Cricket digs its own grave

Yesterday was a bad day if you were a fan of cricket, and wanted the game to survive. Funnily though, 8 out of the 10 test playing nations were involved in games yesterday and it should have been a moment of celebration, because its not something that happens too often.

Really, it should have been a fantastic sequence of games. Imagine someone in India would start watching the Trans-Tasman trophy test from 6 in the morning, switch to the England v India ODI at 9 am, then move on to the Zimbabwe-Sri Lanka ODI around 1 pm and then the Bangladesh-South Africa test at 2 pm. So basically there was cricket for something like 15 hours of the day.

The problem was that of the 4 games, 2 were guaranteed to be mismatches, and going by the past two one-dayers, the Eng-Ind ODI was also expected to be one. As it turned out, the NZ-Aus test and the Eng-Ind ODI were really enthralling to follow, while even a passionate fan of the game like me couldn't really bother about the remaining two games. Surely, that's not a good thing for cricket!

Zimbabwe collapsed from 124/3 in 27 overs to 127 all out in 31! Murali got 3 in an over, Mendis got 2 in an over. Bangladesh, after conceding 441 to South Africa, including a score of 299/1 at the end of the first day (after choosing to field first, no less, thus qualifying for a Cricket 24x7 captaincy clanger award!) were in danger of being dismissed for less than 100 and only managed to get 150 because of Mushfiqur Rahum & Shahadat Hossain. The big question was if Graeme Smith would take the huge risk and impose the follow-on!

As it turned out, while the on-field quality was poor in these two games, the other two interesting games showcased the worst of cricket's rules.

Let's start with the Australia v New Zealand test, where Daniel Vettori won the toss and sent Australia in despite the fact that the last time a visiting team won a test after sending Australia in was 1986!

Having batted for all of 20 balls, after coming in to bat at #5, Michael Clarke took a juice break. Why didn't the umpires step in and tell him to take his water break during the drinks or lunch interval? If the conditions are hot and humid, as they presumably were at the Gabba yesterday, why can't the umpires carry around a bottle or two of Gatorade (with ICC sponsor logo etc. on it) with them and get the players to take a swig whenever they feel thirsty? Instead, the 12th man or 13th man runs out during an break (in-between overs, or when a third umpire referral is pending, or when the ball is being retrieved/changed) and time is unnecessarily wasted waiting for the errand boy to get his fat arse off the field of play.

Then, after Clarke had finished his juice, it was ridiculous that New Zealand's bowlers & fielders hadn't yet gone back to their marks and were not ready to bowl. Australia were 55/3 at that stage. Any team that was desperate to make a mark would have been all set to have a go. An over or so later, Clarke got hit in the abdomen guard, and another bottle of juice was ferried out to him. That just proves my point - the umpires should keep a bottle or two with them so that the 12th man doesn't have to run these stupid errands.

It isn't just test cricket that showed the rules to be silly yesterday. The India v England one-dayer first was truncated to 49 overs a side even though play started 45 minutes late. What's the big deal about 1 over a side being reduced? That's like hardly 4-5 minutes each innings. So they really could have just gone in with a 50-over game.

Then, as it happened during the England v New Zealand one-dayer earlier this year, although play was lost, the lunch break was barely impacted. It's not as though the players have a seven course meal at lunch. In any case, only 13-15 out of the 22 players, and the umpires, will have to get their lunch done rapidly. If the ostrich ICC doesn't want to change the rules on truncating the lunch break, at least the umpires could be given the authority to accept a request from both captains to shorten the break!

The other problem was that the floodlights couldn't be used. This is something that I wrote about after the India v Australia test at Bangalore. It is downright stupid to require both teams to agree on usage of floodlights. It should be the host association's responsibility to provide good quality floodlights. The ICC must lay down & enforce the rule that all grounds which host tests, one-day internationals and Twenty20 internationals must have lights of an acceptable quality. If the lights are non-existent or aren't good enough, then the venue gets struck off until the lights are fixed. If the game is impacted due to bad light, (the floodlights don't work at all or don't provide quality & sufficient lighting) then the game is awarded to the visiting team. If the venue is a neutral one, the game is a draw/no-result.

