of the ramifications of the ignored penalty at the 1994 British Grand Prix (Schumacher later disqualified for the same driving for Benetton), Ferrari did not want to take any chances. Having a lead in excess of twenty seconds coming onto the last lap - he entered the pits to take the stop-go penalty. In doing so, he had to cross the 'start/finish' line to enter the Ferrari pit-lane. Michael Schumacher won the British Grand Prix. With-in minutes after the race, the stewards confirmed - they had applied Article 57E.

THE ARGUMENT CONTINUED....

McLaren were disappointed and wasted no time to appeal the decision. Technically, article 57E applies only if the incident took place in the last 12 laps - which clearly was not the case. McLaren argued that it was a clear case of 'stop-go' penalty. The hearing was called at the FIA International Court of Appeal before the next race at Austria which was scheduled to start in fortnight's time.

After hearing out F1 race director Charlie Whiting, his deputy Herbie Blash and the three stewards, the World Council concluded that - the stewards applied the wrong rule in the situation and failed to communicate their decisions as per the regulations. The three stewards accepted the verdict and gave up their licences.

 Ferrari could rejoice as Michael Schumacher finally managed to win at Silverstone. It was his first of the three victories he managed to secure at this historic venue. Murray Walker, veteran F1 commentator commented at the end of the race aptly - " I have never, ever in the years I have been watching Grand Prix racing seen a finish like that - it is absolutely unprecedented". And he start commentating in 1949!

TO END IT.....

Whether or not, Michael Schumacher would watch this year's British GP - he can never forget the memories from the Silverstone circuit. It was here in 1999, he suffered a major blow - an injury which made him sit out most part of the 1999 World Championship and eventually cost him that year's driver's crown. He bounced back from that setback and what a comeback he has had after that. And hoping his bounce-back ability is the same this time around as he fights to lead a normal life.  

A case for 'strategy breaks' in football?

I managed to witness what I had never seen previously on a football field - a game of football being stopped midway for a 'cooling break'. Surely, it was not the first time breaks have been used at the football fields and surely it won't be the last time. It happens in T20 domestic cricket in the name of 'strategy' time out for 150 seconds. 

Moving forward, what do we make of this cooling break? Will this be seen as an excellent marketing strategy and open up a window for advertisement - specifically suited around cooling breaks? or what I saw yesterday was a one-off instance where heat did disrupt the players and most importantly 'the match officials'?

Let me look at it the other way. Louis van Gaal utilised these 'breaks' to communicate his strategy to the Dutch players instead of shouting behind the line in a hope that 'his messages carry the distance'. Instead of having just a half-time break, he had 3 time outs (so to speak) to re-work on his strategies. Since the time Mexico took the lead, the team in orange were chasing the game. Did these breaks help bring back the focus to the team? or did it upset the rhythm for the Mexicans?

What would be the future of these 'cooling breaks'? Will this case be pursued further by the marketing team at FIFA to repackage it as 'strategy breaks' and through this create a new dimension to the sport, thereby modernising the traditional flow game? or will it be just too much of a change for FIFA to create this 'break' twice in a match played for 90 minutes (which has already extra minutes added at the end of each half). Plus, will it provide a breathing space for spectators to not miss the action while they must go attend to nature's call or buy a drink or a snack!

This game is after all involves the administration and guardian of the game FIFA, the players and match officials, the sponsors and most importantly the spectators who consume the content, the drama which unfolds on the field.

Will there be a strategy breaks in football, moving forward? Only time will tell! 

HALLMARK OF A PERFECT TEAM IN FORMULA ONE

List of Winners and Runners up from the same F1 team in a season

The F1 season of 2014 has been all about one team so far. The German automobile giant Mercedes on their own have finally made it big after four years of being in the wilderness. Barring the Canadian GP (won by Daniel Ricciardo) the rest of the seven races have been won by either of two Mercedes drivers. This season so-far has shown all the signs that Mercedes will end up gathering more wins unless the likes of Red Bull and Ferrari make tremendous progress.

