"A very brave and courageous decision"

The ECB has now confirmed that England's first-choice test squad will play the two-test series in India. The announcement comes a couple of days after the ECB got its players to leave for Abu Dhabi.

If I were an England player, I'd be really scared. But scared not because of the potential of being a terror attack victim, but because of the language that Hugh Morris, the ECB Managing Director used.

The players have made a very brave and courageous decision and that will be hugely respected all around the world.

If you know your "Yes, Minister" & "Yes, Prime Minister" phrases, words like 'brave' and 'courageous' are typically used to refer to daft decisions taken without thinking through the consequences.

Sample this: "A controversial decision will merely lose you votes, a courageous decision will lose you the election"!

In a sense, the ECB has avoided a potential conflict with the BCCI. If the security advice given to the ECB been favourable to continuing the tour, and the ECB had cancelled the tour since its players were uncomfortable, the BCCI would have demanded compensation running into millions of {insert favourite non-Zimbabwe currency}.

Update: I just read Patrick Kidd's report for 'The Times' where he says the journalists saw that Steve Harmison looked positively pissed off at the turn of events and the eventual decision to go ahead to India. I don't understand why Harmison, or anyone else who was cagey about touring now, was forced to go along with the majority. If he had his own reasons for being worried, he was entitled to ask not to be picked for the tour.

In case of players complaining about burn-out, I believe they should just shut up and withdraw from tours. They're obviously taking a risk, especially in the event that the replacement does a good job. In a similar manner, players who withdraw from tours for security reasons should also be treated similarly.

Labels: ecb, eng v ind 2008, england, india, security, terrorism

Thus spake Jagadish @ 4:14 pm | Sledge/Read 0 sledge(s)
Did you like the post? [ Subscribe to the blog feed - | | Tweet ]

ECB Chairman Giles Clarke wakes up from week-long slumber

Either the ECB Chairman Giles Clarke has been living under a rock for the past week, or has been blissfully asleep for that period. Nothing else explains him saying "Under no circumstances will we allow our cricket to be dictated to by terrorists".

Umm, then why is there so much ambiguity around England's players returning for the tests? Why did the ECB get the test venues shifted? Why did the BCCI and the ECB agree to cancel the last two one-dayers? Why is the BCCI waiting for the Indian government's decision on touring Pakistan, assuming that the main reason for denying permission is the allegation of Pakistani involvement in the attacks? Why was the T20 Champions League postponed? Why was the ICL World Series called off?

Lip-service! The ECB is right in demanding quality security, as a deterrent to terrorists potentially targetting England's cricketers. Why be apologetic about it?

Update: The test match series is on, but will England's players turn up in the right country please?

After spending the last 72 hours consulting security advisers and Government agencies at the highest level, the England and Wales Cricket Board has determined that England will leave for Abu Dhabi tomorrow (Thursday) to resume their two Test tour of India.

I normally don't make fun of people's names, but I do find the England team security adviser's second name really funny - Reg Dickason. It's a bit like someone (John Arlott? John Warr?) describing Bob Cunis' name as "neither one thing nor the other".

Labels: ecb, eng v ind 2008, england, india, security, terrorism

Thus spake Jagadish @ 3:03 am | Sledge/Read 2 sledge(s)
Did you like the post? [ Subscribe to the blog feed - | | Tweet ]

England's test tour of India - should it go ahead or not?

Perhaps waiting for a few days after the terrorist attacks in Mumbai has helped me develop a better & clearer understanding of the implications, and the possible responses.

Soon after the attacks, the Twenty20 Champions League was cancelled. Then the BCCI announced that the remaining two one-dayers of the one-day series were off. As an aside, it is interesting though that had India won the series 7-0, it would have been the first ever time that a bilateral ODI series had that kind of result.

Interestingly, and perhaps disturbingly, the BCCI's press release on its website says that the last 2 ODIs have been postponed. Even more worrying is the fact that N Srinivasan, the treasurer said that the cancellation (or postponement?) of the 2 ODIs was done on the ECB's behalf. Why should the BCCI have waited until the ECB requested for it? Wasn't it bleedin' (pardon the insensitive pun) obvious that there was no way the ODI series would pan out as scheduled?

The second test, scheduled for the Brabourne Stadium at Mumbai, was moved to Chennai on the ECB's insistence for holding the game in a south Indian state.

Why wasn't Eden Gardens considered when it had last hosted a test a year ago? To what extent can the ECB dictate the choice of venues? I suppose the fact that among India's major cities, Chennai has not been impacted by terror attacks (so far, and touching wood as I type!) would have played a major role.

The way things stand now, England would be foolish to commit to a return in time for the tests, especially considering the first test is at Ahmedabad, where 17 were killed in July 2008. So, I don't really expect them to return for the test series unless the security folks give the venues a clean chit.

Should sport be used as a mechanism to heal wounds and ensure that civilians defeat the evil designs of terrorists? Is it the sportsman's duty to help with the process of healing, by entertaining?

