If the law supposes that, then the law is a ass - a idiot

I'm no fan of Formula-1 racing, but what happened at Hockenheim in the German Grand Prix on Sunday was odd. Felipe Massa seemed to be following instructions to slow down, so that his teammate Fernando Alonso could win and give his team a better chance of winning the drivers' championship.

Scuderia Ferrari's (and Massa's) actions were in violation of clause 39.1 of the the 2010 Formula-1 sporting regulations, which explicitly prohibits team orders interfering with the race and clause 151.c of the FIA International Sporting Code.

I've not been able to figure out what the penalty should be as per the rules, but a monetary fine of $100,000 seems ridiculously low.

Unless the FIA does something real quickly and changes the rules to prevent such gaming of the system, I'm fairly sure that teams will attempt to repeat what Ferrari did.

We saw a similar example at the football World Cup recently where Luis Suarez (Uruguay) (possibly) deliberately obstructed the path of the ball with his hand in the last few minutes of extra time in his team's quarter-final against Ghana.

The FIFA laws resulted in him being sent off immediately, with a red card against his name, and a penalty awarded to Ghana.

Ghana failed to convert the resulting penalty, and eventually also fluffed the penalty shoot-out.

Did Ferrari or Luis Suarez do anything wrong under the rules of the game as they existed then? Of course, not!

Were the penalties strict enough?

In Ferrari's case, a fine of $100,000 is a pittance, considering their market value was estimated at over $1.5 billion last year.

The rules should ideally deduct points for such an offence, and force the team (not just the individual drivers) to be the last team to start the race, right at the back, regardless of the position achieved in the qualifying race. Actually, it's probably better if fossil fuels are conserved by disallowing the team from the qualifying race.

In Uruguay's case, it was the difference between a quarter-final stage exit (Ghana would have gone 2-1 up with about a minute to go), at least $4 million richer and a shot at reaching the tournament final. In Luis Suarez's case, it was the difference between going home a losing quarter-finalist and a hero who gave his side every chance of winning the quarter-final.

The rules should ideally award a goal to the team when the referee or linesman deduce that the player's action was deliberate, preferably through TV reviews and replays. This would be in addition to sending off the player after flashing the red card.

In my opinion, unless there are significant disincentives (including monetary ones), sportspersons (as well as teams & administrators) will attempt to push the envelope.

What's the linkage to cricket?

Someone famous (not sure who) wrote about Australia's cricket team that they would do anything to win - play within the rules, push them to the limit, and if necessary, go beyond them.

Is it Australia's fault that umpires and match referees fail to spot the obvious?

Is it Ricky Ponting's fault that the match referee Chris Broad warned Mohammed Aamer although it is quite obvious from the video that Ponting elbowed him, rather than the other way around?

Is it Sachin Tendulkar's fault that he keeps getting away with running on the centre of the pitch while others get hauled up for much lesser offenses?

Can you blame a team if it goes really slow with the bowling over rate to prevent the opposition from winning a test?

Can you blame a team if it decides to take the 2nd best option, having ruled out a win, of being thrashed and conceding a bonus point so that a 3rd team was (virtually) ruled out of contention for a finals slot?

Can you blame a team if it decides to slow down the chase so that a 3rd team would have a tougher chance of qualifying, since the rules meant that it would be carrying over 2 lesser points if the 3rd team qualified for the next round?

The administrators are responsible for drafting up laws that make sense, coming up with penalties that are appropriate, and most importantly, implementing them consistently.

This topic has a lot more immediate relevance given what's transpiring in Sri Lanka.

Unless the laws of the game are changed such that touring captains are always deemed to have won the toss, we might as well fast forward to the end of the game with the scorecard predictably reading "Sri Lanka 630/7d, Tourists 276 and 309 ao. Sri Lanka won by an innings and 45 runs".

PS: The title of the post is from Oliver Twist.

Labels: australia, behaviour, icc, laws, match referee, over rates, sri lanka

Thus spake Jagadish @ 11:03 pm | Sledge/Read 2 sledge(s)
Did you like the post? [ Subscribe to the blog feed - | | Tweet ]

Andrew Symonds can start fishing again, Ponting plays preacher

Australian cricket fans and followers would have heaved a sigh of relief (certainly the coach and captain did!) as Andrew Symonds was named in the squad for the Gabba test against New Zealand.

Is it an indicator of how uncertain Australia's selectors are that they've announced a squad for only the first test of a two test series?

In any case, my main concern is about whether the commentator (on television, radio or the internet) will say 'fishes outside off-stump' if and when Symonds does so.

