The ones who get away, and those who don't

I've seen several quotes in the Australian media about how the likes of Harbhajan, Ganguly, etc. have been so frequent visitors to the match referees' rooms, unlike Australian players, which proved that Australia plays the game 'hard and fair'. Sample this gem from Mark Waugh. Keep in mind that 'Junior' has said a few stupid things in the recent past for us to not take his words completely at face value.

And in terms of sledging, certainly a couple of Australian players can take it over the top on some occasions - but overall, they aren't too bad when you look at the fines and penalties for each country.

The statement indicates to me that Australia's cricketers, despite going over the top on some occasions, don't get pulled up by ICC match referees. How about using some data to strengthen the hypothesis? I documented all the various rulings by ICC match referees listed in the 'ICC Code of Conduct hearings and their outcomes' section of the ICC website from 1992 (when the code was introduced) to 2007. Some aspects of the analysis that need to be mentioned:

• Penalties imposed for logo violations were excluded.
  
• The outcome is purely based on the instances reported on the website. There would be several occasions where the match referee has dozed off. Such issues aren't captured in this analysis. For e.g., McGrath v Sarwan, over-rate issues, such as in the 2005 Ashes, on England's 2006 tour of India and the recently concluded India-Australia series (India was the only team to average 14 overs an hour in a single inning. Australia twice bowled less than 13 an hour. Across the tests, India averaged 13.4 overs an hour while Australia averaged 13.2 overs an hour).
  
• There's no categorization based on the size of the penalty (match fee percentage or number of games).
  
• Any instance of multiple penalties (match fee fine + game ban) is categorized in the higher penalty (game ban). Suspended sentences count as reprimands, unless there is a financial penalty, in which case it gets categorized as a match fee fine.
  
• I'm almost certain I've accounted for all the non-logo issue match referee decisions, but the accuracy of the data could be linked to the fact that this post is going up at around 2 am!

There have been a total of 291 hearings by match referees: 29 of those resulted in a ban (one or more internationals), 22 resulted in a not guilty verdict, 63 finished up with a reprimand (including instances where the penalty was a suspended sentence) and 177 ended with financial penalties imposed on the player/official.

2001 was the busiest year (35 players pulled up), with 2004 and 2005 seeing 33 players pulled up. 2002 seems to have been an abnormally quiet year (6 visits). Perhaps the players used up their quotas in 2001!

Inzamam leads the players list (12 times, with 3 bans). At #2 is another perennial favourite, Sourav Ganguly (10 times, with 4 bans). Since Inzamam is now retired, Ganguly is very well placed to get to #1. Glenn McGrath, Graeme Smith and Shoaib Akhtar have 6 visits to their names. Special mentions for Sreesanth, who made his test debut in 2006 but notched up 3 visits to the ref in the span of 1.5 years and Graeme Smith, who debuted in 2002 and has already been hauled up 6 times, including 2 bans!

Pakistan leads with 56 visits to the ref's room, India is 2nd with 49, Australia is 3rd with 37, just ahead of South Africa's 36. I believe it is sufficient to consider the data in the context of these teams alone, primarily since the percentages could get skewed with teams who don't see the refs too often. Special mentions for West Indies and Sri Lanka who only got called to the refs' rooms 20 and 19 times. Over a data set of 15 years, that is a very good indicator that these two teams are fairly ... fair!

In terms of match referee verdicts where there was no penalty (financial or ban), Australia is a clear-cut winner. On nearly 30% of the occasions (29.7% - 11 out of 37), there was either a reprimand or a 'not guilty' verdict. The percentage of times Pakistan, South Africa and India were not penalized was fairly similar (25%, 22.2% and 26.5% respectively). Among those 4 teams, Australia's cricketers were banned the fewest times (5.4% - 2 out of 37, one of them being Darren Lehmann) while Pakistan copped it hardest (23.2% - 13 out of 56). Interestingly enough, South Africa copped it worse (13.9% bans - 5 out of 36) than India (10.2% bans - 5 out of 49).

To me, this is an indication that Australia does get away with it more often than others. Plus, there're probably umpteen other instances where the match referee, umpires or the ICC didn't even get to laying down charges. I'm not saying that this isn't likely for other teams, but based on the number of times Australia have not been penalized that is the inference I draw.

Glenn McGrath was found guilty of spitting at an opponent in 1999, and paid up 30% of his match fee. On another occasion, Damien Fleming pushed a Sri Lankan batsman after dismissing him. He paid up 50%. Then there was Slater losing it against Dravid despite the third umpire ruling not-out. In 2004, Langer was ruled not guilty despite dislodging a bail himself and then appealing for a hit-wicket in a match against Sri Lanka.

I believe it is high time the cricketing world called the bluff on Australia playing 'hard and fair' and hence not being taken to task by match referees. If India's financial clout has resulted in the board resorting to brinkmanship on a number of occasions, Australia's cricketing clout has potentially resulted in match referees looking the other way when Australia's players flout the rules, or letting them off with a 'Naughty boy. Don't do it again, ok?' warning.

