Here is my World Cup team assessment

A+

Italy - The best defensive side of the tournament. The second best passing side of the tournament. The side with the maximum goal scorers. The side which knew how to win. Buffon was the man to beat in goal and Cannavaro for my money was the Most Valuable Player of the World Cup. This was a top show by a top outfit.

A

France - Irrespective of whether they make it to the final and win it, France's was the most compelling story of the World Cup. CNNSI's Bechtel lamented the absence of a Cinderella story in this World Cup. For me France was the Cinderella. They started the tournament with two draws, a quarrel on the pitch between Gallas, Makalele and Zidane and a tiff off field between Domenech and Zidane. But then they turned it on beating impressive Spain and fancied Brazilians.

Portugal - Call them divers, cheaters or whatever you may want to. But they know how to grind out results. Possibly the most efficient side on display (along with Italy). Turn up, do the job and go home. If only Ronaldo could pass more and dive less.

A-

Argentina - If the World Cup was won by beauty of play and team work, then Argentina had walked away with it. They were the strongest side on display. Nobody beat them. They were unlucky as well running into strong sides at each step of the way. And most importantly a single coaching mistake cost them more than it did anyother side in the World Cup. Its small consolation that FIFA rated the top two goals of the World Cup and two others in the top 10 as been scored by them. Messi, Tevez, Rodriquez, Mascherano will only get stronger and tougher next time around. By the way thanks for the Football Clinic.

Germany - This was supposed to be a classless German side. Not expected to do well. But boy did they play. They get an A- because despite all the attacking soccer and the semi final they still didn't beat an established power. Poland, Costa Rica, Ecuador and Sweden don't count as powers. They drew Argentina and lost to Italy. Maybe this was the precursor to a world beating side in '10.

B+

Spain - Fluid display of short passes. Ability to turn it on (okay it was against Tunisia and Ukraine). They dominated play against the French. If only they knew how to win. Again watch out for a Raul less Spain in '10 and boy wouldn't they be a side to beat then.

Netherlands - Scored thrice, conceded twice....in the world Cup (their quarter final encounter against Brazil had this scoreline in '94). Doesn't sound very dutch, does it? Young outfit, great future if only they can get Guus Hindink back. Watch out for Dirk Kuyt. Again a side for '10.

Switzerland - It took an Italian score to against Italy, but not even the Swiss could score against Switzerland. On purely aesthetic grounds you might want to bar them from the World Cup. But then you got to give them points for getting the job done, however ugly it might have been. In Euro '08, at home they will definitely be more of challenge.

B

Brazil - Enough written about them. Football is more than putting 11 superstars on the pitch.

England - Oh God, they were supposed to have a central defensive pairing stronger than Italy's. Their mid field was supposed to be the most talented. And then they had Rooney to crown it all. After Brazil they were supposed to be favorites. But playing at the World Cup proved to be a struggle. You might blame the coach, but hey nobody forced Erikson on them.

Ukraine - The most over performing side of the world cup. Not scared to score, not scared to concede either. A quarter final was just rewards for their ability and pedigree.

Australia - Now if it were another game played by 11 players with a ball on a pitch invented by the british they might have won the World Cup. Say what you will, the Australians know how to play hard. They might feel hard done against Italy, but then the force was with the Italians. Good show.

Ivory Coast - For a side which exited in the first round, you might say this is too much of a good grade. But boy in any other group (like the one with France or Spain) they would have gone far. But don't worry cote d'Ivoire you did yourself no shame.

Ghana - A little bit of luck, one less yellow card for Essien and a sharp linesman might have given the World Cup its Cinderella story and Brazil a big shock.

Ecuador - David Beckham undid them. But they did enough to merit a B

Mexico - If there is any other side along with Spain which has made a habit of underperforming it is Mexico. But then again they ran Argentina close and it took the goal of the World Cup to beat them.

B-

Sweden - Now what can I say, if your most pedigreed striker can't hit the target from the penalty spot. Offensively they struggled. Defensively, the Germans took them apart. I think it is back to the drawing board for them.