Will Symo go and beat up the commentator, or will he hire MacGill, Hayden or even Harbhajan to do that job?

Somehow the Australians seem to be in 'The Nile' denial about the fact that they got the over rate calculations horribly wrong and the resulting decisions went a long way in determining the series outcome. Hayden first said that the problem also lay with batsmen, officials, spectators in third world countries, etc.

I know there's a huge furore in India about his remarks. I'm not really bothered about it. When Australia's players make stupid excuses, it is an indicator of how much they're actually worried about their game & the team.

Ponting now acts as the elder statesman of the game by preaching about how it is everyone's responsibility. This, despite Ponting (& by implication, Australia) already having been hauled up a whopping five times in the year (Perth test, Sydney ODI, St. Kitts ODI, Jamaica test ,Nagpur test) for a slow over rate. Surprisingly, or perhaps not so surprisingly, enough, none of those instances are found in the ICC's penalties list for 2008, but I did find them on the media releases list.

The next worst teams in terms of being penalized for over rates are Sri Lanka & South Africa (3 each). After that England (2) and then a whole set of teams with 1 each - India, Hong Kong, Pakistan, West Indies & Bangladesh.

So exactly what's Ricky Ponting talking about when he says it isn't a problem restricted to Australia alone? He really needs to set his house in order first before preaching to others!

Update: I just found out to my dismay that Daniel Vettori, the New Zealand captain and skilful spinner, will turn 30 in a couple of months! How ridiculous is that? I thought he'd remain the 23-25 year old forever. At any rate, that's how he's been all these years!

Labels: australia, over rates, symonds, vettori

Thus spake Jagadish @ 6:11 am | Sledge/Read 0 sledge(s)
Did you like the post? [ Subscribe to the blog feed - | | Tweet ]

What a series, pity about the pitches though!

A fantastic series came to an end with India winning at Nagpur to win the series 2-0 and bring back the Border-Gavaskar Trophy after 4 years.

Like I wrote fairly early on, partnerships at the top and the bottom proved to be crucial. Five out of the 50+ run partnerships for the first wicket were by India's openers. Right from around the time Harbhajan & Zaheer put on 80 at Bangalore, the momentum switched to India. Australia's woes got compounded with the Harbhajan-Dhoni partnership in India's final batting dig of the series.

Barring a couple of sessions here and there, the momentum stayed with the home team. India won most of the crucial sessions. Amazingly enough for a side as good as Australia, far too often they eased up the pressure when they had India by the unmentionables.

Is that an indicator of the quality of personnel on either side, the captaincy, luck, pluck, or a shift in on-field power equations? I'd still say that Australia started the series as favourites. But a lot of their personnel misfired at the same time. With the exception of Mike Hussey & Simon Katich, there was no consistency in the batting. Matthew Hayden, Michael Clarke & Ricky Ponting fired only once or twice all series. In the case of the bowling, it was worse. Brett Lee & Stuart Clark just didn't turn up (strike rates of 111 & 219) and Johnson's numbers were hardly a true reflection of how ineffective he really was.

The fairytale story of Jason Krejza hid a very obvious problem: Australia thought they'd be better off playing Cameron White as a second all-rounder, and they got what they wanted (some decent stands with the lower order, but precious little with the ball). It was bloody obvious to most folks that White really shouldn't have played after Mohali (3/120 in 27 overs in the game on a pitch that helped spin). Yet, Ponting & the selectors persisted with him. Krejza was thrown in to the deep end when there was nothing to lose, and he showed White how to purchase his wickets. There'll surely be more innings when Krejza bowls far better for worse returns, but his out-of-the-blue performance should give Australia some hope for the future.

Several questions can be asked about Ricky Ponting's captaincy, for worrying about the opposition when he had enough issues on his plate such as team selection, consistently calling heads despite it not working out for two tests in a row, the field placements which meant Gambhir & Sehwag scored at will in the second test, prioritizing speeding up the over rate above breaking partnerships for the third time in the last 10 months, etc.

For all the pre-series talk of 'new age cricket', in terms of %age of runs scored in of their runs in 1s, 2s & 3s, the numbers were 49% for Australia & 53% for India. Even better, India's run rate when it came to scoring 1s, 2s & 3s was 1.85 an over while Australia's was 1.46 an over. Both teams were even when it came to the run rate for boundaries and sixes - India's was 24.47 an over while Australia's was 24.37.