Labels: australia, ban, icc, ind v aus 2008, india, match referee, over rates, pakistan, south africa, statistic

Thus spake Jagadish @ 1:01 am | Sledge/Read 1 sledge(s)
Did you like the post? [ Subscribe to the blog feed - | | Tweet ]

Can we shut up and move on?

The verdict is out and Harbhajan Singh is not a racist, but still a lot of people believe that the verdict wasn't right and keep harping on it. I happened to read this piece by Prem Panicker and I had a few issues.

• It seems that the Australians are shocked that even Tendulkar lied. I find it absolutely ridiculous to trust an unnamed source and not Tendulkar in a quasi-judicial hearing.
  
• BCCI using its might and getting the verdict shouldn't be a topic of discussion at all. If anything, the BCCI has used its might a little too late. All the time, players from the sub-continent have been at the receiving end and most of the Australian players have been getting away (Jagadish's point: One damning indicator of this is the fact that on the ICC website, under 'Penalties imposed on players for breaches of ICC Code of Conduct', the entries for 2003 do not say anything about the 'immortalized' snarling game between Glenn McGrath and Ramnaresh Sarwan in May 2003) with their on-field behaviour (sample Ponting & Clarke in the Sydney test) and no one even bothers to write about it.
  
• Some writers say that such issues and verdicts don't augur well for the game. Simple - if teams and umpires can cheat blatantly on the field, a financial powerhouse can definitely show its power to help one of its players.
  
• Forgetting my stand on Murali's action, I loved Ranatunga when he walked off the field, just because he was brave enough to protest the Anglo-Australian off-the-field might. I would have been even more delighted if Kumble decided to do it as soon as umpire Ricky Ponting took charge in Sydney - but after all, he is Anil Kumble.

One thing that is striking to me is that most of the writers are shocked that it is team India that has challenged Australia in the game. When everyone expected Australia to finish 3-0, if not 4-0, they just managed a 2-1 scoreline, which could have easily been 1-2, if competence, honesty and efficiency had taken the front seat.

Yes, Australians have been the undisputed champions for long, but the pedestal has been shaken and if you think about it, it actually augurs very well for the game. We have seen a lot of controversies over the years, but the game has carried on, just because it is brilliant.

I am definitely sure that it will go on forever even if more Pontings & Clarkes cheated, more Gilchrists 'walked', more Harbhajans abused, more Symonds provoked opponents, more Bucknors faulted, more boards like the BCCI showed off their might and if more Australian teams lost.

Labels: australia, bcci, harbhajan, icc, ind v aus 2008, india, racism, sydney 2008, symonds

Thus spake Ganesh @ 1:48 pm | Sledge/Read 1 sledge(s)
Did you like the post? [ Subscribe to the blog feed - | | Tweet ]

Analyzing Judge Hansen's judgement

When I read the full text of Judge Hansen's decision that Harbhajan Singh did not racially abuse Andrew Symonds at Sydney, a few things were very interesting.

1. The inefficiency of the ICC: Justice Hansen was not informed about Harbhajan Singh having already been previously pulled up by match referees for various offenses. This information would have resulted in a far stricter penalty.
   
2. The statement of agreed facts signed by Harbhajan, Ponting, Symonds, Clarke, Gilchrist and Tedulkar (sic) and presented to Hansen clearly indicates that Symonds initiated the verbals, including using 'fuck'. As per #13 in the judgement, Symonds told Harbhajan that he had no friends amongst the Australians and used the 'fuck' word. Did he mean to tell Harbhajan "You have no fucking friends amongst the Australians" or was it meant to be "You have no friends amongst the fucking Australians"?
   
3. #7 in the judgement says 'It is apparent that while there was acceptance that the exchange between the appellant and Mr Symonds was initiated by Mr Symonds and was heated in that the word 'fuck' was used no other details of the language used was given. However it was accepted by all parties that it was and intended to be offensive to Mr Symonds.' Does this imply that Symonds using abusive language was not offensive to Harbhajan? It is obvious that Harbhajan was offended, for he wouldn't have reacted the way he did.
   
4. Like I wrote in a comment on my first post on the issue, Brett Lee's silence is baffling. Harbhajan patted/hit him. If he didn't have a problem, why on earth did Symonds have a problem? This is a clear indicator that he was itching for a fight. Were the Aussies ganging up on Harbhajan in a conspirational manner to provoke him, knowing fully well that he'd respond in kind, and then accuse him of a racist abuse (regardless of whether he actually said it or not)?
   
5. From #12 and #14 in the judgement, it is obvious that Symonds was the provocateur. I don't understand why he got away without any penalty. Again, if the BCCI is convinced that Symonds provoked Harbhajan, why shouldn't it file a defamation suit on Harbhajan's behalf since its contracted player suffered mental anguish on account of being accused of a racist comment?
   
