Twenty20 beats Tests and ODIs hollow

The first ever test match, in 1877 was not recognized as the inaugural test until a few years later.

The first ever one-day international, in 1971 was not recognized as the inaugural ODI until a few months later.

In contrast, when Australia played New Zealand in February 2005, everyone already knew it was the first Twenty20 international!

Labels: first test, odi, test cricket, twenty20

Thus spake Jagadish @ 11:32 AM | Sledge/Read 2 sledge(s) | Related posts
Did you like the post? [ Subscribe to the blog feed - | | Tweet ]

A moronic run-out decision

Yesterday, in the Bangladesh v Pakistan game at the Asia Cup, Pakistan's Umar Amin was declared run out by the third umpire for no apparent reason.

He had driven the ball to long-on and taken a single. Since the bowler, Mahmudullah, was bowling from around the wicket, Umar walked across to the other side, oblivious to the fact that his bat was not grounded and no part of his person was grounded behind the 'popping crease' at the bowler's end.

Mahmudullah saw this and took off the bails. The on-field umpire got confused and handed over control to the third umpire. After multiple views, Umar Amin was ruled out.

This, despite law 23 (Dead ball) explicitly saying that a ball was dead when it was finally settled in the hands of the wicket-keeper or the bowler. Yes, the bowler's end umpire has to be satisfied that the fielding side and both batsmen also considered the ball to not be in play.

But even the smallest bit of common sense would indicate that there was no way Umar was attempting a second run. He was switching ends.

The ball was most definitely not in play.

Where's common sense when you need it most?

At least in the Murali run-out by McCullum instance, Murali actually walked out of the crease. Whether it was to attempt a second run or to congratulate Kumar Sangakkara is a moot point.

In Umar Amin's case, there's no way he was out!

Labels: asia cup, bangladesh, laws, pakistan, umpires

Thus spake Jagadish @ 2:16 PM | Sledge/Read 0 sledge(s) | Related posts
Did you like the post? [ Subscribe to the blog feed - | | Tweet ]

How the BCCI did nothing for three years about cricket at the Guangzhou Asian Games

Last week, the BCCI declared that India would not be represented at the Guangzhou Asian Games later this year. It cited a series against New Zealand and the domestic cricket schedule as the reasons.

On the face of it, the reasons are fairly sound. You can't expect cricketers to play round the year. Previously drawn up fixtures should take precedence. There's nothing wrong in giving domestic cricket its due.

However, it doesn't take a lot to debunk the BCCI's arguments.

Anyone who has followed or managed Indian domestic cricket knows that the domestic season starts around August / September and goes on until February / March.

The BCCI would have become aware of cricket's inclusion in the schedule at least in 2007 when the Olympic Council of Asia and the Asian Cricket Council made announcements confirming that cricket would be a medal sport at Guangzhou 2010.

A year earlier, the ICC announced the Future Tours Programme schedule for the period 2006-2012.

In other words, one year before cricket was included in the Guangzhou Asiad, the BCCI knew that there was a scheduling conflict since the Future Tours Programme schedule specified that India would host New Zealand in November 2010.

The BCCI was obviously party to both decisions, since it is a full member of the ICC since 1926 and a founding member of the Asian Cricket Council, founded in 1983.

Yet, it chose to keep mum for three years, before announcing that it wouldn't be sending a team. You have to wonder why it chose to do so!

Labels: asian games, bcci, future tours programme, india, scheduling

Thus spake Jagadish @ 12:35 AM | Sledge/Read 9 sledge(s) | Related posts
Did you like the post? [ Subscribe to the blog feed - | | Tweet ]

The skeletons tumble out of the BCCI closet

Sharad Pawar's daughter claimed a couple of months ago that her family did not financially benefit from the IPL. The bit to note there is that she did not claim her family was not connected to the IPL at all. What she said was that they did not financially benefit. i.e. their investment was a flop.

That's akin to a burglar claiming that he should have been let off since he had been caught by the police before he stole anything.

When Chirayu Amin was made the interim IPL commissioner after Lalit Modi was sacked, I wondered about the linkages between Shashank Manohar, Sharad Pawar and Chirayu Amin.

The news that Chirayu Amin was part of a consortium led by a company partly owned by Sharad Pawar & family reinforces my belief that there's a serious clean-up act needed in the BCCI.

Now, the only bit of the puzzle that's not yet evident is the fact that Shashank Manohar and Chirayu Amin have a business / family relationship as well.

'Conflict of interest' seems such an archaic term. Maybe we should just call it a 'cabal of interests'.

Louis Brandeis, a member of the US Supreme Court, once wrote in a 1913 edition of "Harper's weekly":

Sunlight is said to be the best of disinfectants; electric light the most efficient policeman.

It's high time the same principles were applied to the BCCI.

It announced earlier this week that there would be no Indian participation in the cricket event at the 2010 Guangzhou Asian Games.

I've got no problems with that. The BCCI is the governing body for cricket, and it is well within its right to identify which tournaments it's contracted players participate in.

However, the BCCI then went on to clarify that the decision was taken since the schedules were made well in advance and that the domestic season would be underway.

This is where I have a problem. Somehow, it seems inconceivable that the BCCI fixes up schedules in advance or adheres to schedules drawn up well in advance doesn't quite.

After all, among other recent achievements, they've tried to tweak around with a scheduled 7 ODI series against Australia, successfully tweaked a 2 test 5 ODI series against New Zealand, agreed to a tour of Zimbabwe at short notice & urgently scheduled multiple series involving Sri Lanka.

It so obviously has something to do with the fact that the BCCI would need to be WADA-compliant for the cricket team to be allowed to play at the Asian Games. After all, if the main side was too busy, it wouldn't have been tough to put together a 2nd XI.

Labels: asian games, bcci, conflict of interest, indian premier league, scheduling, sharad pawar

Thus spake Jagadish @ 1:11 AM | Sledge/Read 1 sledge(s) | Related posts
Did you like the post? [ Subscribe to the blog feed - | | Tweet ]