Czech - If ever there were points for a great start, the Czech would have them all. Against the USA they were the most pleasing side to watch. But when cool heads were needed they had Ulfaulsi and Co. The future will only be brighter. Feel sorry for Poborsky, Koller and above all Nedved. They get points for allowing my favorite "Pippo" Inzaghi to score.

USA - They played with their hearts on their sleeves. The only side to have consistently troubled the Italians, but I thought they didn't have the depth or talent to get past the others in the group.

C+

Poland - If you can't beat Ecuador what good are you.

Paraguay - No Chilavert no fun to watch

Trinidad and Tobago - Good show, but then did we seriously expect them to do anything more than they did.

Serbia and Montenegro - The biggest dissappointment of the World Cup. They might be a better proposition as just Serbia in the Euro '08.

Costa Rica - They get points for two goals against the Germans

Angola - They did well to hold the Mexicans and tie the portuguese up.

Iran - Lets hope their nuclear scientists are as capable as their footballers, for the sake of World peace.

Croatia - They are a bit like South Africa in Cricket, mighty in the 90s but now are just another team.

Japan - Strength required.

Korea - They were unlucky against the Swiss, but then they more than used up all their share of luck for sometime in the World Cup '02.

Togo - Points for celebrations of their only goal.

Saudi - They produced a thrilling encounter against Tunisia in their all Arab showdown. Sami Al Jaber has now scored in three World Cups. In their Persian Gulf rivalry with Iran they just might have shaded it.

Tunisia - Hannibal obviously doesn't play soccer. But then Riaddi and Jaziri do and they do well.

hats the matter with France?

Twice in the space of six months, the world was rivetted to action from the "French street". Throughout the 19th century, action on the French Street evoked fear in the rest of the world (remember 1789, 1830 and 1848). In the 20th century, it evoked concern (remember 1968) but now the only thing it evokes is pity. France, at least from where I sit in Navi Mumbai, is seen as a lazy, has been of the previous century (a lot like Britain) than an ancient civilization to which the modern world owes a lot of its modernity to (like codified laws, republics, etc).

So what has changed? On the surface nothing much. Since 1789, the mobs pretty much have got what they wanted whenever they came onto the streets. Something they did as recently as last month. But there is a fundamental difference between all those revolutions and those of the last six months. Till 1968, the French street has always tried to achieve a discontinuous break with the past. In 1789 they wanted to get rid of the aristocracy. In 1830, it was Louis XVIII; in 1848, it was the Duke of Orleans; in 1871, Napoleon III and in 1968, it was the fourth republic which was at the receiving end. The street wanted drastic change and short circuited the process to achieve it.

The French Street of October 2005, was an incoherent protest (more like the American variety thatn the French one) against status quo. That of March 2006 was more even worse, it was a protest against change. The french students in 2006 don't want a break from the past, but wanted to bring the past back. When students are the most conservative elements in a society, the least that can be said is that the society is stagnating intellectually. It is not producing ideas to catch the fancy of its youth. A sorry commentary on a state which gave us concepts of equality, law, due process and the republic.

The French youth is a seriously conservative lot. In a widely quoted survey it was found that three out of four french students want to be civil servants!!! Why? Not because of the power, or any desire to change anything, but because it was a permanent jobs from which they couldn't be fired??? This is a pointer to intense risk aversion. The "Economist" deconstructed the causes of the this risk aversion brilliantly.

Read this http://www.economist.com/displaystory.cfm?story_id=E1_VPNPRRR

The summary of the argument is that people become risk averse when the chance of getting a new job is lesser than the cost of leaving the current one. Risk aversion will increase when new jobs are not being created as fast as possible, which might be the case when the umemployment rate hovers at 12%; or when workers are not sure that they have enough skills (or capability to acquire them) for the new jobs being created, also reasonably true due to defunct continental European education systems. Now jobs are not being created due to difficulty of letting people go when things turn out to be bad, so the remedy may be liberalize the sacking procedures. But then the whole lot of insiders (people with jobs currently) come onto to the streets since they are the ones with the most to lose if such reforms happen.

In essence, young frenchmen see no new jobs being created and conversely see that it is easier to get fired. And without a job the pleasures of a french life - wine, good food, two hour lunch breaks, 35 hour work weeks, 6 week vacations in July-August, etc are pretty much not attainable.