6. If 'teri maa ki' is offensive to Symonds, 'bastard' was (meant to be) offensive to Dhoni and Kumble. It baffles me why the BCCI/Indian team withdrew charges against Hogg. The only explanation I have is that they didn't want a situation where he wouldn't bowl against them in the series.

Labels: australia, harbhajan, icc, ind v aus 2008, india, racism, sydney, sydney 2008, symonds

Thus spake Jagadish @ 7:35 pm | Sledge/Read 0 sledge(s)
Did you like the post? [ Subscribe to the blog feed - | | Tweet ]

A scared draw

Australia have just played a Test match which has ended in a draw without any interference from the weather. It is so hard even to imagine this, but it has happened, more so when the team which wanted the draw badly and played to it was Australia and not the opponent!

This was clearly evident on day three when Australia batted 90 overs, scored 260 runs and lost 3 wickets. I certainly don't remember the last time when the Aussies batted an entire day and scored at less than 3 runs per over. Irrespective of the state of the match, no Aussie batsman would even dream of scoring at such a pace. The display of 'batting' on day three almost ensured that a draw was the most probable result unless the Indians decided to gift the match.

India have pushed Australia so much that they even won at Perth and hence 'The Great B*st@#ds' decided to opt for a draw to save some face and ensure that they would win the series 2-1, thanks to Steve & Mark, not the Waughs, but Bucknor & Benson respectively.

If a lot of things had happened efficiently & honestly in the first 2 Tests, the series could have been 1-1 or even 2-1 in favour of India, coming into Adelaide. With such a scoreline, the Australians would have definitely batted differently and would have tried to score at a much better pace and may or may not have lost more wickets in the bargain and most probably would have won this Test match.

It would have still been the Aussie-brand of cricket we all know. Any other team batting out in such a manner isn't any news, but even Australia was pushed to bat for the draw. I am tempted to say that the Indians have pushed them so, but deep inside I know its Bucknor & Benson who gave them the liberty to do the unthinkable to win the series. It does seem to me that Virender Sehwag wasn't wrong at all when he said that Australia were scared of losing.

It seems like the curator had prepared a pitch that'd yield a result on day six. Someone needed to have told him that the rules on test cricket were the same for Australia and other teams. Just because Australia lost the Perth test in four days, it doesn't translate into an extra day in the Adelaide test. Then again, perhaps the curator was just doing what he was told to!

Labels: australia, benson, bucknor, ind v aus 2008, india, perth, perth 2008, pitch, sydney 2008, umpires

Thus spake Ganesh @ 4:12 pm | Sledge/Read 1 sledge(s)
Did you like the post? [ Subscribe to the blog feed - | | Tweet ]

Dhoni and Kumble reading from different sheets

There's dissent in the Indian team ranks, and the vice-captain is to blame. Yesterday, in the run-up to the Adelaide test, Dhoni said

It's a moral victory, coming to Australia and not letting them beat us comfortably.

Three things to remember, Mahi.

One, the series is not yet over. A whipping at Adelaide (I don't expect a whipping, but I'm expecting a 3-1 series result) throws away any claims of a moral victory or not being beaten comfortably.

Two, there are no moral victories in sport. You win or you lose. Rohan Bopanna breaking Roger Federer may seem like a moral victory, but it doesn't count if the scoreline reads 6-1 6-0 6-0.

Three, you're in public disagreement with your captain. After the recent drawn Eden Gardens test against Pakistan, skipper Kumble responded to Pakistan coach Lawson's comments about escaping with a draw

I don't believe in moral victories. It's really crazy, I don't know why people talk about moral victories.

The last thing the team needs right now is people publicly disagreeing with each other. The Australian media are having a field day, writing about a schism in the side following Ganguly's omission from the one-day squad. I have no idea why Indian news channels extend their 'exclusive' chats with the likes of Ponting, Clarke, etc. to asking them about India's one-day side. Obviously Ponting isn't going to let go an opportunity to create some more confusion. So on his 'exclusive' chat with NDTV yesterday [Can't find a link to the video], he said

I am surprised and shocked that he is not in the side because right through this Test series, he has certainly looked good with the bat.

Why're the likes of NDTV or Times Now still having exclusives with Ponting and Clarke, when they both were significantly responsible for the controversies at Sydney 2008?

This is something that we sort of touched upon over 3 years ago, during Australia's last test tour of India. Perhaps it is time that the BCCI relaxed its rules for players speaking exclusively to the media. Right now, it makes for some pretty one-sided coverage.

Labels: australia, dhoni, ganguly, ind v aus 2008, india, kumble, perth 2008, ponting

Thus spake Jagadish @ 12:59 pm | Sledge/Read 5 sledge(s)
Did you like the post? [ Subscribe to the blog feed - | | Tweet ]

What not to do when playing Australia

I wrote this in November 2006 after England's ICC Champions Trophy game against Australia.

Risque as it may sound, the one lesson that each and every team which played against Australia in the ICC Champions Trophy needs to learn is "When you've got Australia by the b@lls, you hold on!"