Lastly, how on earth does Tony Greig manage to get away with commenting on a test match when he's so completely involved (on the executive board, no less!) with the ICL? Surely the BCCI has been sleeping. If it can prevent players from signing up for counties that have ICL players on the roster, it can also put pressure on boards to ensure that the broadcasters and telecasters don't have anyone associated with the Indian Cricket League on their list of commentators or anchors!

Labels: bad light, bcci, cricket 24x7 captaincy clanger, eng v ind 2008, icc, lunch, minnows, ostrich, playing conditions

Thus spake Jagadish @ 5:36 am | Sledge/Read 2 sledge(s)
Did you like the post? [ Subscribe to the blog feed - | | Tweet ]

ODI cricket digs its own grave

At a time when there is a lot of discussion about the future of 50-over cricket given the advent of Twenty20, yesterday's proceedings in the 2nd one-dayer between England and New Zealand came at absolutely the worst possible time.

The game started at 3 pm (local time) because of heavy rain, which wasn't a problem. But, fascinatingly enough, the players went for a 30 minute lunch break even though it was well past 'lunch time'. Like Vettori and Collingwood say, common sense seemed to be lacking.

I have ranted here in the past about some totally illogical decisions related to lunch and tea breaks.

In 2004, again in a game involving England and New Zealand, play started 2 hours late. Yet, the umpires called for 'lunch' even though conditions were perfectly okay for play to start. In 2005, during Pakistan's tour of India, play only started at 2 pm local time. So why on earth did they have to go off for tea!?

Also yesterday, New Zealand had a maximum of 23 overs (unless there was another rain delay) to get the runs but rain started at the end of the 19th over. Take a look at the ICC ODI playing conditions.

Clause 12.4.2 b (iii) which deals with the length of innings of the team batting second in a limited overs game says

To constitute a match, a minimum of 20 overs have to be bowled to the team batting second subject to the innings not being completed earlier.

. Law 21.2 defines a win in a limited overs game.

Save for circumstances where a match is awarded to a team as a
consequence of the opposing teams refusal to play (Law 21.3), a result can be achieved only if both teams have had the opportunity of batting for at least 20 overs, unless one team has been all out in less than 20 overs or unless the team batting second scores enough runs to win in less than 20 overs.

Save for circumstances where a match is awarded to a team as a consequence of the opposing teams refusal to play (Law 21.3), all matches in which both teams have not had an opportunity of batting for a minimum of 20 overs, shall be declared no result.

If a game has been reduced to 23 overs because of weather conditions, it is highly likely that 20 overs may not be bowled to the team batting second. Instead, the rules need to be changed in such a manner that a certain %age of the maximum overs for the innings need to be bowled. That number could either be 40% (20 overs for a 50 over game) or it could be something like '40% or 10 overs, whichever is higher'. Such a change would ensure that teams, spectators, fans and audiences get the satisfaction out of having watched a completed game.

It really is high time the ICC had a serious re-think about how to apply common sense in such situations as well as think about doing away with the tea break in test matches altogether. Surely if players can do without a rest day, they can do without a 20 minute tea break. Replace the tea break with a 5 minutes drink break and we can get in at least 3 more overs in the day!

Update: The 'Ostrich' has partially fixed the issue. Henceforth, umpires are empowered to alter the duration of the innings interval.

But, this is a classic case of missing the wood for the trees. By reducing the interval by say 15 minutes, 3 overs would be gained. Nevertheless, if the rains had come down in the 19th over, the game would still have been a no-result. The root cause here is the restriction that a 50-over game needs a minimum of 20 overs to be bowled to the side batting second for the game to qualify to have a result.

As per the ICC's rules for Twenty20 internationals, 5 overs need to be bowled for the side chasing. This is delicious irony: A 23-over game is a no-result because 20 overs haven't been bowled, while a 20-over game could have a result if 5 overs have been bowled!

Labels: england, icc, lunch, new zealand, odi, ostrich, playing conditions, rain, rules, tea

Thus spake Jagadish @ 6:17 pm | Sledge/Read 1 sledge(s)
Did you like the post? [ Subscribe to the blog feed - | | Tweet ]

Muhammad bin Tughluq is the ICC's consultant

Muhammad bin Tughluq was a Sultan of the Tughlaq dynasty which ruled over northern India in the 14th century CE. He attempted to move the capital from Delhi to Daulatabad, in modern day Maharashtra (Mumbai is the capital of Maharashtra, for those who may not know). But his plan was to get the entire population of Delhi to move to Daulatabad (1000+ km away). The plan was a sure fiasco right from the start, and a couple of years later, he pressed the 'Undo' button and got the population to move back to Delhi.