I will get to the solution part of the problem, may be some other time.

The Football Blog - Extra time

Yesterday's rant was written immediately after the Milan vs Barca clash and when I was in the Ronaldinho trance. Today's ranting comes after the second semi final first leg Arsenal vs Villareal, and .... no trance. This semi final had the other outstanding midfielder in Europe now - Juan Riquelme Roman.

The interesting thing about Riquelme is that he is not gifted with the obvious gifts that football stars are supposed to possess. He doesn't have Ronaldo or Henry's pace, Ronaldinho footwork, Viera's strength of size, or the magic which Zidane used to produce. For most of the game, he ambles aimlessly around the pitch and he definitely doesn't defend. What he has is an immense game sense / vision and the not so rare ability to string inch perfect passes. But when they are combined together he produces that rare ability to unlock defenses around the world. One only needs to look at how Villareal play. Most of the balls are passed to him and he has to think of ways to make them useful. In addition, he does sizzle in dead ball situations. As a result he had emerged as one of the top playmakers in Europe. Just witness Villareal's progression to the Champions League semis.

Since I am sermonizing on my favorite midfielders, let me add one more name to the list - Fancesc Fabregas. Now he is only 18 and has dazzled only for the last month or so, so you might say what is the fuss about? The fuss is that if at 18 he can marshall Arsenal past Juventus then, what would he be doing when he is 25? Honestly I have not seen enough of him to cut up his game like that of Ronaldinho or Riquelme, but what I see I like and am hoping fervently that he goes to the world cup with Spain and the whole world gets to see more of him.

Now to the prediction part. I predicted Barca vs Villareal. I stick to it. Arsenal perhaps lost a golden opportunity to seal the tie, when Cesar Arzo cleared an Henry strike off the line. They will go to the Madrigal, with a 1-0 scoreline and in my mind, that is not much of cushion. I think Villareal will reverse the deficit and set up an all Spanish clash in the finals.

The Football Blog

Now I have never been one for religious metaphors, but I saw God play for Barcelona yesterday. Ronaldinho. I have followed football for sometime now (the first match I saw on TV goes back to Italia '90), and of all the players I have seen in action - nobody, I repeat nobody has as overwhelming an influence on the game as Ronaldinho has had on this Barca side over the last couple of years.

There is an irresistible force about Ronaldinho, which is something way beyond mere talent and/or technique. An irresistible force, which despite all the hype I think Ronaldo doesn't have, neither did Romario (okay I haven't seen too much of his club football..But still) and neither did any other player of the 1990s or 2000s (include Effenberg, Roy Keane, Zidane, Nedved, Requelme, Juninho, Kaka, Ballack, and just about everybody else). Zidane showed flashes of that in the 2002 UEFA Champions League final, but that was it. The French side of the Euro 2000 vintage had it and I haven't seen anybody that irresistible since. I have never seen Pele pry his trade...But maybe I didn't miss too much.

The other thing about yesterdays game was inability of Italian side to match their Spanish or English counterparts. This year having seen Inter, Juve and Milan play in the Champions league and none impressed - Juve bowed out to Arsenal (of all people on earth), Inter to Villareal (Villa...?? Who, atleast in India) and Milan now seen to be overwhelmed by Barca, after having squeaked through against Lyon. The problem might be the lack of tempo in Italian style of play (atleast for these three sides). Their build ups seem to be too labored and when the opposition hurries them up, their passing collapses (Exhibit A - Juve at Highbury and Exhibit B - last night) and they look like a school boy eleven.

The last thing which struck me yesterday was that my top two midfielders - Ronaldinho and Requelme both ply their trade in Spain. Incidentally both their clubs are in the Champions League semis, with Barca obviously in pole position to make it to the finals.

And finally predictions - Barca is looking irresistible for the the Champions League and in June, Brazil will dazzle but I if you are looking for a dark, don't look much further than Arjen Robben's Netherlands.

The Great Indian Housing Disaster

The last couple of years, I have been very intimate with Bombay. Bombay offers its denizens the best of India, in opportunity, professionalism and liberal attitudes; and the worst of the country, in housing and urban planning. I will talk of the former in this piece.