Realistically, the only gains for Australia from this series have been, in descending order of an index (expectation + impact): Krejza, Hussey, Watson, Katich & Siddle. As a team, they have regressed. If it weren't for Clarke himself having a bad time, the knives would normally have been out for Ponting. Unless of course, the Aussie selectors want to take a bet on making Hussey captain. Australia's upcoming series against New Zealand & South Africa provide great opportunities for easing out Hayden from the opener's slot, given that Jaques & Marsh are waiting in the ranks. We could also see Andrew Symonds returning, thus giving Australia a better middle-order and an extra spin bowling option.

Yet, it isn't a case of all being hunky-dory for India. The fact that they won without two of the bulwarks (Kumble & Dravid) performing is an indicator of the depth available and the good form that the rest of the players were in. Kumble has now retired, but questions will be asked about how hungry Rahul Dravid is to get his batting (and amazingly enough, his slip catching) sorted out before the tests against England.

India's biggest gains from the series have been Dhoni's refreshing captaincy & his beginner's luck, the batting form of Gambhir, Sehwag, Tendulkar & Laxman, Ganguly & Kumble retiring with able replacements in the wings (Ganguly's middle order replacement is as yet undecided, with Badrinath, Rohit Sharma, Yuvraj Singh & Suresh Raina being the contenders) and the pace bowling department whose bench strength (Sreesanth, Munaf, RP Singh) is fairly impressive.

Australia losing this series doesn't mean they're not the best side. They obviously are, and do have the ability to stay there for a while. India have just reinforced the fact that they've caused Australia the most troubles over the past 8-10 years. It is going to be a fascinating battle between India, South Africa, England & Sri Lanka for the bragging rights to be called Australia's replacement if Australia do slip up majorly over the next year or two.

The main problems though are with the BCCI. Sparse crowds & slow pitches do not help the cause of test cricket at all. India has hosted the highest number, and highest percentage, of drawn games in the last five years. Overall, I think the series mostly sucked, in the context of the quality of cricket played. The placid pitches meant the play was mostly defensive in nature, and most of the time that strategy didn't work.

How much more interesting would this series have been had the pitches aided bowlers just a tad more than they eventually did? How much more enjoyable would the series have been for fans had they got access to (far flung) stadiums at reasonable rates without having to pay through their nose for five day tickets? Given that the bulk of the revenue for host associations in India comes from the sale of advertisement hoardings etc. at the stadium, they should just set rock-bottom prices to entice more spectators. It was ridiculous that when Tendulkar got past Lara and Sourav Ganguly made his last bow (only the Englishmen Billy Griffith & John Hampshire have scored a century in their debut innings and a duck in their last), there was just about enough of a crowd for it to be called a half-full (or is that half-empty?) house.

Here are a few statistical indicators of how huge this series win is: Australia have lost only 4 series in the last decade. Australia's two worst test defeats in the last decade came in this series and this was the first time in nearly a quarter of a century that Australia failed to win a single test in a series of 4 or more matches.

Update: I have this nagging feeling Australia have got away with it yet again with a fine of 20% for Ponting & 10% for the rest of the folks. This is the third time in 2008 that Australia is being fined for a slow over rate.

It happened in the Perth test against India and then during the triangular one-day series game at Sydney.

Penalties for over rates are level 1 offences. As per the 'Guidelines for Offences' section of the code of conduct, a repeat of a level 1 offence within 12 months would upgrade the new offense to a level 2 offence, which carries a penalty of 50-100% of the match fee and/or a 1 test/2 ODI ban. Has the ICC's database conveniently broken down again, like it did when Judge Hansen was not made aware of Harbhajan's history? The two penalties I mentioned above aren't even listed on the list of breaches & penalties in 2008 on the ICC's website. Go figure!

It seems to me that Ponting was scared of a test/ODI ban and that's why he used part-timers to speed up the over rate. Turns out that Broad was either ignorant, ill-informed, or just plain incompetent and so he's not considered it to be a repeat offence. Henceforth, Ponting won't bother about a possible ban on account of a slow over rate, because he knows that the match referee will invariably look the other way.

Labels: aus v ind 2008, australia, icc, india, match referee, over rates, pitch, statistic

Thus spake Jagadish @ 11:48 am | Sledge/Read 5 sledge(s)
Did you like the post? [ Subscribe to the blog feed - | | Tweet ]

Will Australia be hauled up for a poor over rate?