The ICC has always displayed characteristics of an ostrich.

In my post after the PCB's Anti-Doping Appeals Committee let Shoaib Akhtar and Mohammad Asif get away scot-free, I referred to a Pakistan v West Indies ODI which was washed out.

The second farce that happened in Pakistan cricket was the news that Inzamam will return to international cricket tomorrow after the first ODI against West Indies was washed out without even the toss having taken place.

The ICC decided, quite stupidly in my opinion, in 2004 that a game was deemed to have started as long a the toss had taken place. So, in the light of there not having been a toss at Rawalpindi, that game doesn't count as a recorded one-day international.

Hence Inzamam should actually be sitting out for one more game to ensure that he completes his ban period of four one-day internationals.

The ICC now seems to be veering around to the idea that it was a bad decision in the first place. In a media release dated yesterday, the ICC announced that for this World Cup, that earlier decision wouldn't hold good. i.e. if a toss took place and rain prevented any play, then the reserve day would have a new toss and the teams could be changed. The first day wouldn't count towards player caps and that it would count as one match having taken place, not two.

But the ICC also adds that this change of playing conditions is only effective for the World Cup and that a decision would be taken in May. The idea was pathetic at the outset anyway and objected to by several statisticians and followers of the game. It made no sense. The ICC is now only going half-way towards pressing the 'Undo' button. Let's hope sanity prevails in May this year!

Labels: 2007 world cup, icc, ostrich, rain, toss, world cup

Thus spake Jagadish @ 12:14 pm | Sledge/Read 0 sledge(s)
Did you like the post? [ Subscribe to the blog feed - | | Tweet ]

High farce in Pakistan

Yesterday, an 'Anti-Doping Appeals Committee' constitued (sic) by the Pakistan Cricket Board, ruled that Shoaib Akhtar and Mohammed Asif were not guilty of committing doping offences (timeline) since the administration never did anything to warn them against taking supplements.

Almost exactly a month ago, Shoaib and Asif had been banned for two years and one year respectively by the Pakistan Cricket Board's Anti-Doping Commission. On October 16th, Shoaib and Asif were sent home from the ICC Champions Trophy in India by the PCB after failing a PCB-organized pre-tournament doping test.

The World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) has not yet reacted to the judgement and are currently awaiting the ostrich's reaction to the decision. (Update: The ostrich has reacted.)

I find this decision highly farcical. Sportspersons who're caught in doping scandals almost always resort to the 'No-one told me about this' stand. Given that the PCB, and the ICC, are signatories to the WADA code, a generic application of the 'exceptional circumstances' clause could invite a further appeal from WADA.

This decision by the PCB's commission comes only a few days after Dick Pound, chairman of WADA, blasted Cricket Australia's 1-year ban on Shane Warne after he tested positive for using a diuretic before the 2003 World Cup, in his book with the shortest title ever, 'Inside Dope: How Drugs Are the Biggest Threat to Sports, Why You Should Care, and What Can Be Done About Them'.

The second farce that happened in Pakistan cricket was the news that Inzamam will return to international cricket tomorrow after the first ODI against West Indies was washed out without even the toss having taken place.

The ICC decided, quite stupidly in my opinion, in 2004 that a game was deemed to have started as long a the toss had taken place. So, in the light of there not having been a toss at Rawalpindi, that game doesn't count as a recorded one-day international.

Hence Inzamam should actually be sitting out for one more game to ensure that he completes his ban period of four one-day internationals.

Labels: akhtar, asif, drugs, mohammad, ostrich, pakistan, shoaib, shoaib akhtar

Thus spake Jagadish @ 5:17 pm | Sledge/Read 5 sledge(s)
Did you like the post? [ Subscribe to the blog feed - | | Tweet ]

Clive Lloyd in trouble after hitting out at Vaughan

Clive Lloyd went hammer and tongs at Michael Vaughan accusing him of being rude and dismissive during the disciplinary hearing to judge on his comments about the decisions taken regarding the light by the umpires. He felt that Vaughan had not respected Clive Lloyd's position as match referee. Lloyd exactly endeared himself to the cricketers community and the Professional Cricketers Association has objected to his comments, pointing out that he is not allowed to comment about any hearing/tour/game in which he has been involved. The ostrich has so far not commented too much on the issue, except to point out that it prefers if the issues are sorted out away from the spotlight.