Bombay proudly claims some of the highest real estate prices in the world and simultaneously also has Dharavi, the largest slum in Asia (and which according to the Economist, has density in excess of a million people per square kilometers in parts).

The commonly attributed reason is Bombay's small spread. As is well known the MCD (and NDMC) in Delhi has two million fewer residents but three times the area of BMC. So obviously housing in Bombay should be more expensive, right? Though I have no statistics for that the FSI* in Bombay is higher nullifying Delhi's space advantage (there are more high rise residential towers in Bombay than in Delhi). There is more to the housing disaster in Bombay, than just area.

Like everything else, urban housing in India has witnessed a massive governmental intervention since independence, and is much worse off for it. After independence, the government India assumed the sole right to develop land in cities. DDA became the only body to develop land in Delhi. I am sure some such a body exists in Bombay as well.

Housing, like everything else follows the laws of demand and supply. When the demand for housing far outstrips its supply (like it does when DDA fails to deliver enough houses - in 1993 against a demand of 100000 dwelling units, DDA delivered only ....5000!!!) then the prices move north. In this process a lot of people get priced out of the market.

These people still need shelter - so in Delhi they end up in illegal housing (the unauthorized colonies) with no amenities and in Bombay where land is scarcer, you get the infamous slums. At the very heart of the housing crisis in urban India is a supply constraint. This constraint is the making of the Indian socialist state.

The solution to slums is pretty straightforward - massively increase housing supply. This isn't as simple as it appears. There are two strong lobbies who stand to lose with an increase in housing supply - existing house owners and builders. Due to high prices, people have invested heavily into buying in the cities. Now if the supply increases rapidly, these people suffer a massive capital loss. Imagine you invested a crore in buying a house in Central Bombay and now due to the mill land development the prices drop to say 80 lakhs. I am sure you wouldn't be too happy about that. Some say it was this lobby which stymied the mill land redevelopment in Bombay for so long.

In addition, there will always be the very well connected builder lobby. An artificial shortage of housing boosts house prices boosting the builder margins in the process. An increase in supply will mean smaller margins and smaller RoIs for builders. Builders will not want to increase housing supply beyond a point and they have enough clout to put a stop to a lot of things.

The Urban housing crisis in many ways is a little like the Palestinian problem - everybody knows the solution, but nobody is able to see it through.

*Floor Space Index i.e. given one square foot of ground, how much space has it been converted into. If on 1000 sq Ft of land you building a three storey building then you have created 3000 sq Ft from 1000 sq Ft leading to an FSI of 3

The other side of the IT boom

Yesterday, I was watching one of those programmes which deals with "Great Infosys Story". Narayanmurthy in the programme said that if one were to point of the one single success of liberalization it was Infosys. I don't disagree with that, and I actually think that Infosys is a great Indian firm. But IT is neccesarily an island of excellence and high productivity. This high productivity has translated into high wages and high profitability of the firms. The profitability bit has in part contributed to the stock exchange story, but it is the wage bit that I will to deal with.

The IT boom in India has created a class of people who are young, with high disposable incomes and concentrated in a few urban areas like Bangalore, Delhi (Noida / Gurgaon), Chennai, Hyderabad and Bombay. In my mind, this boom has created some totally new urban dynamics which are best reflected in cities like Bangalore, Hyderabad and chennai.

The first change in urban dynamics has been the boom in rent rates in these metros. IT folks have gravitated to these cities since the jobs are here. Considering the highly constrained housing availability in metros in India, these guys with more money and fewer responsibilities/obligations, are willing to pay more than others for their houses. Our historic middle classes (government/PSU/bank employees and people working with manufacturing concerns) have been priced out of the prime housing markets. Just try finding a house in one of the "hip" Bangalore localities (Koramangala, National Games village and Cox town) with a manufacturing industry salary.

The second change has been in services getting more expensive. Again due to younger guys with more money to throw around, maids and domestic help market has seen a big demand surge. Consequently wages for these kinds of work has increased. I used to pay a lady 1000 rupees a month for something like 2-3 hours of work a day at my place. Although the domestic help market is not supply constrained, it does create some really unstable and undesirable equilibria (like taxi costs at tourist spots) in certain places.