Australia give so few opportunities to teams to get into a position of advantage. Opponents really cannot afford to let those chances go by.

'The Great B*st@#ds' will try and get through every single situation they come up against, such as getting vital partnership-breakers at the end of the day at Sydney & at Perth in India's first innings, clawing their way out of a 61/5 mess and attacking with so much unbelievable abandon and getting through the top order despite conceding a 118 run lead and possibly preventing India from running away with the game today.

Labels: australia, australia by the balls cliche, ind v aus 2008, india, perth 2008

Thus spake Jagadish @ 9:23 am | Sledge/Read 0 sledge(s)
Did you like the post? [ Subscribe to the blog feed - | | Tweet ]

The outcome of Sydney 2008

The outcome of the events at Sydney last week, where pathetic umpiring and a charge of racial abuse marred a superb game, will hopefully make international cricket better, for administrators, players, match officials and fans/spectators.

After the game, a chat with Ganesh, went like this:

14:24 me: i see a few benefits coming out of this entire test:
14:25 1. icc could do something about umpiring standards

2. icc could clearly define what constitutes a racial abuse and what doesn't - is bastard racial, for e.g?

3. teams will swear to not agree to ponting's gentleman agreement on catches

14:26 4. players will stop walking [esp. if #1 isn't handled]

Among these, if the ICC can ensure #1 and #2, then a lot of the problems could be solved. Good umpires will refer to the third umpire at the right time and take decisions on the field at the right time. They will get a higher %age of decisions right. Continuing with my tirade against the ICC's repeated claims to umpires getting 94% of their decisions right, the Sydney game was a classic example of what happens when umpires get 100% of all irrelevant decisions right and 0% of all critical decisions wrong.

It is fairly obvious that Symonds and Hussey benefitted significantly from umpiring errors [Symonds went from 30 to 162 while Hussey went from 45 to 145], Ponting had the best worst of both worlds while Dravid and Ganguly suffered significantly.

To my mind Hussey not being given out in the second innings when he edged RP Singh down legside having scored 45 perhaps had as significant an impact on the outcome as the other umpiring cock-ups. It is strange that his let-off is not discussed as widely as Symonds' or Ponting's.

53.4 Singh to Hussey, no run, a big noise, huge appeals for a strangle down the legs, India think they have their man and replays suggest that he did press the face of the bat on to it

It is high time the ICC clamped down on:

1. Umpiring standards: The ridiculously poor umpiring can & should be fixed by expanding the panel and ensuring that the workload is distributed evenly across four qualified umpires rather than the situation currently where two umpires slog it out in the sun and are under tremendous pressure, with the other two enjoying the comforts of an air-conditioned box and called upon only every now and then [especially the fourth umpire!] to do some work. In addition, there must be something done to increase the accountability of umpires. They can't just say sorry to players for bad decisions and get away with it. Players are dropped for poor performance. Why should umpires be handled with kid gloves?
   
   
2. Walking: The act of a batsman walking insults the collective intelligence of umpires, teammates and spectators. It is a great tool to be (ab)used [and there are several instances where it has been] either by players walking selectively (after they have scored a lot of runs, but not if they're on a pair, for e.g.) or by players appealing to the umpire's conscience for the umpire could assume that the 'walker' player's appeal for a catch/lbw was valid since he was inherently honest.
   
   
3. Pre-series agreements on taking the fielder's word for catches: This sort of agreement is total rubbish and I have no idea why Kumble agreed to it when several other captains (Vaughan & Fleming, to name two) have disagreed with Ponting's suggestion. Ricky Ponting got enraged at the post-match press conference when it was suggested that he had actually grounded the ball after 'catching' Dhoni in India's second innings at Sydney. He was affronted enough to take the query as an question about his integrity and advised that the journalist should not even be in the room [I take it that no-one who has any questions about Ponting's conduct should be in the press conference henceforth]. In fact, he held up his conduct in the first innings [where he didn't claim a catch that Dravid had edged since it had bounced] as an example of how he plays the game. It sort of reminds me of the 'walking' business where a player's conduct could be used by umpires to influence their decisions in his favour. That is exactly what seemed to happen with Ganguly dismissal. Clarke caught the ball and rolled over. Ponting asked Clarke (he who edged to first slip and didn't walk) if he caught it. The umpire asked Ponting if Clarke caught it. The umpire took Ponting's word for it. Mr. Ponting is an honourable man. Didn't you see the way he did not appeal after Dravid's edge fell short in the first innings? Thank us for small mercies. Ponting's argument perhaps goes like this: "I didn't appeal for that catch. This shows how I play the game. Hence if I appeal for a catch, it is always a valid appeal and the umpires are duty-bound to adjudicate in my favour."
   
   
4. Sledging/Abuse: There should be a total ban on any sort of sledging, including banter. There's no saying when a comment becomes offensive, and there is a huge difference in the way people see barbs aimed at them. Sad as it might seem, it means that witty & creative comments obviously also become a victim of the tough measures to prevent situations from boiling over.