Perhaps, to some extent. But the ones that play the sport are humans too. When the first reports of South Africa's players expressing a preference to go home came in, Ganesh wrote

The South African players, especially, seem to be afraid to stay in the island anymore and want to get back home which is completely understandable. We should realize that they are also humans and have their own families.

When South Africa did pack up and leave, I wrote

But human lives are far more important, more important than cricket. All this talk on the lines of "Blasts and terrorism are part of daily life. We ought not to be cowed down. The terrorists should not win. They won't target cricketers anyway" is just plain bull excreta. Even if blasts and terrorism are an everyday event, that does not mean cricketers, and indeed spectators, ought to invite trouble by playing games. The terrorists may not target cricketers explicitly. What if they hit the security folks who had the responsibility of guarding the cricketers? What if their aim missed and hit the cricket players' bus instead?

If England's players have even an iota of doubt about their safety in India, they aren't going to do justice to their their family, profession, their employers and other loved ones. If the security agencies give a go-ahead, individual preferences and choices must be factored in.

Also keep in mind the worries that India's players are likely to have. Sachin Tendulkar is apparently on the hit list of a few groups. The others are also likely to be extremely concerned for their safety. Playing international cricket now is probably the least of their priorities.

Not everyone is the same. Some are far more likely to prefer the comfort zone of their family & home. In such a situation, there's nothing wrong with it. Finding a slot for the test series or the T20 Champions League in the short-term future is not a big deal at all. It's just a sport, seen in perspective. Lance Klusener, if he indeed say it in the South African dressing room after he and Allan Donald had memorably cocked up at Edgbaston in the 1999 World Cup semi-final, wasn't too far off the mark in his assessment of the outcome of that game.

Vote in the poll.

Update: BCCI have now issued a revised schedule with Ahmedabad also not hosting a England Test this series. Looks like it would be Mohali & Chennai for the 2 Tests, although England haven't confirmed participation yet. This is baffling news, since Mohali had hosted a Test very recently, against Australia. Can someone remind the BCCI that only Ganguly retired and not his city?

Labels: bcci, ecb, eng v ind 2008, england, india, security, terrorism

Thus spake Jagadish @ 4:04 am | Sledge/Read 3 sledge(s)
Did you like the post? [ Subscribe to the blog feed - | | Tweet ]

Why is the England v India series a 7 ODI 2 test series?

Rob Steen's comment piece on Cricinfo a couple of days ago titled "The battle of the boards" listed out multiple instances of the ECB and the BCCI being on opposite sides, determined to not concede an inch. He quoted the chief executive of the Professional Cricketers Association, Sean Morris, as claiming that the BCCI had devalued the forthcoming series by making it a two-test series.

Now, I haven't been able to find any reference online to such a quote by Sean Morris. So I'll take it with a pinch of salt. Yet, I do foresee the possibility that several writers, especially from the English media, will harp on about how the BCCI had got its way with playing only 2 tests since it didn't care for test cricket.

Let's just go through a sequence of events, beginning from the early part of this century. The 1990s don't really matter, because Indian cricket was in a totally different shape then.

2001/2: When the scheduling for England's tour to India in 2001/02 and India's tour of England in 2002 was being worked out, the ECB wanted the Indian team to play 4 tests (originally a 3 test series) and the NatWest Series. In return, the BCCI requested for an extra 7th ODI, which was agreed to.

2002: India play 4 tests & 7 ODIs in the NatWest Series in England.

2004: The Indian team went to England to play in the 2004 ICC Champions Trophy. Before that, the ECB got the BCCI to agree to playing a 3 ODI NatWest Challenge, with the obvious intention of capitalizing on the Indian diaspora turning up in droves to watch their favourite cricketers.

2006: The BCCI got the ECB to agree to a 3 test 7 ODI series obviously since the ECB had got its pound of flesh in 2004.

2007: BCCI returned the favour and India played 3 tests and 7 ODIs in England.

2008: The series would have been a 3 test 7 ODI series, since it appears to be the agreement that the BCCI and ECB have reached. But England's players wanted to be home for Christmas. So the series became 2 tests.

What Sean Morris, and indeed anyone else who blames the BCCI for making it a 2 test series, is implying that it is ok for the ECB to make money when India tours, but the BCCI stands guilty of devaluing test cricket, when the fact is that England's players didn't want to stay on!

Labels: bcci, ecb, eng v ind 2008, england, scheduling

Thus spake Jagadish @ 9:02 am | Sledge/Read 2 sledge(s)
Did you like the post? [ Subscribe to the blog feed - | | Tweet ]

ECB announces squad for 2019 World Cup and 2021 Ashes

In a span of three weeks, the ECB have announced the one-day and test squads to tour India towards the end of 2008.

Former England captain Michael Vaughan was not picked despite getting a central contract.

For the life of me, I can't understand why the squads have been announced so much in advance. The one-day leg of the tour only starts on November 9 while the test leg starts on December 5.

Owais Shah, who sparkled in the 2006 tour, has been included. The expectation is that he, among others, will use the seven game one-day series to get some form and seal up a middle-order slot.

