WICB and WIPA combine to help West Indies set unwanted record

Directly as a result of the farcical WIPA v WICB impasse, West Indies provided Bangladesh its 2nd ever test win a couple of days ago.

Players are totally entitled to receive contracts, but in the absence of these contracts, is industrial action in a sporting scenario the right option? It is not as though the West Indies players were blameless. They didn't have contracts because they refused to sign the contracts that the WICB offered. Did the WICB offer favourable terms? Perhaps not. As it is, West Indies cricket has suffered majorly in the past couple of years with sponsors pulling out.

Would Digicel, the current sponsor, have had the right to demand that the WICB field a XI that would enhance the Digicel brand? Wouldn't Digicel's contract with the WICB have referred to WICB attempting to/ensure that the best players turned out for the West Indies? It's quite obvious that Digicel wouldn't like to have been associated with a side led by Floyd Reifer, who got a birthday present in the form of the captaincy a couple of weeks before his 37th birthday. It's like England naming Ian Ward or Aftab Habib captain and India naming Vijay Bharadwaj skipper. Of course, one thing is for sure - captaincy has a positive impact on Reifer's batting. His batting average went up by a whopping 36% (7.87 to 10.7).

The reality is that regardless of the result of the game, no side would have "won" or proved anything. Had West Indies' B side beaten Bangladesh, it would have told us that Bangladesh aren't even good enough to beat a second string WI XI. Now that Bangladesh have won, as a corollary, it implies that West Indies cricket is so much lacking in depth that a 2nd XI loses to Bangladesh. I suspect with the exception of perhaps New Zealand, every other country's 2nd XI should be able to beat Bangladesh.

As a result of the feud between the cricket board and the players, the test had 9 debutants (7 for West Indies, 2 for Bangladesh) and this is the first time since 1961 that 9 or more players have debuted in a test that wasn't the first test played by a country (or the first one played after a prolonged break).

Bangladesh v India in 2000 had 14 debuts, Zimbabwe v India in 1992 had 10 debuts (all the Zimbabwe players except Traicos), West Indies v South Africa in 1992 had 13 debuts (South Africa's first test after re-admission) and Sri Lanka v England in 1982 had 12 debuts. Most of the other games that had a lot of debuts were those played shortly after World War II.

Labels: bangladesh, contracts, debut, industrial action, statistic, strike, west indies, wicb, wipa

Thus spake Jagadish @ 11:34 pm | Sledge/Read 2 sledge(s)
Did you like the post? [ Subscribe to the blog feed - | | Tweet ]

Amjad Khan and Steve Harmison

Amjad Khan, born in Denmark, has made his test debut, representing England, in the extremely soporific test at Trinidad.

Watching him bowl, I got the feeling though that he generally makes Steve Harmison look like one of these accuracy-personified metronomes: (Sir) Alec Bedser, Brian Statham, Curtly Ambrose, Glenn McGrath, Joel Garner, Richard Hadlee, or Shaun Pollock!

Matt Prior must be wondering why he bothered to get back after his kid was born. In fact yesterday, Pietersen (I think) stood at leg slip. Given the lack of bounce in the wicket, I really felt he was there as additional cover for Prior, rather than as a catcher. England should have taken permission from the umpires so that Prior could hand over his left glove to Pietersen in the hope that that between them, they'd have stopped lots of few byes and wides. In fact, having Matt Prior as keeper when Amjad Khan is bowling is enough justification for England getting the long-stop fielder back in vogue. A couple of weeks ago, Martin Johnson, in "The Times", described Matt Prior's keeping ability awesomely

Matthew Prior has improved quite a bit since he came into Test cricket with a catching technique apparently honed by playing the cymbals in a brass band, so we can probably rule out the possibility that he was merely celebrating the fact that the ball had somehow managed to remain inside his gloves.

Labels: amjad khan, debut, england, harmison, prior

Thus spake Jagadish @ 11:47 am | Sledge/Read 0 sledge(s)
Did you like the post? [ Subscribe to the blog feed - | | Tweet ]

Tendulkar gets past Lara, and makes yet another debutant's day

In November 2005, the record for the most individual runs passed from Allan Border to Brian Lara. Today, Sachin Tendulkar became the holder of the record (and the first to get 12000 runs), as was probably ordained from the time he burst onto the Indian cricket scene 20+ years ago. The apocryphal story is that Sunil Gavaskar had told him soon after his debut that if he didn't get the most centuries and most runs, he would twist his arm. To that, Sachin replied that Sunny would be a very old and weak man by then. Well, at least we can now be spared of testing out Gavaskar's arm strength.

Tendulkar has been one of the all-time greats of Indian cricket, and indeed world cricket, for easily over a decade now. I've been a critic and a fan. I am in total awe of his shotmaking (the punch through cover, the straight drive, the paddle sweep, the upper cut through third man, the ferociously hit reverse 'sweep', the flick over midwicket, etc.). In fact, I am in awe of the enormous poise that he has by and large (the Multan outburst excepted perhaps) maintained over two decades, as well as the art of batsmanship that he portrays almost everytime he bats.

Sure, over the past 2-3 years his batting style has changed, but that doesn't bother me too much. In the past he had three roles to play - make a lot of runs, make them reasonably quickly, and ensure there's no collapse. Now, there is Sehwag to do the quick scoring, and in the past 6-7 years Laxman and Dravid have done the job of putting up a score through partnerships. So, Tendulkar can just be a run accumulator. So what if he doesn't evoke fear? Bowlers would much rather that Tendulkar attack them and get out for 24(30) than pile them up with a century made at a strike rate of 55. I know what I'd prefer.

My criticism isn't about how he doesn't make runs when it counts, or him averaging 35 against South Africa. The first thing that I don't really like is the way he decides when he's fit and when he isn't, resulting in far too many aborted returns from injury. The second is the way his batting slot is always #4 (unless a nightwatchman had gone in). Everyone else moves around. Tendulkar has played 81% of his innings from #4. The corresponding numbers for the rest of India's middle order galacticos are 73% @ #3 for Dravid, 54% @ #5 for Ganguly & 37% @ #6 for Laxman. There have been so many occasions when others have been in much better form, presenting a valid case for moving him down the order. But he always comes out at #4. The only occasion where he was shielded was when Ganguly came in ahead of him at Melbourne in 2003.

Oh, and there's one more thing about him that is downright irritating. It is the way he makes debutant bowlers so happy by becoming their first test wicket. The list is long, and some of the names are downright anonymous now. Ujesh Ranchod, Ruwan Kalpage, Mark Ealham, Adam Dale, Neil Johnson, Jacob Oram, Monty Panesar, Cameron White and now Peter Siddle.

Would there be any other batsman who has been so generous to debutant bowlers?

Labels: 12000, aus v ind 2008, debut, india, lara, record, tendulkar

Thus spake Jagadish @ 7:45 pm | Sledge/Read 2 sledge(s)
Did you like the post? [ Subscribe to the blog feed - | | Tweet ]