MARK OF A GREAT TEAM - I believe F1 is a team sport. However, when looked at the history of driver's championships it tends to point out not all winning drivers were the best. Some had the best machinery and a lot of the drivers came through owing to their individual brilliance and of course not to forget the team work behind the scenes. To me, a great team is one - which manages to win the driver's championships, secure the constructor's championship and have your second driver placed second in the driver's championship points tally at the end of the season. Simple evaluation isn't it?

WHAT DOES HISTORY OF F1 TELLS US - In each decade, there were teams that dominated the proceedings irrespective of who drove in them. In other cases, teams hired two of the best drivers available. The first F1 world championship had the winner Giuseppe Farina and Juan Manuel Fangio lined up in one team. The team benefitted overall. The constructor's championships were awarded from 1958 and since then very few teams managed to dominate the scene continuously. The fights were often between drivers from various teams than between team-mates. In some cases, there were clear demarcation as to who's numero uno and the second driver (Ferrari of recent times) and in other cases strong rivalry between the teammates (Senna and Prost). Nevertheless, the latter scenario is not sustainable in the long run and the first case is a weak one if the driver is not efficient and quick.

HOW MANY?

From the inception of world championships in 1950 till the 2013 season, there have been only 18 seasons where teams had both their drivers finish in top two. I have made a snapshot capturing the details of these years.

SUMMARY!

The way it stands at the moment, the season might end up being the 19th such occasion and first for this decade. Red Bull Racing who dominated the championship for the past four years never managed to secure the 2nd place in the drivers championships - though they had the best machinery. Ferrari in its prime (2000-2004) managed to win five constructor's title and driver's championship in a row. Yet, only in 2002 and 2004 we saw Rubens Barrichello finishing second at the end of the season.

It isn't all about team work - drivers get paid huge sums of amount for their talent and this individual skill sets combined with enthusiasm of the team has so far managed to win more championships than compared with teams winning the constructors championship along with top two finishers in the driver's championships. In short - the best car and two of the best drivers doesn't guarantee you success. As long as humans are involved - even what seems perfect combination theoretically it is far-fetched (most times) from being one practically.

THE CASE OF A MISSING LETTER - INDIA AT THE 1950 FOOTBALL WORLD CUP

In the past month and a half, the media - especially the sports section have turned all their attention to the world's sporting showpiece - FIFA World Cup. Analysis, predictions, history and many other elements are being churned out, leaving no corners at all. Much such news highlighted India's inability to qualify at this global event. The causes are plenty - but what I do know is that India had an opportunity to play at the World Cup in Brazil back in 1950.

Preparations were on till about a month's time when the Secretary General of FIFA (Fédération Internationale de Football Association), Dr. Ivo Schricker received a telegram from AIFF (All-India Football Federation)  stating its inability to participate in the World Cup and the same news to be informed to the Brazilian Organising Committee. There were no reasons given in that telegram. 

However, a letter addressed to FIFA was to follow explaining the reasons for India's late withdrawal. Was this letter written? If yes, where is this letter? For sure, this letter would debunk several theories surrounding the withdrawal. All one finds is a letter dated 15th June 1950 written to FIFA by AIFF "requesting two rulebooks for the federation use".

Playing barefoot, lack of funds, lack of interest, lack of training or was World Cup - a much smaller event involving 16 countries than compared with Summer Olympics which had 59 countries taking part at the 1948 London Olympics.

The 1948 Summer Olympics was the first truly international competition India took part post-independence. Indian football team or also known as 'All-India' from FIFA's official sanction back then showed its prowess playing barefoot. 

Since 1947, AIFF and FIFA have corresponded a lot of times leading up to the 1950 World Cup. I have written this article based on those correspondences interspersed with my opinions after having followed the history of this game for a while.

