Sloth Sehwag and it is time to ban football in cricket

Sehwag today scored a hundred in 87 balls. For most others, that'd be a rate of scoring which would be hard to surpass. But the problem with Sehwag is that he already has a test hundred where he took only 78 balls - against West Indies in 2006. In fact, he has another 100 made in 87 balls - against Sri Lanka in 2008. So by all yardsticks, this is a crawl from Sehwag.

So far, he has 19 test hundreds. Of those, 5 were scored at a strike rate of 100 or more and 9 were at a strike rate of 80 or more. His "slowest" 100 came off 164 balls (against England in 2002).

For comparison, Adam Gilchrist had 17 test hundreds. Of those, 6 were at a strike rate of 100 or more and 11 were at a strike rate of 80 or more. His slowest 100 came off 160 balls, in the test that Australia nearly screwed up against Bangladesh in 2006.

That's the indication of how merciless Sehwag and Gilchrist have been (and in Sehwag's case, will continue to be) to bowlers.

Around 10 days ago, a few minutes before the start of the first test between South Africa and India at Nagpur, Rohit Sharma was the latest casualty of international cricket teams playing football as part of their warm-up routines.

Now, I don't lay any sort of claim to being a fitness drill expert, but it seems logical that a game like football which is 'physical' in nature is a wrong choice for a warm-up routine, especially just before start of play. You could argue that since the 'games' are played amongst team members, the likelihood of someone doing something stupid is too small. Yet, why take the chance?

In the last couple of years, there have been at least 4 other instances where a warm-up football game resulted in a player (potentially) being out of action.

• James Anderson in March 2008.
• Joe Denly in September 2009.
• Tillakaratne Dilshan in November 2009.
• Muttiah Muralitharan in December 2009.

Perhaps it's time to change the rules to allow the playing XI to be changed if a player suffers a serious injury after the team sheet has been submitted.

That's what happened when Brad Haddin was replaced by Graham Manou at Edgbaston last year. Who would determine if the injury is serious? Perhaps the decision needs to be jointly taken by the physio/doctor from the opposition and the ICC match referee.

One way to prevent abuse if the laws are changed is to give the match referee the power to prevent the replacement player from batting, bowling or fielding in case it is subsequently determined that the injury was not severe or was faked.

Why do we need this law change? Injuries are much more commonplace now and can happen at any time during a game. It makes no sense to penalize a team for an unfortunate accident, especially if they find themselves a bowler short.

There have been so many occasions when a bowler has broken down during a game, resulting in the fielding captain being forced to use part-timers or over-use his main bowlers. In Shane Bond's case, that approximately equals the number of innings he has bowled in.

Shane Watson could nick himself badly while shaving, trip over his shoelaces or collide with the pitch roller. Simon Jones twisted his knee at Brisbane in 2002.

It's not just about the bowlers. A batsman could injure himself and the batting captain then has to make do with one less batsman.

Substitutions are par for the course in a lot of other sports. So why shouldn't cricket follow suit? After all, the idea of using substitutes in ODIs has already been trialled and sadly filed for posterity.

Labels: football, icc, india, injury, laws, mcc, playing conditions, rules, sehwag, south africa, statistic

Thus spake Jagadish @ 11:32 pm | Sledge/Read 3 sledge(s)
Did you like the post? [ Subscribe to the blog feed - | | Tweet ]

Could retainerships in Twenty20 leagues prevent premature retirements?

A couple of weeks ago, Andrew Flintoff announced his retirement from test cricket. He was followed by Chaminda Vaas. These retirements come as no surprise considering the physical strain associated with being quick/fast-medium bowlers. If Flintoff plays the remaining 3 Ashes tests, he would end up with 80 tests. The sad part is that he missed a whopping 63 tests. At 143 tests, he'd have been in the top 5 most-capped test cricketers of all time (behind Steve Waugh, Tendulkar, Border & Warne).

Last year, Scott Styris retired from tests. Earlier this year, Jacob Oram threatened to follow his teammate.

The irony is that the same cricketers who extoll the virtues of test cricket, call it the ultimate form of the game, rate their test cricket achievements as being the pinnacle compared to those in other forms of the game, etc. invariably end up retiring from test cricket. Can you point out anyone who has quit ODIs to continue playing tests? So do we all get this lip-service?

