World Cup - Surprise picks and omissions

Similar to India's 1 surprise pick & Sri Lanka's 2 surprise omissions in their 2011 World Cup squads, most other teams had at least one selection that was odd.

Australia picked Brett Lee and David Hussey, who hadn't played any internationals for nearly 1.5 years. With the tournament being played in the sub-continent, Australia picked 1.6 specialist spinners (Steve Smith bowls 6 overs per game on an average). Now that's a bizarre pick. Australia's part-time spin options are David Hussey (2 overs per game before he was picked in the squad) and Cameron White (2-3 overs per game when he had the skipper's trust and had not even bowled a single ball since August 2009). With 5 quicks & an all-rounder, clearly Australia are relying on pace to win. Seems like a gamble to me.

Despite investing nearly a year in Craig Kieswetter and Steve Davies, England went back to Matt Prior. Other than that, the squad seems reasonably balanced, with a couple of bits-and-pieces players in Luke Wright & James Tredwell.

Luke Woodcock is the unknown player in New Zealand's squad. He hadn't even played an ODI before he was picked. The squad seems weak on the batting though, and the opening slot hasn't yet been sorted out.

Pakistan didn't have any major surprises in the squad, but they did come up with one bolter. They didn't name a captain! That said, the batting definitely looks shaky with only Younis Khan & Misbah having the skills to do a good job with the middle overs. Only 2 specialist spinners were picked, which seems odd for a Pakistani side playing a World Cup in the sub-continent.

South Africa, by contrast, picked 3 specialist spinners, 2 of who are newbies. South Africa's problem is with #6, #7 and #8. Having dropped Boucher, who used to come in at #6 & #7 and salvage a crisis, they don't have too many experienced players to fill up those slots. The batting essentially ends after Duminy (typically at #5).

West Indies have picked just 5 bowlers (3 quicks & 2 spinners) and are obviously hoping that Dwayne Bravo will bowl his full spell and pick up wickets regularly.

The other omission was that of Eden Gardens. The ground won't host the India v England game & the match will now be played at Bangalore. But there seems to be some ambiguity around it. Kyazoonga, the official ticketing partner, doesn't list the India v England game. Does this mean backroom negotiations are still going on, and Eden Gardens will get the game?

Actually, the Cricket Association of Bengal, which is really the main agency to be blamed for the fiasco, should just relinquish its hosting rights for the other games at the ground, each of which is guaranteed to bring in crowds of at least 90000.

Labels: 2011, 2011 world cup, australia, england, new zealand, pakistan, south africa, squad, west indies, world cup, world cup squads

Thus spake Jagadish @ 1:54 am | Sledge/Read 97 sledge(s)
Did you like the post? [ Subscribe to the blog feed - | | Tweet ]

Cricket's governance crisis

It's very tempting to categorize the News of the World "exposé" as a problem endemic to Pakistan cricket. After all, less than 6 months ago, the Pakistan Cricket Board announced what was essentially a purge of players who were alleged / proved to have not been on their best behaviour during the thrashing in Australia.

The recommendations were:

After careful and detailed analysis of the events, the personal accounts of the team management and players and examination of record, videos and statistics, the unanimous recommendations of the Committee were as follows:

1. Mohammad Yousuf and Younis Khan keeping in view their infighting which resulted in bringing down the whole team, their attitude has a trickledown effect which is a bad influence for the whole team should not be part of national team in any format.

2. For the shameful act of Shahid Khan Afridi, which has brought the game and country into disrepute, he be fined Rupees Three Million. A warning be issued to him by the Chairman PCB and he be put on probation for 06 months, during which his conduct be strictly monitored.

3. Kamran Akamal be fined Rupees Three Million. A warning be issued to him by the Chairman PCB and he be put on probation for 06 months, during which his conduct be strictly monitored.

4. Umar Akmal be fined Rupees Two Million. A warning be issued to him by the Chairman PCB and he be put on probation for 06 months, during which his conduct be strictly monitored.

5. Rana Naved-ul-Hasan and Shoaib Malik be fined Rupees Two Million. They should not be part of national team in any format for a period of one year.

Recommendations of the Inquiry Committee have been accepted by PCB in totality.