PS: Steve Waugh, in his column, wrote about the things that Australian cricketers hate.

On the other hand, Australian teams can't stomach time-wasting and perceived manipulation of the rules, including calling for runners, over-appealing and the alleged altering of the condition of the ball.

So let's see how Australia's players fared at Sydney.

• Time wasting: Wasn't Clarke wasting everyone's time by staying at the crease after edging to slip?
  
• Manipulation of the rules through using runners: Let's see what Hayden did. After he'd reached 71 [off 132 balls], Hayden got himself a runner (Ponting), since he had started limping a couple of overs later. When he got out on 123, he had faced 192 balls. In the 60 balls that he played after apparently getting injured, going by Cricinfo's commentary and based on what I saw on TV, he played at least 10 booming drives and 10 sweep shots. Add in a couple of pulls and a couple of reverse sweeps. I don't know too much about sportsmen's bodies, but it seems highly unlikely that a batsman with a serious-enough injury to warrant a runner, would be able to play such shots by placing so much stress on his leg.
  
• Over-appealing: When Ricky Ponting 'catches' the ball, falls down and his appeal is turned down, he mentions at a press conference that he caught the ball. Isn't that carrying on with the appeal a little too long?

Labels: australia, benson, bucknor, icc, ind v aus 2008, india, ponting, racism, sydney, sydney 2008, umpires, walking

Thus spake Jagadish @ 6:10 pm | Sledge/Read 6 sledge(s)
Did you like the post? [ Subscribe to the blog feed - | | Tweet ]

Time for the BCCI to ban Harbhajan?

Assuming that Mike Procter was right (and he has got it wrong earlier, miserably fluffing his lines at The Oval in 2006), in announcing a three-test ban on Harbhajan for calling Symonds a 'monkey' during the Sydney test, I think it is now the right time to read the riot act out to Harbhajan.

Even if he uttered the word as a response to provocation, it is unacceptable. There was an enormous amount of coverage in the Indian and Australian media about the behaviour of Indian spectators, in the form of racist chants & gestures, during Australia's seven one-dayers in India late last year.

Harbhajan's act is indefensible. He has to cop the punishment from the ICC, just as Darren Lehmann (5 ODIs) & Herschelle Gibbs (2 tests) did. In addition, the BCCI ought to advise the selectors that he should not picked for the next 5 tests and 10 one-day internationals.

There has to be a strong deterrent on this issue, otherwise players will continue to act like juveniles.

Labels: harbhajan, ind v aus 2008, racism, sydney 2008, symonds

Thus spake Jagadish @ 2:36 am | Sledge/Read 7 sledge(s)
Did you like the post? [ Subscribe to the blog feed - | | Tweet ]

Why India lost at Sydney

There were quite a few reasons actually, not all of them were related to the umpiring.

1. Letting 'The Great B*st@#ds' go from 134/6 to 463. Even if Symonds had been given out on 30 or 48, let's not forget that Hogg, Lee & Johnson made 166 runs between themselves at 4 runs an over.
   
2. Losing Dravid and Laxman an hour before stumps in the first innings. They were batting really well, had just gone past personal milestones. But they played horrible shots (ok, let's give some credit to the bowling!). Both ought to have continued on. 180/1 became 185/3! A 600+ total became 532.
   
3. Ganguly not going on. He has now played 4 innings in the series for scores of 43, 40, 67 & 51 (at a strike rate of ~ 70). The most balls he has faced in an innings so far is 79. Dravid has probably faced that many before he decides to display the on-drive! It's all nice scoring 1000 runs in 2007, including a splendid last few tests. But to beat Australia, like Geoff wrote before last year's Ashes, you need to score big hundreds. You can bat like a millionaire and still get big scores. Ganguly needs to convert those 40s & 50s into 150s. Otherwise the runs are a waste. They help India get some momentum, but he gets out at the wrong time (as if there was ever a right time for a batsman to get out!)
   
4. Yuvraj and Dhoni spectacularly failing. I've never been in favour of Yuvraj's inclusion in the test team, especially when he was going to force Dravid to open. I mentioned to Ganesh after his 169 that I still thought Yuvraj was not ready for test cricket. I reckoned he was probably the best replacement batsman around. But on the evidence he had presented in the past few test series where he'd played 2-3 tests on the trot, he has a long way to go before being considered in the first XI. All his dismissals are boiling down to lack of footwork. Sadly, I'm being proved right about his ability. I could still be proved wrong, with two tests to go. Dhoni's dismissals, barring today's, are all nicks to Gilchrist outside off-stump off short-of-length balls. He can be a very destructive batsman after he has batted around half-an-hour. But you need to guts it out before you get to the half-hour mark. He has not done that at all!
   