Cricket boards really run the risk of many more quality players quitting test cricket. Is it possible for everyone to have the cake and eat it to? Can T20 leagues & international cricket co-exist without antagonizing everyone involved? Is it necessarily a zero-sum game?

Let's make a few assumptions here - some could be wrong of course!

• Cricket administrators (cricket boards & organizers of T20 leagues) are telling the truth when they say test cricket needs to thrive.
  
• Cricket boards want to exercise maximum control over their players.
  
• Players believe that test cricket is the supreme form of the game.
  
• Players want to maximize their earning potential while they're still able to exhibit their skills well.
  
• Sponsors want the best players to be part of the event (not necessarily play) so that they can be used as great marketing vehicles.
  
• Cricket boards don't get anything from the IPL (or indeed any of the other proposed T20 leagues) when their contracted players participate in the tournament. So, a cricket board's first reaction to such a tournament is either that they won't allow their contracted players, or the players can participate for a ridiculously short period of time.
  
• The player's concerns are to not get injured, to play quality cricket, to earn as much as they can and to be able to fulfill their national commitments & contractual obligations with their cricket board.
  
• The T20 tournament organizer's primary concern is that the best players should be available for the maximum possible period of time, and play well enough in order to make the tournament a great success.
  
• Players are paid only on the basis of the number of games they play in T20 leagues.
  
• The money that cricketers earn from the IPL (or other leagues) is far in excess of what they have been earning so far.

Given all these assumptions, how do we best balance the self-interests of the players and the administrators? The combination of the last two factors hugely influences a player's decision to quit playing test cricket and free up that time to play more and more Twenty20, including at events like the IPL, Champions League, etc. Adam Gilchrist was largely spot-on in the talk he gave as part of the 2009 Cowdrey Spirit of Cricket Lecture (transcript & video) when he said:

An acceptance that professional players will increasingly make pragmatic decisions about their careers, which may involve playing less Test cricket or even perhaps, none at all. That the arrival of rich, franchised based competitions like the IPL will hasten this trend and reduce the primacy of playing for your country or provincial team. That a young first class cricketer in Bangladesh or the West Indies may have an entirely different set of playing priorities and goals to those youngsters playing in England or Australia. goals to those youngsters playing in England or Australia. That Cricket Administrators must adapt to these realities with clever programming of international fixtures to dove-tail off these competitions and if necessary radically change, even jettison the Future Tours Program in order to achieve this.

Let's leave aside for a moment the reality that Gilchrist contradicted himself in that statement. If the FTP was jettisoned, this would directly result in the likes of Bangladesh, West Indies & Zimbabwe playing less cricket against the 'stronger' (cricketing & economic factors) teams like Australia, South Africa, India & England. That would imply a reduction in the quality of cricket they're exposed to as well as revenue for boards. Do you seriously expect a cricketer from West Indies to say "No thanks, I'd rather play a test against Bangladesh because I'm so much in love with my administration"? Of course not! He's going to take the first opportunity available to throw away the WICB contract and play in one of the T20 leagues. So actually, by jettisoning the FTP, you could be increasing the risk that "a young first class cricketer in Bangladesh or the West Indies may have an entirely different set of playing priorities and goals to those youngsters playing in England or Australia". Having digressed, we now go back to the question - how to best balance the self-interests of the players and the administrators? Would a retainership-based payment structure work? What if the IPL (or other T20 leagues) split up the player's payment on a 60-40 basis, whereby 60% of the money they get is based on the number of games they play? But the remaining 40% is actually given to their cricket board. The cricket board could reduce the payment made to the player if he skips commitments (training, other contractual obligations, international games, etc.) because he gave a higher preference to playing in the T20 tournament. That 60-40 split is just a number. It could have been 50-50 or even 70-30, but the split-up needs to provide sufficient incentives & disincentives. Players who are not contracted to their boards would receive a pro-rata amount based on the number of games they played along with other contractual obligations fulfilled. This gives cricket boards enough incentive to release players for the tournament, knowing fully well that they will get something out of it if the players don't honour their side of the bargain. Players have an incentive to balance playing T20 leagues and international cricket. They don't fall under the 'daily wage worker' category, because really speaking when you're paid on a pro-rata basis, that is what you are! The tournament organizers & sponsors benefit since they know that cricket boards and players are both committed to the event because they both stand to gain. What are the potential problems associated with such a model? Manipulative boards (and there're plenty in that category) could reduce the payments on the basis of flimsy arguments. Players could opt out of board contracts, thereby removing the boards from the equation altogether and destabilizing international cricket. Tournament organizers & sponsors could offer incentives for players to give up their existing board contracts.