Labels: match referee, ostrich

Thus spake Jagadish @ 2:46 pm | Sledge/Read 1 sledge(s)
Did you like the post? [ Subscribe to the blog feed - | | Tweet ]

The England-Zimbabwe series starting on 26^th November is in serious danger of being cancelled after the Zimbabwe government banned several English media organizations from covering the series. Among them were The Times, The Telegraph and The BBC while The Guardian and The Independent were spared.

The ostrich is still waiting for clarification from the ZCU. The players will be meet their representative before taking any further course of action even as the ICC President Ehsan Mani indicated that the ECB could withdraw from the tour without penalty if a majority of the ICC board approved of it.

Jonathan Agnew calls for the tour to be called off while Henry Olonga feels that England could be isolated if they pull out now.

Labels: ostrich

Thus spake Jagadish @ 7:42 pm | Sledge/Read 0 sledge(s)
Did you like the post? [ Subscribe to the blog feed - | | Tweet ]

Dileep Premachandran is not far off the mark when he questions the Indian media's attitude towards its cricketers vis-a-vis the way the Australians are portrayed as being unable to do any wrong. How many columns by Australian journalists and cricketers have you come across in the newspapers or on various websites? The Hindu has Aussies Adam Gilchrist, Greg Chappell and Ian Healy while Srinath represents the lone Indian presence. Mike Marquese and Peter Roebuck provide the neutral voices. The Indian Express has Peter Roebuck and Harsha Bhogle. Websites arent any different. Rediff has Langer and Healy. Compare it to the Australian newspapers/websites. I'd really doubt if you can find a single Indian voice there. I'm not prescribing an ostrich approach of not accepting criticism/opinions from foreigners but the absence of a balancing Indian viewpoint means that Indian readers become even more biased against their team.

We've seen in the past when Steve Waugh became Udayan's benefactor and the Indian media latched onto everything he did and bemoaned the fact that Indian cricketers didnt bother about supporting charitable causes. This was far from the truth, as Ganguly, Dravid, Tendulkar and Kumble pointed out. It was just that they didnt carry out charity with publicity in mind.

Labels: aus v ind 2004, ostrich

Thus spake Jagadish @ 6:20 pm | Sledge/Read 0 sledge(s)
Did you like the post? [ Subscribe to the blog feed - | | Tweet ]

On a day of farcical developments in cricket, the ostrich (aka the ICC) finally took some much delayed action on the circumstances surrounding Zimbabwe's position as a test nation and matches played against this current Zimbabwean side. However it was rebuffed by the ZCU when the board didn't meet ICC Chief Executive Malcolm Speed who had in fact been invited by the ZCU in the first place. Speed had given the ZCU 24 hours to sort out all issues with the rebel players so that the team which plays Australia in the test series would be a full-strength one, including the rebel players.

I wonder why the ostrich took so long to start talking tough on this matter. It was on April 2^nd 2004 that Heath Streak resigned as Zimbabwe captain when his demand for reconstitution of the selection panel so it had former test/first-class cricketers was rejected. So for over 45 days, the ICC kept quiet, relying on the ZCU to sort out the matter in-house. Meanwhile, a Zimbabwe team led by Tatenda Taibu, who in the process became Test cricket's youngest ever captain, was routed in two Tests by Sri Lanka, with the tests lasting 3 and 4 days each. Zimbabwe's next opponents were Australia, who've been the best test side in the world for nearly the last decade.

I am concerned that the ICC didn't act before Sri Lanka's tour. Do Zimbabwe's twin thrashings at the hand of Sri Lanka, by an innings and nearly 250 runs each, not discredit test cricket any less than the possibility of Australia piling up 1000 and shooting Zimbabwe out in both innings for sub-100 totals? Why did the ICC wait until it was Australia's turn to play? Is test cricket sacrosanct only when it comes to Australia?

Labels: ostrich

Thus spake Jagadish @ 11:30 am | Sledge/Read 0 sledge(s)
Did you like the post? [ Subscribe to the blog feed - | | Tweet ]