Brett Lee retires, BCCI asks for a rule change

Yesterday, Brett Lee announced his retirement from test cricket, to focus on playing limited overs cricket (ODIs and T20 games). There's nothing novel about such an announcement. He's just following in the footsteps of others like Flintoff, Oram, Styris and Vaas. You could argue though that given Vaas hasn't been picked in any ODI or T20 game by Sri Lanka for over 6 months after he retired from tests, he is unlikely to make it to the 2011 World Cup as a Sri Lankan player.

I had pointed out when Flintoff, Oram, Styris and Vaas retired that cricket boards run a huge risk of many marquee names, especially quick bowlers and all-rounders, quitting test cricket. Will they wake up now and figure out how to optimally schedule tests, ODIs, T20 games, ICC events, bilateral & multi-lateral ODI series and T20 leagues like the IPL, Champions League, KFC Big Bash, Twenty20 Cup, etc.?

Lee's decision to retire was widely expected. He hasn't played a test since the series loss to South Africa at home. He didn't manage to last out the ODIs against India. He hasn't played a T20 game for Australia since August 2009.

Yesterday, Sachin Tendulkar became the first man to score a double-century in a ODI game, with Belinda Clark having been the first to reach the mark in a limited overs international. The logical question is if other cricketers will now start scoring 200s for fun.

It only took one effort of 400+ (Australia, at the Wanderers in 2006) and in the next 4 years, we've had 9 instances. It is quite likely that Sachin Tendulkar's achievement of scoring 200 will also fall in the next 1 year. After all, it wasn't too long ago that Herschelle Gibbs made 175 in 111 balls and Tillakaratne Dilshan made 160 in 124 balls.

In an unexpected development, it is learnt that the BCCI has approached the ICC with a proposal to limit the number of batsmen in an ODI innings to 7. While publicly, the BCCI claims to have done so to protect the ODI game and to reduce the imbalance between bat & ball, sources in the BCCI told this blogger that the main reason was the abject failure of India's bowlers after South Africa recovered from 180/7 (Jaipur) and 134/7 (Jaipur).

A few other occurences in the recent past have convinced the BCCI that getting the likes of Ashish Nehra, Sreesanth and Ishant Sharma to bowl well to tail-enders is really not worth the trouble. The better option is to ensure that they don't even bowl to #8-#11., thereby insuring against last-minute carnage by the batsmen.

Labels: 2006 champions trophy, bcci, icc, lee, retire, rules, tendulkar, test cricket

Thus spake Jagadish @ 12:27 am | Sledge/Read 0 sledge(s)
Did you like the post? [ Subscribe to the blog feed - | | Tweet ]

Some nitpicking on a superb day for cricket fans

This isn't a party-pooper sort of post, but I guess its the right day to get it off my chest, in no particular order.

• Harbhajan and Yuvraj shadow-boxing after Hayden got out was totally hilarious. I'm very surprised Ponting doesn't see the funny side of it. He told NDTV something like "Harbhajan finds new ways to celebrate. It wasn't very funny". I agree with you, Ricky. It's hard to find it funny when you're copping it! Then again, it certainly wasn't an unprovoked celebration!
  
• Apparently Harbhajan is in trouble with the match referee for making monkey gestures and spitting, both directed at a section of the SCG crowd. Is this guy a moron or what? He's just about managing to get into trouble every week! He was in a definite soup over the 'monkey' abuse issue, and evaded a ban because of a combination of inter-board politics, administrative gaffes and a lack of conclusive evidence.
  
• Brett Lee's beamer to Sachin Tendulkar is just another beamer in his international career. Notice how none of the commentators actually says 'beamer'. He seems to keep bowling one so regularly. Please find me other bowlers who do that. In 2005, he bowled one to Abdur Razzaq in retaliation to Razzaq bowling him a beamer. Then, it was McCullum's turn, which drove the Kiwis mad even as some Aussies made some pathetic excuses about lack of height, the ball slipping, it wasn't high enough to qualify as a beamer, etc.. He didn't apparently learn from his 'mistake', for he then bowled one to Trescothick during Australia's Ashes tour in 2005. I have absolutely no doubt that Tendulkar accepted the apology mainly to avoid yet another controversy.
  