It may still be an option worth considering. If the model can prevent even one star player from quitting test cricket, I'd reckon it has done its job.

Labels: ashes, ashes 2009, burnout, champions league, colin cowdrey lecture, fatigue, flintoff, future tours programme, gilchrist, indian premier league, lord's, mcc, retire, spirit of cricket, twenty20, vaas

Thus spake Jagadish @ 11:35 pm | Sledge/Read 1 sledge(s)
Did you like the post? [ Subscribe to the blog feed - | | Tweet ]

Kevin Pietersen could end up changing the rules

The MCC has announced that it will be considering today whether switch-hitting was within the laws.

Unless you are in outer space, you'd know by now that Kevin Pietersen, in the first ODI against New Zealand, reverse-hit (not reverse-swept!) Scott Styris twice (Video & Photos) over the infield. I'm using a generic 'infield' description since he actually hit it over mid-wicket and long-on, but since Pietersen is a right-handed batsmen, it was actually cover and long-off.

There's obviously a lot of chatter going around about whether it is fair for a batsman to do so when the bowler can't change his bowling arm midway, etc. There're counter-examples as well: bowlers don't tell batsmen they're going to bowl a slower ball while at the same time batsmen don't tell bowlers they're going to smack them over extra cover (Actually, I take that back. Some do!).

Is such innovation good for the game? Should it be allowed? Will the game progress or regress? Despite my hating Kevin Pietersen (there's something about him that I hate, I just can't say exactly what), I think he's going to end up changing the rules, for the better.

My belief is that batsmen should be allowed to switch-hands and play shots. But to counter that, the lbw and wide rules need to be changed such that if a batsman while playing a reverse hit misses and gets hit on the pad, he can be given out lbw even though in his normal batting stance it may not have been lbw. Similarly, if the batsman misses since the ball was far away, unless it was ridiculously wide, umpires should not be calling it a wide.

Let's take two hypothetical scenarios and a real one.

• The other day, if Styris had bowled the ball in line with Kevin Pietersen's leg stump and if Pietersen had been hit below the knee roll, chances are the umpire would have negated the lbw appeal since the ball was heading down the legside. However, Pietersen's shot was that of a left hander and hence the ball would have hit off-stump. So he should be given out in that scenario. In fact, if the ball had hit Pietersen's right leg, was it hitting his front-leg or back-leg?
  
• The bowler runs in to bowl with, say, 4 slips in the cordon. The batsman attempts a reverse switch hit. Was it a no-ball since there were 4 fielders behind the stumps on the leg side?
  
• In the 2002 NatWest Series final, Nasser Hussain attempted several times to reverse sweep Harbhajan, who fired it down Nasser's legside and ended up conceding wides. However, since Nasser was attempting a reverse shot, the ball actually went under his bat and it was his mistake that he didn't connect.

If the rules are changed to ensure that bowlers aren't worse off, then I am of the belief that such change is good. Batsmen keep inventing new strokes (Ranji's leg glance, Hanif's reverse sweep, Compton sweeping faster bowlers, Kanhai's falling sweep, Marillier's lap shot, etc.) and bowlers keep inventing new deliveries (Bosanquet's googly, Larwood & Jardine implementing leg-theory, Jack Iverson's flicks, Ramadhin trying out a doosra, Waugh using slower balls, Harvey bowling back-of-the hand slower balls, etc.)

Certainly, cricket has benefitted from these changes. These pioneers enabled others to experiment even more and perfect the changes. Andy Flower nearly perfected the reverse sweep while Saqlain did the same to the doosra. We may be seeing the emergence of ambidextrous players, like John Buchanan predicted in 2003.