5. Letting Australia score at 4 an over this morning. When Kumble threw the ball to Ishant late last evening, I thought it was a superb move. Australia weren't scoring quickly at that time. The fact that they went off for light yesterday meant that they were undecided about what rate to score at and when to declare (for if that were not the case, they'd have opted to stay on). But this morning, after an hour of play, all hell broke loose. Symonds & Hussey scored at will, giving Australia enough overs to bowl in the remaining part of the day.
   
6. Edging to second slip. Like King Cricket brilliantly wrote late last year when Pietersen was given out after a catch was taken very close to the ground at second slip. He wrote: "However, from England’s point of view, as regards this Test match, the main problem was that Kevin Pietersen edged a ball to second slip. As a batsman, if you edge the ball to second slip, there’s a fair chance you’re going to be out." That is exactly what Ganguly did. He edged to second slip. The previous ball had been at his body, and I was waiting for Lee to give him the full ball.
   
7. Dhoni not offering a shot. Steve Bucknor was the umpire. Was it a stupid idea or what, to offer pad with no intention of playing a shot? You have a bat in your hand. It isn't meant to be used as a periscope.

Like the Bard wrote, 'The fault, dear Brutus, is not in our stars, but in ourselves, that we are underlings'.

Labels: australia, ind v aus 2008, india, sydney, sydney 2008, umpires

Thus spake Jagadish @ 11:06 pm | Sledge/Read 3 sledge(s)
Did you like the post? [ Subscribe to the blog feed - | | Tweet ]

"I know he's bowled, but is he out?"

There's this apocryphal story of BS Chandrasekhar getting frustrated with the umpiring on a tour (there're many accounts of this tale, with the umpire nationality varying from Australian to English to Kiwi). He had 4-5 plumb lbws turned down. Then he clean bowled the batsman and appealed "Howzzaaaat?" The umpire was surprised and told him the batsman was bowled. Chandra apparently replied "I know he's bowled, but is he out?"

Seeing the umpiring standards at the Sydney test, I'm fairly sure bowlers will start asking similar questions. Ricky Ponting was first wrongly given not out (caught down the legside). Then he was wrongly given out lbw (inside edge). Andrew Symonds was wrongly given not out (caught behind off a thick outside edge). Some time later, he again benefitted by the third umpire getting a stumping decision wrong. After he was well past 100, Steve Bucknor didn't even refer a stumping appeal to the third umpire, despite there being considerable doubt on if he did have his foot grounded behind the line.

I don't recall any shocker during India's first innings, but today, Hussey was not given out caught when he'd obviously edged the ball down legside. But what took the biscuit was Michael Clarke's reaction after he'd so obviously edged Kumble to Dravid at slip. Clarke was, in Hayden's words, waiting for the umpire's finger to go up.

To me, this is as damning an indictment of the quality of umpiring in this test as it can get. A batsman lingers around at the crease after edging to first slip, because he hopes that the umpire will get another decision wrong. Chances are he'd hope for a favourable decision even if he'd hit one to mid-wicket or got bowled.

I won't blame Clarke for it at all. He is well within his rights to stand his ground since it is the bowling team's right/duty to appeal and the umpire's duty to give the decision.

More technology is possibly one solution. Better umpires is usually a better solution. The third umpire, with the TV replays at his disposal, got Symonds' stumping wrong. So technology clearly wouldn't have helped.

Umpiring standards has been a pet theme in this blog. As pointed out earlier here, Steve Bucknor has been poor for a while now and Mark Benson didn't even know that a ball which hit the fielding team helmet placed on the ground was not a dead ball!

Bucknor isn't quite done with this series though! He's scheduled to follow both teams to Perth.

I can think of two extreme ways to register a protest against poor umpiring:

• Don't even appeal: For anything. Not for bloody obvious bowleds, catches, stumpings, run outs etc.
  
• Appeal for everything: For bowleds, skied catches, stumpings/run outs with the batsman half-way down the pitch, etc.

Labels: australia, benson, bucknor, chandra, clarke, ind v aus 2008, india, sydney 2008, umpires, walking

Thus spake Jagadish @ 1:56 am | Sledge/Read 6 sledge(s)
Did you like the post? [ Subscribe to the blog feed - | | Tweet ]

Such a ridiculous stat

I could be wrong on this, since I'm not sure I used Cricinfo's StatsGuru v 2.0 properly.

The last time Australia, hereinafter occasionally referred to in this blog as 'The Great B*st@#ds' (for the way they manage to fight back and win so bloody often), lost a test after scoring less than 350 in their first innings while batting first was the the world record chase game where West Indies chased down 417 after both teams scored 240 in their first innings (Would it have been one of the rare occasions where both sides scored an identical first innings total?)

This is only the third time that the captain of 'The Great B*st@#ds', Ricky Ponting, hereinafter occasionally referred to in this blog as Ruthless Ponting, has scored less than 10 runs in a test match. The last two times this happened were during a couple of special games: Hobart, 1999 [he got a pair in fact!] where Gilchrist & Langer took 'The Great B*st@#ds' to an improbable victory and Eden Gardens, 2001 where Laxman, Dravid & Harbhajan took India to an even more improbable victory.