Slow over rates are one of my favourite gripes about cricket. It isn't about a specific team. India, especially when Ganguly was captain, have been guilty on several occasions, and have rightly copped the penalties. It's about giving value to the paying public (including those in the comforts of their living rooms). The ICC has a responsibility to ensure that the game is played for the maximum time possible (without being dogmatic about start and end times, especially when there is enough light), and when weather conditions aren't ideal, then alternate arrangements (floodlights, for e.g.) need to be made. Teams have a responsibility to ensure that they bowl as many overs as are mandated.

One of the indicators that Australia were in trouble with the over rate yesterday was when Hussey bowled 8 overs, having bowled only 11 overs in his previous 27 tests. Someone please tell me how Ponting was planning to speed up the over rate with Hussey, when Clarke bowled just one over. In fact, a few tests ago at Perth, Ponting was forced to bowl Clarke and Symonds in tandem to do something about the over rate during India's second innings. As a result, India went from 182/6 after 45 overs (a lead of 300) when Symonds & Clarke started bowling in tandem to 234/6 after 61 overs (a lead of 350+). It was to prove crucial in the context of the match. Despite the attempts to speed things up, there was a monetary penalty imposed.

Overall, during the Mohali test, this is how the over rate table looked. The ICC's code of conduct specifies that the minimum over rate for tests should be 15 overs per hour, and allowances can be made for wickets falling, drinks breaks, medical treatment, TV referrals, etc. I don't have details about time spent on medical issues or third umpire referrals. I suspect there weren't too many, at least not significant enough to impact the over rate substantially. The weather wasn't oppressively hot and humid requiring frequent drinks, including in-between overs.

Team bowling	Inning #	Overs	Time taken (min)	# of wickets taken	# of drink breaks	Net time taken (min)	Over rate bowled	# of overs short
Australia	1	129	594	10	5	556	14	1
India	2	101.4	454	10	4	420	14.4	0.2
Australia	3	65	291	3	3	275	14.2	0.4
India	4	64.4	287	10	3	257	15.1	-0.1
Summary
Australia								1.4
India								0.1

So, Australia were at least 1.4 overs short at the end of the game. Clause 5 (c) (i) of the ICC's code of conduct for players & officials says

for each of the first 5 overs short of the minimum overs required 5% of each Player's match fee in the fielding side, in the case of the Captain the amount shall be 10% of the match fee

Hence, Ricky Ponting must forego 10% of his fee while the rest of the players (does it only refer to the playing XI?) should each fork out 5% of their match fee.

Actually, failure to ensure the minimum over rate is maintained is a level 2 (2.11) offense. A repeat of a level 2 offense within 12 months automatically upgrades the new offense into a level 3 offense, which carries bans (2-4 tests or 4-8 ODIs). Since Australia have already been hauled up earlier this year, Ricky Ponting should be banned for 2-4 tests or 4-8 ODIs.

But will it actually happen? Chances are it won't. At Perth and during the one-day triangular series that followed, Australia benefitted when the number of overs short was incorrectly determined. Even worse, a repeat offense wasn't even factored in.

Labels: aus v ind 2008, over rates

Thus spake Jagadish @ 3:57 pm | Sledge/Read 6 sledge(s)
Did you like the post? [ Subscribe to the blog feed - | | Tweet ]

Australia helped by ICC rules?

Australia was fined for a slow over-rate in yesterday's ODI against India at Sydney. Ricky Ponting copped a 20% match fee fine under Clause J-5 of the ICC code of CONduct which prescribes a 5% match fee cut for the players (and 10% for the skipper) for the each of the first 5 overs short of the minimum overs which should have been bowled.

So far so good. Except, Australia were well in excess of 2 overs short. They bowled 49.1 overs in 225 minutes. Being 2 overs short implies they overshot the time allocation by ~ 10 minutes. Which is obviously untrue since they overshot it by 25 minutes!

During the Perth test match last month, Australia were fined for being 2 overs short. This, when they bowled 98 ov in 450 min (> 45 min delay => at least 10 ov lag) and 80 ov in 360 min (> 30 min delay => at least 7 ov lag). Yet, the penalty was for being 2 ov slow.

The code of conduct considers a 5 over lag in a test and a 2 over lag in a ODI as a level 2 offense (50% or more of the match fee as penalty and/or a 1 test/2 ODI ban). The match referees' decisions to report that Australia were lagging by 2 overs implied that Australia couldn't be charged with a level-2 offense. Further, a repeat of a level-2 offense within 12 months upgrades the 2nd offense to a level-3 offense which warrants a 2-4 tests or 4-8 ODIs ban.

Ergo, Ricky Ponting should have actually been banned after this hearing. Yet, like we've pointed out here, some get away, and some don't. Maybe the fact that the penalty for the Perth game isn't even listed on the ICC website in the 2008 breaches & penalties section means that he managed to get away thanks to yet another ICC administrative screw-up.