The third key change is the sprouting up of expensive leisure zones in our cities. Our citie s are seeing the emergence of expensive watering holes, really expensive movie halls, really really expensive restaurants and so on.

The downside of these urban dynamics is that the traditional middle classes are hurt the most. There salaries have not kept pace with the IT sector but the costs of houses and services definitely have. This not only creates heart burn, but our cities develop a schizophrenic character - really swank rich zones and not so swank not so rich zones.

Another reason about why we need equitable growth across manufacturing and services.

The High tide lifts all boats up

One of the key discussions which has emerged post the IT and services boom in India is the so called "Bangalore Bug". The phenomenon goes this way - IT pays big money to fresh engineers, non IT cannot. Consequently non IT industries which need skilled manpower become non competitive due to high labor cost or are starved of high skilled labor. If an engineer can make 20,000 rupees a month in the IT, why would he be willing to work in a manufacturing set up with half the pay, longer working hours and no foreign trips? Also this wage inflation is hurting the IT industry's global competitiveness.

The "Bangalore Bug" is principally due to the pool of skilled labor being finite and subject to laws of demand and supply. My current engagement is with a very old economy manufacturing concern which is struggling to attract and retain talent in face of an onslaught from IT and services boom in India.

In services, the west grew rich before it become uncompetitive. Is India likely to become uncompetitive before it grows rich? Or is there a way out.

The current way out is to dig deeper into the hinterland and attract qualified labor there. There are two problems to this - (a) the IT / BPO firms are probably a little ahead in this, just witness call centers sprouting all over hitherto smaller towns like Vizag and Coimbatore (b) high skilled labor in India is pretty mobile, so if you passed out of university in Delhi, very rarely would you be unwilling to take up a job in say Bangalore or Bombay. So the pool of talent from small towns might already have been drained.

The more permanent way out is to invest heavily into engineering colleges and other such establishments. This will remove the supply side constraints i.e. the pool of labor will become larger, increasing supply and depressing wage growth. But this is beyond the industry's locus of control.

Besides these two, there is a third solution is emerging, at least in my current engagement. As engineers go scarcer, industries are now rationalizing jobs which they were doing. So some of these jobs are now being downgraded and being opened up to non engineering graduates like diploma holders and B.Sc. This solution is attractive due to two reasons - (a) engineers are being put to more productive uses in the old industries (spiking productivity per man-hour) hence greater firm profitability (b) on an overall national basis, the high tide of service growth is actually lifting the smaller boats up.

Finally the IT boom might be helping the non IT brethren.

History, Science and the art of writing

Of late I have been reading two books - "The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire" by Edward Gibbons and "Guns, Germs and Steel" by Jared Diamond. The first book is arguably one of the greatest work of the "What" of history. Written by Edward Gibbons, this is one absorbing book to read - sarcastic, ironic and simultaneously entertaining and immensely knowledgeable.

The second one is an eye opening and supremely illuminating treatise on the "Why" of history (for example why did Francisco Pizarro beat the Inca king Atahuallpa at Cajamarca and not Atahuallpa beating the Spanish king Charles I at Madrid). This is a supremely interesting read which will answer questions which you never thought you had.

The thing about the two books is that both have made history an extremely interesting subject. Gibbon converts history of Rome into an english language story like say any work by James Michener. He takes the novelists' approach to history. Diamond on the other hand converts history of the world into a scientific treatise not one of the greek letter scientific papers but more in the genre of Richard Dawkins. He presents the problem, the possible solutions, presents the evidence to support his preferred solution and raises questions on other solutions.

The other thing about these two books is the background of the authors. Gibbons is not a historian and neither is Diamond. For that matter the greatests of treatises on history like Carlyle (on the French Revolution) were written by non historians.

So am I hinting that history, like war and generals, is too serious a business to be left to the historians? Or is history readable only when it is woven into a thrilling narrative or into a hypothesis evidence and explanation set up? Or am I trying to broach the issue that like Chomsky on language, only outsiders seem to do path breaking work in any field.

I actually don't know what I am raising, but what think is true is that for any subject to be widely followed, read and appreciated a little of the three needs to be done - get rid of the experts who would not be able to simplify the message, weave it into a interesting narrative and lastly expertise in other areas needs to be tapped.