Labels: australia, ind v aus 2008, india, ponting, statistic

Thus spake Jagadish @ 8:45 pm | Sledge/Read 0 sledge(s)
Did you like the post? [ Subscribe to the blog feed - | | Tweet ]

Four years wasted

On the verge of the start of one of India's most important test series, it is a good idea to take a trip down memory lane. Four years ago, India ended up competing rather well with Australia, and falling just four wickets short of a totally improbable and unprecedented series win in Australia.

The way the individuals involved in that series overall conveys a picture to me that the intervening four years have been wasted mostly.

It is probably a measure of how well India were playing, or the absence of sufficient backup, that only 13 players played the four tests. This is how the 13 have fared between Australia-2003/04 and Australia-2007/08
Chopra - Nearly out of the reckoning now. Played four tests after being identified as the fall-guy to accommodate Yuvraj at Rawalpindi. His confidence was shot, and he responded with 0, 5, 9 & 1 against Australia in 2004.

Sehwag - Promised so much for a couple of years, giving hope to Indian cricket followers that he would be India's next-generation batting hope along with Yuvraj & Kaif, as he piled up a triple ton, the second fastest double ton, nearly scoring two doubles in a series and almost 100 before lunch on day one of a test. After that, his form dipped alarmingly, and Australia is perhaps his last chance of getting a permanent batting slot.

Dravid - Consistent, as usual, except for the past few tests. But one expected him to make that giant leap and start getting mentioned in the same breath as Lara, Steve Waugh, Tendulkar, etc. (to list out some contemporaries) after his great run last time. But his inability to convert 50s into 100s even as Ricky Ponting scored hundreds for fun means that Ponting now gets categorized as 'great' while Dravid, in the eyes of many [not me], despite breathtaking stuff like the twin gems at Jamaica in 2006, is seen to fall just short.

Tendulkar - Injury and loss of form have contributed to a marked decline in his aura. He is no longer as authoritative as he used to be, or can be! Was the Sydney 2004 innings was perhaps an indicator of things to come? Instead of moving ahead, after his Multan near-double, the consistency has certainly been lacking. Shockingly, he is just about managing one century per year now!

Ganguly - Poor form leading upto the 2003 series in Australia was forgotten once he scored his Brisbane century. Questions about his form didn't quite result in anything, but once Greg Chappell took over, he read out the riot act, resulting in Ganguly being out of the team for a long duration. He's back now though, and in a new & improved avatar, hopefully! Yet, it is plain and obvious that his inability to sort out his batting mess resulted in him losing out on more than a few test matches!

Laxman - Like Dravid, he didn't kick on after the last tour. Every now and then he promised to make the leap from good to very good, and thereby become indispensable. But no, until a couple of months ago, if someone needed to be accommodated in the middle order, or an extra bowler needed to be played, there was every chance that his name would be scratched out. He was vice-captain for three tests. No-one knows why he was appointed, and why he was sacked from the job!

Parthiv - Perhaps his fall was inevitable, given that he was never a good wicket-keeper to start off with. The rise of Karthik and then Dhoni resulted in him being cast aside, despite some ability with the bat. Apparently Parthiv Mark II is a much improved keeper, but will he get the opportunities to succeed or fail?

Agarkar - He symbolizes what this post is all about. If he had done anything after his Adelaide 2003 showing, he'd be the leader of India's pace attack. It is so cruel that although he is just 30, he's never going to make it back to the test side. But he probably has himself to blame, as 7 wickets in 150 overs (6 tests), a strike rate of 128 and an average of 74 in the tests he played after the last Australian tour show.

Harbhajan - In the lead-up to the 2003/04 series, Harbhajan was the #1 spinner, with Kumble missing out on quite a few games (especially on tour). He got injured at Brisbane, but he only had 1/169 against his name. Aside from the odd-game now and then (two hauls in the West Indies, a 7fer against South Africa and a superb showing at Bangalore against Australia and a match-winning show against Sri Lanka), he has done precious little to suggest that India's spin bowling attack is in safe hands when Kumble retires. He has had sufficient opportunities to do so, despite sometimes being at the receiving end of Chappell's ire. It is likely that he may feature in a couple of tests this series. He needs to do something to show that the selectors must continue to have faith in him. There are a few young spinners around and they'd really benefit from learning under Kumble.

Zaheer - After Srinath's retirement, and since Agarkar was unable to show any sort of consistency, Zaheer had a great opportunity to cement himself as India's #1 quick bowler. Yet, far from it, he did poorly enough to get dropped, spending most of 2006 playing domestic cricket in India and England. After that, he hasn't quite looked back. With competition from Sreesanth, Munaf, RP Singh and a rejuvenated Irfan Pathan, he needs a good showing in Australia. But he most certainly is nowhere near where he ought to have been. He is nearing 30, and should aim to play test cricket for the next 3-4 years at least.