The recommendations of the Committee will go a long way to arrest the continuing decline Pakistan cricket and improve the state of cricket in Pakistan. It is a landmark exercise which is an outcome of labor and hard work of the members of the Committee.

The punishments lasted less than 3 months. Only Rana Naved-ul-Hasan has not been 'pardoned'. Younis' ban was lifted although he has not been picked yet. Mohd. Yousuf was recalled for the last 2 tests of the series against England. Shahid Afridi was even made captain after revoking his fine. Kamran and Umar Akmal were let off with lower monetary fines. Shoaib Malik's one year ban was over-turned and his fine was slashed by 50%.

The ICC definitely has little jurisdiction over the PCB's player-handling procedures. Maybe, that's why it did not raise a red flag. Neither did any of the other members of the ICC Executive Board. However, if it was so obvious that the PCB's administration was effectively cocking-a-snoop at all those who were for stronger punishments and a cleaner game, was it not even talked about at the board meeting in July?

Just as the IPL's governing council was culpable of sleeping when Lalit Modi & co. ran rings around it, the ICC's board is equally to blame for not asking the PCB tough questions.

Questions are being asked about why the Anti-Corruption and Security Unit (ACSU) of the ICC was blissfully unaware of what was going on. A couple of months ago, it confirmed that Mohammad Aamer was not using a mobile phone while waiting for his turn to bat. In hindsight, that clean chit seems so premature!

From a player management perspective, I have serious doubts over whether some of Pakistan's players even want to play international cricket. Pakistan didn't play a single test in 2008 and have not played at home since the terror attack on the Sri Lankan team bus in March 2009.

Under these circumstances, I'd assume that they'd be raring to go, make an impression and show the positive side of Pakistan cricket. The emergence of Umar Akmal, Mohd. Aamir, Wahab Riaz, Saeed Ajmal, etc. gave cricket fans some hope. No more.

Now, as was the case for around 5-6 years in the 1990s and 2000, every single collapse will be viewed with suspicion. Every single recovery by an opponent will generate debate. The worst part is that the suspicion will not be about Pakistan alone. All fans, across the world, will wonder about events in a game.

Did Pakistan 'throw' the Sydney test against Australia earlier this year? If so, how did Mohammad Sami, among Pakistan's crappiest and most inconsistent quicks in the last decade, just turn up 3 years after playing a test and rip through Australia's top order? Why has he not been picked again since that game?

Other countries are hardly above board.

It's hard to not laugh when Hayden says "I believe it is a shock to cricket and if I can talk on behalf of Australian cricket and the playing group, it's just not even in our DNA to accept any kind of skulduggery when it comes to the game of cricket". He's just suffering from a little amnesia. Heard of John, Mark and Shane, Matty?!

This year, Danish Kaneria and Mervyn Westfield, who play for Essex, were arrested on spot fixing charges.

There's hardly a major cricket playing country which hasn't been touched by match fixing or spot fixing allegations.

This is yet another opportunity to get things right. The last 10 years have certainly been better from a control over 'fixing in cricket' compared to the 1990s, but the events in the last 2 days have clearly shown that there's a long way to go!

There's a leadership crisis and the ICC must step in. So far, it hasn't said anything. The first thing it must do is to stop the ODI series between England and Pakistan. It is unfair & ridiculous to expect fans, and players, to turn up, knowing in advance that specific events in the game have already been agreed to in lieu of money, or even worse, that the result has been fixed.

Secondly, the ICC must demand that countries stop revoking bans or penalties without a proper appeals process being adhered to. The appeal should only be heard by a group of eminent leagles (legal eagles!) and well-respected cricketers. National jurisdiction makes no sense unless the ban / penalty was applied for events in domestic cricket.

Thirdly, the ICC and the ECB must demand that Pakistan not do something stupid every time they land up in the country to play a test series. In 2010, it is about no-balls. In 2006, it was over changing the condition of the ball. In 2001, it was again about no-balls. In 1996, it was a libel case. In 1992, it was about ball tampering and snatched sweaters.

Labels: ban, crisis, governance, icc, leadership, match fixing, pakistan

Thus spake Jagadish @ 12:00 am | Sledge/Read 9 sledge(s)
Did you like the post? [ Subscribe to the blog feed - | | Tweet ]

A moronic run-out decision

Yesterday, in the Bangladesh v Pakistan game at the Asia Cup, Pakistan's Umar Amin was declared run out by the third umpire for no apparent reason.