In early 1949, the organising committee and FIFA had selected 30 countries - out of which 16 teams would then be shortlisted leading up to the World Cup or Jules Rimet Trophy as it was called then. 'All-India' was part of this list and was one of the four countries from Asia.

AIFF in their preparations for the World Cup requested FIFA on 21st Dec 1949 about their qualifying matches in order to ascertain who among the Asian teams clubbed under Group 10 of qualifying matches would go through as a finalist for the main event. 

AIFF secretary Mr. Dutta Ray even talked about chartering a flight from Calcutta (now Kolkata) or Bombay (now Mumbai) to Brazil. AIFF had even plans to send the team 10 days in advance to Brazil and play few friendlies before the commencement of the tournament. AIFF also requested for approximate costs which would be incurred for accommodation purposes.

On the same day, Sir Stanley Rous (oblivious to the AIFF letter written on that day) the then Secretary of FIFA and member of the organising committee wrote a letter addressed to Mr. Dutta Ray, secretary of AIFF. The letter was detailed and it highlighted the organising committee's plans to have 16 teams grouped into four groups of four teams. 

Philippines and Burma had withdrawn and so India was to be the sole representative from Asia if they were willing to. 

Rous requested if India would like to be part of the World Cup and since India would have played no opponents as a result of withdrawal of aforementioned teams, the Indian team was requested to come and play few qualifying matches in Europe (Spain, Switzerland or Portugal) to "prove if the team was worthy to take a place in the last sixteen". 

Rous also added - "Your team was recently beaten by a touring Swedish club and wondered whether that opportunity to judge your strength had caused your committee to review its decision to take part in the World Cup, the last of the teams which will be drawn from strong Professional clubs". 

He concluded the letter by telling that he was not confident that England is good enough to go far in the tournament after their performance against Italy in the friendlies.

With six months to go for the World Cup, it was clear that India was the sole contender to represent Asia at the World Cup. Before that they had to reply to FIFA whether they would be interested in taking part and if they are indeed willing to participate, will they be sending a team to Europe to prove 'if they indeed belong to the league of the other world teams'.

AIFF wrote a strong letter to FIFA's Secretary General Dr. Ivo Schricker in which they highlighted - "Regarding the friendlies to be played in Europe, had India fulfilled her engagements with Burma or Philippines this question would not have come up at all." 

It also indicated that if Burma or Philippines were to withdraw, India would automatically get in. A clarification on the Swedish club 'Helsingborg' defeating India 11-0 was false. In fact, the Swedish team played three exhibition matches in Calcutta (Kolkata) against Mohan Bagan, East Bengal, and Bengal Football Association. Mohan Bagan drew the match while East Bengal and Bengal Football Association lost their matches by two goals and a solitary goal respectively. 

AIFF insisted India to be much stronger than what it was at the 1948 Olympics and would not cut a sorry figure at the World Cup. AIFF had also appointed the FA Coach George Ainsley from the UK to train the boys for 3-4 months duration leading up to the World Cup.

In its 23rd February 1950 letter to AIFF, FIFA confirmed India to be the finalist and they need not play their friendlies in Europe. 

The letter concluded with - "I want to mention a question which may be discussed by the Organising Committee in their next meeting: the question regarding whether the bare-foot playing will be allowed. I know that nothing is said about this question in the Laws of the Game - but the question will be eventually raised. It would be in my opinion advisable to let your players use in practice games light shoes, not heavy shoes." The last part was a private advice given by the Secretary-General to AIFF.

On the very next day, another letter was addressed to AIFF in which FIFA regrets the wrong press reports of the Swedish club matches played earlier. And it confirms again that AIFF does not need to play any of the so-called 'Test matches'.

On 19th March 1950, the organising committee met in Zurich and discussed various points related to the preparation of the World Cup. From the minutes of the meeting, it emerged that - "The Organising Committee considers that all players should play with shoes. 