Nehra - He played one test after the last tour of Australia and hasn't played a ODI since September 2005! He either kept getting injured, or bowled pathetically. Even if you ignore the one test he played in 1999, he has played 16 tests in 6 years, and is now totally out of the reckoning as far as a place in the Indian team is concerned, and he's not yet 29. What a real waste!

Kumble - He's probably the only one who has made progress after the last series in Australia. He is now captain, the #1 spinner for the side, has 1000 first-class wickets, is at #3 on the all-time wicket-takers list and even scored a test century! He is definitely conceding more runs per wicket, but he's getting the wickets quicker than before, with some beautiful changes of pace [up and down!]. He probably has 2-3 more years of test cricket still left in him - sufficient time perhaps to get 50 wickets a year and end up behind Murali on the wicket-takers chart, and on the way help nurture the next generation of Indian spinners.

Pathan - A surprise package last time around, he was named the Emerging Player of the Year in 2004 and by 2005/06, was considered all-rounder material. Yet his bowling fell away shockingly, and he spent nearly 1.5 years without playing test cricket and wasn't picked too often for one-day cricket either due to his own bowling form, entrances by Sreesanth & RP Singh and Zaheer's comeback.

---

In summary, the Indian team has regressed majorly since India's last tour of Australia. The intervening four years have been wasted. India should have been challenging Australia for the top spot. But now, they've to contend with Sri Lanka, South Africa and England.

Labels: agarkar, akash chopra, australia, dravid, ganguly, harbhajan, ind v aus 2008, india, irfan pathan, kumble, laxman, nehra, parthiv patel, sehwag, tendulkar, wasted, zaheer khan

Thus spake Jagadish @ 11:48 pm | Sledge/Read 1 sledge(s)
Did you like the post? [ Subscribe to the blog feed - | | Tweet ]

If it's a tour of Australia, there must be a selection controversy

Almost exactly four years ago, just before the Indian team left for a tour of Australia, Abhijit Kale was banned by the BCCI for attempting to bribe selectors for a place in the national team (or was it an India A side?).

This time around, with another tour of Australia coming up, another issue related to the selection committee has cropped up, this time it has to with the way Dilip Vengsarkar has been allegedly treated by BCCI administrators.

Vengsarkar has been in the news for the past month or so since quite a few BCCI officials have taken umbrage at him writing columns, and earning a living from them. This apparently violates the board's policy. The board then went one step further, putting out a list of do's and don't's, all of which were essentially to press home the fact that the BCCI executives and administrators were the bosses and not the selectors.

One of the directives, relating to being involved with player agents, is noteworthy, in that it seeks to eliminate any potential conflict of interest. Yet, it is also interesting to note that CricketNext reports that Niranjan Shah tried to get his son selected for an India A tour.

Jaydev Shah scored 255 runs from 11 first-class innings, 40 from 4 list-A innings and 86 from 4 domestic Twenty20 innings last season. The season before that was equally pathetic. He isn't a bowler either. So there's no evidence to suggest that he deserved an India A spot.

Clearly there's a conflict of interest here. The BCCI should ensure that none of its office bearers' sons/daughters/close relatives are playing for any of the first-class teams in India.

Getting back to Vengsarkar, he then promptly shot off an email to Sharad Pawar, which obviously got leaked again, just like emails tend to when it comes to BCCI matters.

The matter, at this point in time, seems to have been swept under the carpet. But I'm fairly sure Vengsarkar is just biding his time. BCCI officials have been very prompt in asking him to quit if he doesn't like the guidelines. It really is high time they got off the high horse and realized that they exist because of the game. The first thing that needs to change is the name of the board - just call it the Indian Cricket Board. Remove the Control!

But that's a bit too much to expect from a bunch of people who don't care if the Indian team plays Australia in a test match after one warm-up game. As if this wasn't shocking enough, there are indications that Cricket Australia agreed to a BCCI request to shorten a warm-up game to two days.

The game is against the Australian Capital Territory XI and there are two ways to look at it. There's not much cricketing benefit from playing an extra day against a side which plays various state 2nd XIs and so the team might as well proceed quickly to Perth, where they haven't played a test match for 15 years. The other way to look at it is that any sort of valuable match practice possible has been lost, and the packed itinerary is to blame. The series against Pakistan ends on December 12 and the first tour game in Australia is on December 20.

To make matters worse, at this point in time, it isn't even immediately apparent which quick bowlers will be touring Australia. If Zaheer, Munaf, RP Singh or Sreesanth aren't going to be fit, why bother turning up with Ishant, Irfan and Ranadeb Bose?!

Labels: australia, bcci, conflict of interest, ind v aus 2008, india, injury, scheduling, selection, selectors, sharad pawar, vengsarkar

Thus spake Jagadish @ 1:10 am | Sledge/Read 1 sledge(s)
Did you like the post? [ Subscribe to the blog feed - | | Tweet ]