It does look like a lot of planning, and sometimes that's not a bad thing. But it is equally likely that Shah scores next to nothing in the one-dayers he plays. Now, does he get considered for the test XI since there's no other competition for the middle order slot? England's lineup will most likely be: Strauss, Cook, Bell, Pietersen, Collingwood, TBS, Flintoff, Prior, Anderson, Harmison & Panesar. If Owais Shah, who has been earmarked for the #6 slot, doesn't score runs, then in the absence of any other middle-order option, either he will still be selected, or England will be forced to go in with one less batsman. Alternately, England will call up someone else.

It's not about Owais Shah. It's about announcing a squad nearly two months in advance, and not having multiple options for a 'weak' slot. This time around, England play the one-dayers first. Will they focus on the one-dayers or the tests? It'd be fun to see what excuses are concocted this time around!

In county cricket news, Durham, last year's runner-up in the English County Championship, by a slim 4.5 point margin, have won their first ever title. It is a huge achievement for a team that didn't even play first-class cricket two decades ago. It's a bit like Sri Lanka winning the 1996 World Cup.

Labels: county cricket, durham, ecb, eng v ind 2008, england, india

Thus spake Jagadish @ 12:42 am | Sledge/Read 0 sledge(s)
Did you like the post? [ Subscribe to the blog feed - | | Tweet ]

A clear-cut case of 'restraint of trade'

The cheap fight between the BCCI and the Indian Cricket League has now plunged to new depths.

The BCCI today announced that India's contracted players would not be allowed to play in the English domestic season if the side they were representing had ICL players in it.

The ECB had initially followed the BCCI's diktat and banned ICL players from playing in the English domestic season. But just over 2 months ago, three South African players won an appeal and they were ruled eligible to play for their counties. The ECB's requirement was that players' home national cricket boards provide permission in the form of a 'No Objection Certificate'. Andrew Hall, Justin Kemp & Johan van der Wath did not get the NOC and were not allowed to register.

In the case that Kerry Packer filed against the ICC and TCCB in 1977, Justice Slade ruled in favour of Kerry Packer & his motley crew. He said "A professional cricketer needs to make his living as much as any other professional man."

In the light of that judgement, it seems to me that preventing Piyush Chawla, Ajit Agarkar and VVS Laxman from playing for county sides just because those sides have ICL players in them is a clear-cut case of 'restraint of trade'. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights says (Article 23) "Everyone has the right to work, to free choice of employment, to just and favourable conditions of work and to protection against unemployment."

I really hope someone forces the BCCI to quit the hallucination drugs and get back to reality. Today, cricketers are stopped from playing for other teams because those teams have ICL players. Tomorrow, will they be asked to stop staying in touch with those friends who've played in the ICL? After that, will the records of the ICL players be deleted?

If you do have an opinion, leave a comment and also vote in the poll.

Labels: bcci, ecb, indian cricket league, restraint of trade, twenty20

Thus spake Jagadish @ 12:29 am | Sledge/Read 3 sledge(s)
Did you like the post? [ Subscribe to the blog feed - | | Tweet ]

Proposed schedule for England tour of North, West, Central & East India

The ECB announced that the BCCI had sent the proposed itinerary for England's tour India north of the Vindhyas later this year.

The ECB is totally peeved about the fact that 7 of the 9 international games are at smaller cities like Rajkot, Indore, Kanpur, Jamshedpur, Cuttack, Guwahati & Ahmedabad (Delhi and Mumbai host one game each). While they may be justified in their concern for the Barmy Army not watching cricket at other main cricketing centres like Bangalore, Chennai & Kolkota, the BCCI will obviously point out that the rotation policy, based on which games are allotted to various cities/grounds, has resulted in this situation.

The 61 ODIs that have been played in India over the last 3 years have been hosted at 25 different grounds. By and large, the rotation policy has been adhered to. There is the odd exception here and there for political administrative reasons, quite a few during the 2006 ICC Champions Trophy because of the ICC's ground-advertising restrictions.

There's no way a game in Chennai would have made sense. The tour is in November and Chennai's "rainy season", officially, is between October & December. You'd end up with 5 mm of rain in those 3 months, but it's still the rainy season! The last few internationals played in those 3 months have all been affected by rain: a test v Sri Lanka in 2005, an ODI v South Africa in 2005, a potential classic v Australia in 2004 and an ODI v New Zealand in 2003.

But yes, some aspects of the schedule are definitely hard to understand. Such as not a single game being scheduled anywhere in South India. Karnataka, Andhra Pradesh and Kerala are typically exempt from the North-East monsoon. So I don't understand why they've been left off the schedule altogether. There's also a distinct West Zone bias to the schedule: 3 games (1 test) in Mumbai, 3 games in Gujarat (Rajkot, Baroda & Ahmedabad). That's hardly surprising given where Sharad Pawar, Ratnakar Shetty and Niranjan Shah are from.

Labels: bcci, ecb, eng v ind 2008, england, india, scheduling

Thus spake Jagadish @ 11:37 pm | Sledge/Read 0 sledge(s)
Did you like the post? [ Subscribe to the blog feed - | | Tweet ]