PS: Were you surprised when Ponting made runs on the best batting track in the one-day series? I'm not! You can also vote in the new poll: "Are Ricky Ponting and Andrew Symonds cricket's worst whiners?"

Labels: australia, ban, Commonwealth Bank Series, icc, india, match referee, over rates, umpires

Thus spake Jagadish @ 6:41 pm | Sledge/Read 2 sledge(s)
Did you like the post? [ Subscribe to the blog feed - | | Tweet ]

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 ]

ICC announces calculator shortage

The headline must be the only reason why the match referees in England's tour of India, Ranjan Madugalle (tests) and Roshan Mahanama (one-day internationals) haven't [so far] found it fit to do something about England's abysmal over rates. I've already written about England's tardy over rate in the tests. Today, it went to new heights depths. England took 236 minutes to bowl 49 overs in the second one-dayer at Faridabad. So they were effectively 40 minutes (10 overs) behind the mark.

England's bowling lineup today had four seamers and one spinner. Obviously the four seamers take that much more time to get through their overs. But that isn't an excuse England can dole out. It is their problem - they can pick seven fast bowlers, but they still need to bowl the 50 overs on time.

Isn't it lovely to watch two consecutive games where the scores have been in the 200-230 range? There was this one-day match a couple of weeks ago where one chap threatened to get 200 and both teams got more runs in one innings than India & England have got in their two digs so far!

Labels: over rates

Thus spake Jagadish @ 6:41 pm | Sledge/Read 4 sledge(s)
Did you like the post? [ Subscribe to the blog feed - | | Tweet ]

Slow over rate?

England's over rate in the series has been abysmal. At Nagpur, England took 587 minutes to bowl 137 overs and 361 minutes for 78 overs. Given that the expected rate is 15 overs per hour, they were behind the over rate by huge margins. To bowl 137 overs, you really ought to take only just over 9 hours (137/15). 587 minutes is nearly ten hours! So England were nearly 40 minutes slow in the first innings. 78 overs should have taken just over 5 hours (78/15). They took six hours, nearly 50 minutes longer.

At Mohali, they took 460 minutes to bowl 96 overs, when you really should be bowling 96 overs in around 6 and a half hours. 460 minutes is more than seven and a half hours!

For what it is worth, all stoppages of play, including drinks breaks, bad light, rain etc. etc. are factored in while calculating the minutes of play. I can't see any reason why Flintoff and the rest of the England team should not be held accountable for slow bowling. Being a greenhorn captain is surely no excuse! Unless of course, if Madugalle has misplaced his calculator.

India have been guilty in the past on quite a few occasions of not bowling their overs on time. This series though has been a revelation. They took 430 minutes to bowl 104 overs at England in the first innings at Mohali, ten minutes behind schedule. Today, they bowled 25 overs in 1 hour 45 minutes, five minutes late. They were on the dot in the first innings at Nagpur and ten minutes behind in the second innings.

Labels: over rates

Thus spake Jagadish @ 1:56 pm | Sledge/Read 2 sledge(s)
Did you like the post? [ Subscribe to the blog feed - | | Tweet ]

Ponting gets away with it ... so far

During a shameful batting, bowling and fielding performance at Trent Bridge, Australia bowled 123 overs in 537 minutes in England's first innings and 32 overs in 168 minutes in England's victorious chase. Taken individidually, that works out to 13.7 overs an hour and 11.4 overs an hour respectively. Eleven and a half overs per hour is an appalling over rate. Yet, nothing has been done about it, so far at least. Katich and Ponting have been fined for outbursts following their dismissals though.

I really do think that Ponting (and the rest of the Aussie contingent) are harping too much on England's use of substitutes. Perhaps they ought to remember that Simon Stephen Peters' missed run-out attempt at Old Trafford ultimately benefitted them. Plus England were using a 37-year old Trevor Penney for a fair bit of the game yesterday (and perhaps earlier as well). But this is obviously not the crux of my argument.

Sourav Ganguly and Graeme Smith were banned for similar 'offenses' and their punishments were in fact upgraded to the next level since they'd already been culpable earlier during the year. It isn't as though Ponting hasn't been charged with his team's slow over-rate so far. He'd already been fined twice, in 2004 and 2005.

Nothing was done about it when Australia were two overs behind the mark in a one-dayer against New Zealand last year or when South Africa bowled slowly against India during last year's tests. In fact we're of the opinion that the ICC should step in and fine teams which play boring cricket and bat as if the game was a timeless Test.