However, it is known that in some countries there are players who play football without shoes, especially in India. A letter will be sent to the All India Football Federation drawing attention wrt Art. Game 4 of the Statutes, which provides that the shoes are part of the equipment of the player and perhaps an arbitrator (referee) may refer to this article and hence prohibiting play barefoot".

Until 27th April 1950, there was no response from AIFF on their stand regarding playing barefoot. FIFA and the organising committee published the list of finalists who would be taking part in that year's World Cup. India was part of the final list.

India was placed alongside Sweden, Paraguay, and Italy in Group C.

With just 30 days to go for the World Cup, FIFA received a wire message from AIFF which read - "Regret unable participate World Cup letter follows inform Brazil" - Soccer Calcutta.

And that letter is not to be seen and hence the mystery surrounds regarding this last minute pull-out.

What could be the reasons? Lack of funds, lack of preparation, lack of awareness surrounding World Cup football, amateur vs. professionalism, long-distance travel, apprehensions against the World's top sides, being stubborn to change its barefooted playing style or the politics over selection and power?

Let me look at it one by one.

Lack of funds - Though India was independent three years prior to the event, lack of funds was not a concern. Wealthy businessmen and other philanthropists were in plenty to fund the football team to Brazil. Moreover, the Brazilian Confederation had guaranteed air transport for up to 22 passengers. The cost of the stay for the teams would have been reimbursed from two days before the first match until two days after its last match.

At that time, while the plans for the inaugural Asian Games were being made in India, it is highly unlikely that Government would have stopped the football team from participating at the World Cup. And moreover, by mere presence, Indian football team would have been paid by the Organising Committee as a part of its participation fees.

Lack of preparation - George Ainsley, the English professional football player was roped in by AIFF to help prepare the Indian football team specifically keeping in mind of the World Cup. It was less than two years ago in 1948, where the Indian footballers put up a brave show against France at the Olympics. The better team lost that day but they returned home brimming with confidence. But how big was this football World Cup back then for these Indian footballers and to the AIFF? It seems Olympics was given more importance keeping in mind the success of Indian hockey team and its global appeal at that time. Lack of preparation would have been a mere excuse if even it came from the press release of AIFF.

Lack of awareness surrounding World Cup - Let me be brutally honest here. Sixty-five years ago, sports was merely an element which the 'selected few' played. India, post-independence had many problems and sports was not the priority. The success of the Indian national hockey team made headlines across the country. 

Rest, it was left to purists to go out and satisfy their thirst for more sporting knowledge and desire. Prior to the 1950 football World Cup, the previous edition was held in France - a good 12 years ago. At a time when most men and women of our country were busy in the freedom movement, passing the ball around with one's foot and to have men playing for a world cup based out of this sport was unimaginable to many. However, this has nothing to do with Indian football.

AIFF was formed in 1937 and a letter from AIFF was written to FIFA in April 1947 seeking permission to be part of FIFA. FIFA in return acknowledged and sent their statutes and waited for AIFF with the application. In May 1948, a letter was sent to AIFF confirming their membership with FIFA. In the subsequent letters written to FIFA, AIFF had shown more concern over 'rumours' of football being removed from the Olympic programme and if needed India would be happy to host the football leg of Olympics for the forthcoming edition.

It was evident, Olympics no-doubt was much bigger in scale than football World Cup around that time. In fact, later that year in 1949, Mr. Dutta Ray had visited FIFA in Switzerland and met the Secretary General of FIFA, Dr. Ivo Schricker. In his thank note, Ray acknowledged the warm welcome he received during his stay in Zurich and at the end of the note requests 'the arrangement plans' of India for the Brazil trip.

AIFF knew about the World Cup well in advance. Whether the Indian football team was well-informed on these communications with FIFA is not known. Even the ace-footballer 'Sailen Manna' (passed away in 2012) - who captained India at the 1948 Olympics revealed in an interview with Sports Illustrated India that - "We were less informed about the World Cup. And to us, the Olympics was everything".