• Was it really tough to lipread what Virat Kohli, the India under-19 team captain, was shouting after his side won the tournament? Hint #1: There were two words he kept repeating. Hint #2: The first word has 4 alphabets, the second has 3. Hint #3: The first word starts with f, the second starts with o. I know he was letting off steam. It's huge pressure for a young kid. But there're younger kids watching the television, those aspiring to be under-19 captains one day. Such language is unacceptable. After all, if the national team cricketers abuse opponents, or their mothers, it is assumed that it is a must-do thing in international cricket!

Labels: australia, beamer, Commonwealth Bank Series, harbhajan, hayden, india, lee, ponting, tendulkar, under-19 world cup

Thus spake Jagadish @ 12:35 am | Sledge/Read 3 sledge(s)
Did you like the post? [ Subscribe to the blog feed - | | Tweet ]

Double standards, Athers!

Mike Atherton argued for a one match ban for bowlers who bowl beamers. In a post on AOL blogs, I pointed out that England's bowlers and fielders were guilty of a similar offense - hurling the ball back to the keeper with every chance of it making contact with unsuspecting batsmen. And they've been doing this for 2-3 years now!

The reason I see double standards in Atherton's call for a ban is that he was very charitable to Brett Lee in 2005 when Lee bowled a beamer to Trescothick in the NatWest Series final. He wrote then:

The furore that has followed his rather too frequent use of the beamer is easier to justify. The beamer is the hardest ball for a batsman to pick up precisely because it pitches (or doesn't pitch) so far from where the batsman expects. If it is bowled on target, as Lee's invariably is, then it can be lethal. Lee was visibly sheepish after his latest beamer at Marcus Trescothick during the NatWest Series final. After taking Andrew Strauss's wicket shortly afterwards he remained head bowed rather than celebrating in his usual fist-pumping fashion.

His visible embarrassment and immediate fulsome apology convinces me that Lee's beamers are unintentional, although other international bowlers doubt that such a quality performer can be so far out of kilter. The other reason for giving Lee the benefit of the doubt is that he is such a demonstrably decent fellow. His popularity among team-mates, current and former, is legend. Michael Slater, one of the few Australian pundits prepared to speak frankly about former team-mates, says "he's just a champion".

So Brett Lee's popularity lets him get away with bowling a beamer ever now and then! If Lee kept having a 'bowed head', offering a 'fulsome apology' and looked 'visibly embarassed' every time he bowled a beamer, he'd never be able to turn his head, for he'd have a royal pain in the neck!

Update: Just realized that Mukul Kesavan has written on similar lines on Cricinfo!

Labels: atherton, australia, beamer, england, lee

Thus spake Jagadish @ 2:39 pm | Sledge/Read 0 sledge(s)
Did you like the post? [ Subscribe to the blog feed - | | Tweet ]

Stuart Clark replaces Brett Lee

Brett Lee is the first big name to pull out of the World Cup, after doctors warned him against bowling for the next three months. Stuart Clark has been picked as his replacement.

Since the ICC has relaxed its rules to allow teams to replace players (and not bring them back when fit) even after the squads had been named, most teams have chosen to name players not entirely fit. Just sample some of these names. You could get a half-decent playing XI from them - Symonds, Ponting, Clarke, Hayden, Vaughan, Anderson, Lewis, Oram, Pathan, Agarkar, Yuvraj, Shoaib, Asif, Gul and Sarwan. Ignoring Bangladesh and Zimbabwe, it seems like Sri Lanka and South Africa are the only teams without any injury worries!

My World Cup currently-injured (and undecided) XI would be (in batting order): Hayden, Clarke, Ponting, Sarwan, Yuvraj, Symonds, Oram, Agarkar, Shoaib, Anderson, Asif. There's no wicket-keeper. The one I hate the most in that list is Hayden. So I'd pick him as the 'keeper.