Amidst the slow over-rate and anger over dismissals, Ponting faces the wrath of his entire cricket-crazy nation, and a few other bloggers too, for the now realistic possibility that England could win the Ashes. A win at The Oval would save him a lot of blushes, but a drawn series against England, after being 1-0 up, would be hard to stomach. Two weeks ago, I wrote that the series could only get boring henceforth given what had happened in the first three tests. For most of the first four days, I was proved right. England piled up nearly 500 at less than four an over.

Australia's bowling has been really crappy. They bowled 30 no-balls in the test, and have bowled 90 in the eight innings so far. Effectively, 15 overs more at England with no hope of getting a wicket, unless any of the batsmen were going to be brainwashed into attempting an impossible run. I can recall a few instances of the batsman actually getting out on a no-ball and later piling on the agony. If Buchanan's job is not to ensure that things like these are sorted out, he should either be getting a bowling coach as part of the support staff.

Warne bowled just 30 overs in England's first innings and was the only one to have any sort of control over the proceedings. I find it hard to explain how Lee and Kasprowicz bowled more overs than Warne did in England's first innings. Australia's batting display, in both innings, was pathetic. Hayden must surely be on the verge of being dropped now. His batting has dropped off alarmingly over his last 15 tests, coinciding with his lack of success in India last year. Katich just about saved his slot with a couple of forties and was perhaps unlucky to be given out yesterday. Gilchrist would probably be somewhere in seventh heaven because he actually got out to someone without a a dodgy elbow and who isn't an all-rounder (although Hoggard would dispute that claim given the runs he made yesterday!).

England batted, bowled and fielded (minus Kevin Pietersen's catching horrors) superbly. Without Simon Jones available to bowl, they still managed to dismiss Australia. That gives you a proper idea of how poorly Australia is batting at the moment and how England's bowlers seem to have the wood on the opposition batsmen. Despite a couple of breathtaking catches, I think their fielding is a very weak link. Geraint Jones performs twice or thrice better in front of the stumps than behind them. I think England are just plain lucky that none of the dropped catches or missed stumpings have cost them badly yet. Hang on, actually it did. Pietersen's dropped catch off Warne at Old Trafford meant that Warne ate up some more valuable time.

With just 129 to win, I was expecting England to knock off the runs quickly, given the way Australia's bowlers had operated in the first innings. At the same time, I was hoping for some sort of a fight from the bowlers. Lee and Warne were magnificient and after Lee cleaned up Flintoff, followed shortly thereafter by Jones playing a brainless lofted shot off Warne, Australia were effectively just a hat-trick away from an amazing victory! The tailenders batted very sensibly and Lee's full-toss which conceded a boundary to Hoggard sealed the game. Lee must be thoroughly gutted by now. He's been part of the end-game in three consecutive close tests without winning any! Shane Warne has been a total colossus for Australia. He has batted far better than most any of the top order batsmen and his bowling has held together during England's assaults. Coincidentally, England's victories have come when McGrath has been absent. Perhaps that is a pointer to ensure that he is fit for the last test.

There're two ways to look at the way this series has turned out. One is that Australia have been a whisker or two away from victory in the last three tests, which means that they still know how to win. The other point of view, and in my opinion the correct perspective, is that Australia've been doing all the running for the first three-quarters or so of every game since Lord's. So England have done excellently in getting to the position from where they can now hope for rain for the next week.

I think that is exactly what is going to happen at London. After a couple of day's play when Australia find themselves in a good position, it will rain and Australia's 16 year-old hold on the Ashes will be released. Just what is it about Australia and the number sixteen? Their loss at Calcutta in March 2001 followed a sixteen test winning streak! Yes, I am now resigned to the idea.

So what does the rest of the media world think about this? Feel free to click on the links to the various sites to find out. Right now, I'm far too angry to bother linking to news reports of gloating Poms!

Labels: ashes, ashes 2005, over rates

Thus spake Jagadish @ 1:55 pm | Sledge/Read 6 sledge(s)
Did you like the post? [ Subscribe to the blog feed - | | Tweet ]

Graeme Smith joins Sourav Ganguly on the sidelines

Because of his side's slow over rate in the thriller at Barbados, Graeme Smith has been banned for four one-dayers.

The nature of the ban is more or less similar to that imposed on Sourav Ganguly following India's poor over rate at Ahmedabad. Interestingly enough, both these games were thrillers.