The enthusiasm shown by AIFF in its letters to FIFA are anything to go by, it would be another excuse if 'lack of awareness' were deemed to be the main reason for India's last-minute withdrawal.

Amateur vs. Professionalism - At a time when India is still struggling to bring in professionalism in sports, it can be safely believed that the question of amateurism ideals of Olympics clashing with professionals would not have been an issue in 1950 for AIFF to worry. At that time, amateur vs. professional was a global issue in the sporting world and India being a newly formed country had other issues to deal with than worry on this 'debatable' matter.

Long distance Travel - At no point in time where Indian football team was asked to reach Brazil via waterways. It was well known to AIFF that the means of transport would be 'air-borne' and the Brazilian Confederation had offered teams air-fares. So we can safely rule out this reason.

Apprehensions against top sides at the World Cup -  Indian team was grouped alongside the reigning and two-time World champions Italy; Paraguay who had finished 11th at the 1930 World Cup playing in their second World Cup and Sweden, two-time participants at the World Cup and the Olympic gold winner at the 1948 Olympics. 

It must be noted that - the Italian team was affected by the 1949 Superga air disaster which took the lives of Torino AC football team killing 31 people which included 18 footballers. This was the background of the teams India were grouped with. 

Indian team were not favourites and if anything to go by, it was an opportunity to play alongside these top nations and get recognised after having performed well at the 1948 London Olympics. If India could go to the Olympics then why not to Brazil especially if the expenses (major) were taken care of?

Barefoot Theory - It is a well-documented fact that Indians preferred playing with their bare feet as compared with shoes. At least that was the case in the 1940's and early 1950's. Like mentioned earlier in this article, FIFA had given prior notice that Indian players were expected to play with shoes. 

If Indian hockey team played with shoes at the 1936 Olympics and at the 1948 Olympics then availability or knowledge of shoes was not an issue. AIFF - in their capacity could have procured shoes or at least requested for the duration of the World Cup. 

However, there is another fact which must be addressed. Indian team played with barefoot at the 1952 Helsinki Games and were thrashed by Yugoslavia 10-1. The champions of Asia were literally 'cold-feet'. This incident throws light at the fact that FIFA did not oppose India playing barefoot at the Olympics.

What would have happened if Indian team would have turned up in Brazil for the World Cup without shoes? Would the organisers have arranged shoes for the team or FIFA would have let Indians play barefoot as an exception or ban the Indian team from playing? Anyone of first two would have happened as I cannot fathom Indian team flown in and out without participating in the tournament.

While playing with shoes was not comfortable for Indian players, I am certain of the fact that the players were not shy about playing 'out of their comfort zone'.

Power Games and Selection Politics - Conduct a poll among the citizens of India on what prevents India from having a good sports governance, I would be surprised if power games and selection politics would not top the list by a huge margin. Such a delicate matter that, one cannot rule out this element - a crucial one as these struggles of power and favouritism towards selection have often been the reasons for many of the teams to withdraw from the tournament. While the administrators are entrusted to be the voice of world governing sports bodies, if therein lies a difference in opinion among the decision makers, the team often is the plagued one.

Conclusion: Without dwelling much into selection politics and power struggles, I would like to,  in my personal opinion have this point to be one of the many reasons I have cited above. The myth has grown in size due to this 'case of the missing letter containing official explanation' which the AIFF officially wrote or did not write to FIFA after sending that telegram on 24th May 1950. If there was an official explanation, it is nowhere to be seen. Is 'AIFF innocent until the world get to see the official explanation'? The innocence stems from the fact that - it is unimaginable for today's audience to fathom the size of 'World Cup' back then.

Till then at every edition of football World Cup, there will be a small section of this 'great Indian football story' along with many myths, 'if's' and 'buts' thrown in. The fact remains with the late withdrawal that - an opportunity was lost to be part of the World Cup. 

In an ideal scenario, India's participation at the World Cup would have inspired many a generation and probably football would have turned out to be India's mass sport. 

(Source: FIFA Archives)