Labels: 2007 world cup, australia, clark, lee, world cup, world cup squads

Thus spake Jagadish @ 3:22 pm | Sledge/Read 0 sledge(s)
Did you like the post? [ Subscribe to the blog feed - | | Tweet ]

Hughes wonders about beaming Lee into the test squad, Buchanan and Fletcher clash

The controversy over Brett Lee's beamer to Trescothick in the NatWest Series final is unlikely to die down soon. Lee has been trigger-happy with his beamers in the past but while he does seem apologetic, his excuse is really quite pathetic. He is quoted as saying "When you are bowling at such a high velocity and trying to get momentum through the crease and try to bowl a yorker you only look at a slight variation in your trajectory to the wicket".

Brett, let me do you a favour and explain the definition of velocity. You may have forgotten your physics, but I (we) haven't. There is a subtle difference between velocity and speed. Speed is a scalar quantity which measures the rate of motion. Velocity is a vector quantity and includes the direction of motion. Sadly enough, your beamers dont qualify as 'high velocity' because they lack direction.

Putting aside concerns on his beamers, Lee reckons that Andrew Strauss is due for a big score. Even though Strauss topped the runscorers list in the NatWest Series, most of his runs came against Bangladesh and he was found severely wanting against Australia.

After the tied final, with the jury still being out on who came off better, Fletcher and Buchanan have now declared war. Fletcher had claimed after the game that he was happy to see Australia rattled and indulging in lots of conferences even as England inched their way to the target. He also made a couple of comments on Australia's batsmen being uncomfortable against Harmison and the way McGrath was "protected" by Hussey. Buchanan has now responded commenting on how Strauss, Trescothick and Vaughan have fared against the Australian opening bowlers as well as how England could miss out on good fielders during the tests, given that among Pietersen, Solanki & Collingwood, only Pietersen looks to have a chance of making the Ashes squad. Michael Vaughan doesnt seem too worried about his batsmen's form even though the BBC's analysis shows that there is plenty of cause for concern.

Simon Jones seems genuinely relieved at not having to face those pesky Bangladeshis again.

Merv Hughes, who recently became an Australian selector, has dropped hints that he favours Brett Lee playing in the first Test. But he is unable to figure out which bowler to drop. Maybe he finds it tough to figure out which of Kasprowicz or Gillespie to drop? I think there's an easy way out: get the new one-day rules extended to tests as well to ensure that Lee continues to be 12th man.

In 1972, the English cricket following public got introduced to Lillian Massie, but with not quite the same long-term impact as their introduction to Lillian Thomson.

Labels: beamer, lee

Thus spake Jagadish @ 11:08 am | Sledge/Read 0 sledge(s)
Did you like the post? [ Subscribe to the blog feed - | | Tweet ]

Beaming Brett Lee gets support from fellow Aussie quicks

The Australian fast bowlers' union came to Lee's rescue as McGrath, Gillespie and Kasprowicz echoed a few other views on Lee's beamers by pointing out that the balls which were allegedly beamers were in fact at waist height and not even remotely near the head, the normal height at which a beamer comes to the batsman. Of course, McGrath doesnt waste an opportunity to point out that the Kiwis were forever whinging.

Labels: beamer, lee

Thus spake Jagadish @ 4:11 pm | Sledge/Read 0 sledge(s)
Did you like the post? [ Subscribe to the blog feed - | | Tweet ]

The jury is still out on Brett Lee's beamers

Steve Waugh feels that Lee's action and his lack of height result in him bowling beamers accidentally now and then.

A couple of old Aussie fogies have differing opinions. Rodney Hogg feels that Lee's actions were deliberate while Lenny Pascoe, that gentle giant is confident that the ball slipped.

Graeme Watson, who played a few tests for Australia, and was hit by a beamer during an Australia v/s Rest of the World XI "Test" at Melbourne by Tony Greig defended Brett Lee saying that he was not doing it deliberately and that the balls were actually only waist high rather than gunning for the batsman's head.

Clive Lloyd, whose merry men were not averse to the deploying this art, has also jumped into the fray, felt that it was unintentional and that the umpires also felt so and hence did not take any action.

The Bladder takes a sardonic view of these incidents/accidents.

Labels: beamer, lee

Thus spake Jagadish @ 9:50 am | Sledge/Read 0 sledge(s)
Did you like the post? [ Subscribe to the blog feed - | | Tweet ]