Smith has been given a four match ban because this was his team's second incident of bowling slowly in the last year. He had also apparently been warned and advised on various other occasions in the past year about South Africa's slow over rate. I cant see too much of a difference between what Ganguly and Smith have been accused of breaching. Both their penalties have been upgraded from Level 3 to Level 2 since this was the second instance in twelve months. The only difference in Ganguly's case is that his bowlers bowled slowly in the immediate previous game while Smith's bowled slowly last September. So why does Smith get four matches while Ganguly got six matches?

South Africa's bowlers, Langeveldt and Ntini had fines imposed on them for excessive appealing. I find it odd that while Langeveldt has been fined for not appealing, the charge is for excessive appealing. So how exactly does not appealing count as being excessive?!

The ICC's website lists out over rate related decisions by year.

Labels: over rates

Thus spake Jagadish @ 12:03 pm | Sledge/Read 0 sledge(s)
Did you like the post? [ Subscribe to the blog feed - | | Tweet ]

Sourav Ganguly banned for six one-dayers

Match referee Chris Broad announced that Indian captain Sourav Ganguly had been banned for six one-day internationals for violating sections of the ICC Code of Conduct since his bowlers did not complete their quota of 48 overs within the prescribed time limits during yesterday's close match at Ahmedabad. It may be recalled that he was fined 70% of his match fee at Jamshedpur.

Seen in isolation, Ganguly copped the fine because he was clearly unable to ensure that his bowlers and fielders wasted as little time as possible during Pakistan's innings. The fact that he did not question Broad's decision or offer excuses means that he knew he was at fault. Well, lets put it this way: The Indian team was at fault and since the captain is responsible for the actions of his team members, he will have to take the blame. Ganguly is not a first-time offender and he knows the repercussions of a slow over-rate, having come very close to being banned last year. The ICC went by its rules, and in any mature system, what is of paramount importance is following the rule of law. I completely support the decision because I have also earlier argued in these columns the need for teams to bowl more overs in a day's play. Rod Marsh has expressed concern about falling over rates and his issues need to be addressed in a firm manner by the ICC.

That said, my concerns on the ICC's inherent inconsistencies still remain. I can think of a few instances in the recent past which bolster my argument that the ICC's officials and systems do not act consistently.

During the second one-dayer at Vishakapatnam, Inzamam and Razzaq were involved in a mixup which caused Inzamam's runout, and thereby possibly ensured that Pakistan lost the game. People who saw Inzamam's reaction when he returned to the pavillion are convinced that he actually did throw his bat, in spite of his coach's assertions that the bat slipped out of his hands. For what he did, Inzamam got away with a reprimand. Perhaps Broad was nostalgic about his playing days.

There's of course the ongoing saga of Harbhajan being called for chucking again in spite of the ICC clearing him.

Michael Vaughan was fined his entire match fee for implying that the umpires were inconsistent in deciding about bad light conditions when England were on tour in South Africa.

Danish Kaneria was fined his entire match fee in spite of not having any history of being called up by the match referee in total contrast to Andrew Hall being let off even though he had been invited by the match referee on a couple of occassions, presumably to discuss the weather.

Sehwag copped a 65% fine for showing displeasure at being given out lbw when there was an obvious inside edge. But in discovering the new spirit of walking, a few Australian cricketers obviously did not agree to the umpire ruling them not-out. Nothing was done about those instances.

Glenn McGrath's past history did not come into the picture at all when he was let off with a paltry fine for swearing after an lbw appeal was turned down.

Then you have Darren Lehmann saying that he was disappointed with the way his racial abuse issue was handled.

Once again, the ICC's choice of match referees is totally bizarre. Chris Broad adjudicates on equipment abuse while Clive Lloyd rules on slow over-rates.

The ICC definitely needs to clean its own stables. If it continues to be inconsistent, it is bound to lose the respect of the players, commentators and fans.

Labels: match referee, over rates

Thus spake Jagadish @ 3:20 pm | Sledge/Read 0 sledge(s)
Did you like the post? [ Subscribe to the blog feed - | | Tweet ]

ICC needs to set its house in order

Last week Ponting observed that more stringent over-rate rules, as suggested by Rod Marsh, would result in negative cricket, with captains more concerned about getting through the overs quickly rather than take wickets. Ian Chappell hopes Ponting is wrong and has some suggestions for the ICC so that they can implement the necessary changes.