Let's say the MCC decided that it was not a legal shot if the batsman did not inform the umpires/bowler prior to playing the shot. What'd happen if a batsman played this shot without informing? Would the ball be declared a dead ball? If so, what if the bowler had actually bowled him? Would he be declared out? If it wasn't a dead ball, would the batsman be ruled out (maybe the MCC decides to add this under some 'Confusing the opposition' genre of dismissals)?

The main problem so far has been that bat technology has progressed more rapidly compared to ball technology, thus increasing the mismatch between bat and ball. It is something that definitely needs to be addressed soon.

In summary, I support changes to the laws to allow batsmen to switch their stance and hit the ball, as long as umpires don't penalize bowlers (by ruling wide or not giving lbw decisions) if the batsmen missed the ball.

This seems like a fascinating topic to have a discussion on.

Update: The MCC has, thankfully, ruled that the stroke conforms to the laws. In addition, the release also mentions that since this has implications on the laws governing wides (25) and lbws (36), further research will be done. I wonder why there is no mention of law 41 which deals with calling a no-ball if there are more than 2 leg side fielders aside from the wicket keeper behind the popping crease.

Labels: england, innovation, laws, mcc, pietersen, reverse hit, reverse sweep, rules, switch hitting

Thus spake Jagadish @ 12:15 pm | Sledge/Read 2 sledge(s)
Did you like the post? [ Subscribe to the blog feed - | | Tweet ]

Throw Zimbabwe out, says Rahul Dravid

Well, perhaps he didn't exactly say that. But that's a good line to grab your attention anyway.

Rahul Dravid, who would be the only member of the MCC's World Cricket committee still playing international cricket, perhaps has more things to worry about (such as who will open India's batting in the tests against Bangladesh and why on earth the BCCI signed up to play cricket in Bangladesh in May) than if Zimbabwe should play international cricket. The MCC's World Cricket Committee (find me a more grandiose name please) declared that in the opinion of its members, Zimbabwe should be barred from test and ODI cricket until the cricket infrastructure there was rebuilt.

The Australian government's decision directing Cricket Australia not to send its team to Zimbabwe was obviously the right one. At the very least, it was a much better show than that from the UK government and the ECB on touring Zimbabwe a few years ago.

The UK government, while indicating that it was not in favour of the ECB sending a team to play in Zimbabwe, did not instruct the ECB that they shouldn't send a team. This then led to a situation where England toured Zimbabwe but several media organizations from England were not allowed to cover the series.

England played a one-day series , where the likes of Ian Bell & Kevin Pietersen made an impact. In fact, that one-day series was so pathetic that Michael Vaughan nearly made a century and England won 4-0! For not playing the test series, the ECB coughed up £135,000 as compensation.

I wouldn't be surprised if the BCCI stepped in and committed the Indian team to play in Zimbabwe.

Labels: australia, dravid, mcc, zimbabwe

Thus spake Jagadish @ 12:35 am | Sledge/Read 1 sledge(s)
Did you like the post? [ Subscribe to the blog feed - | | Tweet ]

Asking Frindall and Steven

I've just posted the following question in Cricinfo's "Ask Steven" and BBC Cricket's "Stump the Bearded Wonder"

If a bowler is required (under Law 24) to notify the umpire and batsman before changing his bowling arm, is the batsman also required to notify the bowler if he's going to switch to batting right handed/left handed from his normal batting stance? How does this work during reverse sweeps?

This is based on a discussion that I'm currently having with Reenen Laurie about how umpires rule on wides and lbws when the batsman reverse sweeps. I remember the 2002 NatWest Series where there were a few India v England games where Nasser Hussain attempted to play so many reverse sweeps against Harbhajan (with a connect rate of around 1%). Quite a few balls which Hussain missed were adjudged wides and Harbhajan didn't have a good time with his lbw appeals too.

Labels: harbhajan, laws, lord's, mcc, nasser hussain, reverse sweep, umpires

Thus spake Jagadish @ 12:39 pm | Sledge/Read 0 sledge(s)
Did you like the post? [ Subscribe to the blog feed - | | Tweet ]