Labels: over rates

Thus spake Jagadish @ 4:10 pm | Sledge/Read 0 sledge(s)
Did you like the post? [ Subscribe to the blog feed - | | Tweet ]

Rod Marsh asks for tougher action on slow over rates

Rod Marsh has called upon the ICC to get stricter when teams bowl ridiculously slowly. The issue of slow over-rates currently has been discussed quite a few times in these columns. One of our suggestions to improve test cricket would indirectly increase the number of overs a team bowls in a day.

Labels: over rates

Thus spake Jagadish @ 1:37 pm | Sledge/Read 0 sledge(s)
Did you like the post? [ Subscribe to the blog feed - | | Tweet ]

Speed up Brett

Darren Lehmann has urged Brett Lee to speed up his over-rate.

Labels: over rates

Thus spake Jagadish @ 1:47 pm | Sledge/Read 0 sledge(s)
Did you like the post? [ Subscribe to the blog feed - | | Tweet ]

Bob Woolmer is now on the verge of pleading with Shoaib to reduce his bowling run-up which would mean more overs in a spell as well as a better over-rate.

Labels: over rates

Thus spake Jagadish @ 1:02 pm | Sledge/Read 0 sledge(s)
Did you like the post? [ Subscribe to the blog feed - | | Tweet ]

Ricky Ponting nearly nearly dug a hole for his team during yesterday's win against New Zealand when he kept had Lehmann and Hogg bowl a couple of overs of spin to speed up the over-rate. New Zealand hit 26 runs in two overs and were back in the [ultimately elusive] hunt. Australia bowled 47.1 overs in 219 minutes. New Zealand bowled 50 overs in 228 minutes. Both teams were effectively two overs behind the normal 15 overs per hour overrate. Yet no action was taken, in much the same manner as South Africa got away with a ridiculous over-rate in India recently. Why?

Labels: over rates

Thus spake Jagadish @ 6:33 pm | Sledge/Read 0 sledge(s)
Did you like the post? [ Subscribe to the blog feed - | | Tweet ]

Sambit Bal finds that a former Indian test player had views similar to those expressed here on the issue of Ganguly being hauled up for a slow over-rate in the game against Pakistan a few weeks ago.

He makes a valid point about South Africa's slow overrate at Kanpur. India played a total of 134.4 overs in 609 minutes. At the rate of 15 overs per hour (i.e. an over every 4 minutes), South Africa should have bowled at least 152 overs (609/4). But they bowled 17 overs less, effectively taking an hour more to bowl their overs. Now why wasnt that acted upon?

In India's first innings in the current Calcutta test, South Africa bowled 150 overs in 650 minutes. They should have bowled 150 overs in 600 minutes, effectively again taking nearly an hour more. Will this be acted upon?

Labels: over rates

Thus spake Jagadish @ 11:38 am | Sledge/Read 0 sledge(s)
Did you like the post? [ Subscribe to the blog feed - | | Tweet ]

Surely if the ICC charges captains for being responsible for the slow overrate bowled by the bowlers, it must do something about abysmally slow runrates and hold captains responsible for boring play. A few suggestions have been made earlier in these columns.

Labels: over rates

Thus spake Jagadish @ 3:28 pm | Sledge/Read 0 sledge(s)
Did you like the post? [ Subscribe to the blog feed - | | Tweet ]

I find it totally ironical that Clive Lloyd was the match referee who adjudged that Ganguly was responsible for India's slow overrate in their match against Pakistan. Lloyd's team of the 80s was culpable of bowling around 70-80 overs in a day and he did nothing to improve it. Its a bit like Geoff Boycott blasting say Mohd. Kaif for not hitting big sixes at the end of a one-day innings or ripping into Nehra when he misfields/drops a catch. Or Krish Srikkanth chiding Ganguly for playing a rash shot.

Labels: over rates

Thus spake Jagadish @ 4:38 pm | Sledge/Read 0 sledge(s)
Did you like the post? [ Subscribe to the blog feed - | | Tweet ]

Though the batsmen seemed to get back to form, while the loss to Pakistan would have hurt the Indians, there was more bad news coming there way with Ganguly being suspended for the next 2 Tests for slow over rate. This is inspite of delays beyond his control like dew, ball changes and injuries to Pakistani batsmen. The BCCI has appealed against the ICC's judgement and that means that Ganguly is permitted to play international cricket pending the result of the appeal. Imran Khan has questioned the ban and offered support to Ganguly.

In addition, Yousuf Youhana and Irfan Pathan were fined for not observing the Middle-East code of conduct which forbade a re-enactment of the Crusades.

Labels: over rates

Thus spake Ganesh @ 1:50 pm | Sledge/Read 0 sledge(s)
Did you like the post? [ Subscribe to the blog feed - | | Tweet ]