He had driven the ball to long-on and taken a single. Since the bowler, Mahmudullah, was bowling from around the wicket, Umar walked across to the other side, oblivious to the fact that his bat was not grounded and no part of his person was grounded behind the 'popping crease' at the bowler's end.

Mahmudullah saw this and took off the bails. The on-field umpire got confused and handed over control to the third umpire. After multiple views, Umar Amin was ruled out.

This, despite law 23 (Dead ball) explicitly saying that a ball was dead when it was finally settled in the hands of the wicket-keeper or the bowler. Yes, the bowler's end umpire has to be satisfied that the fielding side and both batsmen also considered the ball to not be in play.

But even the smallest bit of common sense would indicate that there was no way Umar was attempting a second run. He was switching ends.

The ball was most definitely not in play.

Where's common sense when you need it most?

At least in the Murali run-out by McCullum instance, Murali actually walked out of the crease. Whether it was to attempt a second run or to congratulate Kumar Sangakkara is a moot point.

In Umar Amin's case, there's no way he was out!

Labels: asia cup, bangladesh, laws, pakistan, umpires

Thus spake Jagadish @ 2:16 pm | Sledge/Read 0 sledge(s)
Did you like the post? [ Subscribe to the blog feed - | | Tweet ]

ICC and PCB - The 'unfathomables'

The ICC announced last week that the Cricket Committee recommended the DRS be used in all test series as well as the 2011 World Cup.

Yet again, the ICC will be conducting an experiment in their flagship event. Before the 2006 Champions Trophy in India, the ICC announced that reviews would be introduced at the tournament and, if successful, would be in force during the 2007 World Cup.

Thankfully, sanity prevailed a couple of months later, and the executive board threw that idea out of the window.

The DRS has so far, to the best of my knowledge, never been used in limited over internationals (50 overs or 20 overs). Without trialling it in bilateral series or other 3-4 nation tournaments, it would be downright stupid to use a World Cup to introduce the reviews system.

We still don't know how much time would be spent in a typical 50 over game on both teams appealing against the umpires' decisions. Wouldn't that result in the game being stretched beyond the normal 3 hr 30 mins / 3 hr 45 mins duration?

The ICC wants the broadcaster to shell out the money for the technology used. Maybe the right way to 'sell' the concept to the broadcaster is that they would have at least 10 minutes more per innings of telecast time, and thus something like 30-40 more advertisement slots.

The ICC's argument is that poorer (associate & affiliate) countries that don't benefit from the DRS shouldn't have to subsidize countries that will play games using the reviews system. The broadcaster's counter-argument should be that they don't want to pay up for a system that is unproven, and could potentially work against their favourite team.

Imagine if ESPN-Star, Sky Sports or the Nine Network paid up for the DRS, and the decisions kept going against India, England or Australia. For sure the broadcaster, and the audiences, would hate it!

From all evidence so far though, there is a lot more fine-tuning needed with the DRS, and I humbly submit that the World Cup is not the stage for a trial.

On 9 March, the PCB banned 4 players (2 indefinite, 2 for 1 year) and fined 3 others, who were placed under probation for 6 months.

Less than 3 months later, 2 of those banned and all the 3 who were fined are in a probables list for the Asia Cup and a tour of England. The 16 year-old ball-muncher is made captain.

I apologize. I totally give up trying to make sense out of the ICC's and the PCB's actions.

Labels: 2011 world cup, afridi, ban, icc, pakistan, reviews, selection

Thus spake Jagadish @ 1:29 am | Sledge/Read 2 sledge(s)
Did you like the post? [ Subscribe to the blog feed - | | Tweet ]

The 2009 T20 World Cup - quite eventful

Yesterday, England and Pakistan won the women's and men's T20 World Cup titles.

Both teams played excellently throughout the tournament, and really peaked when it mattered - in the semi and the final. The England women's team was unbeaten in the tournament (and in fact set a record for the highest successful chase in Women's T20 internationals) while Pakistan's men lost 2 games (against England [men] & Sri Lanka). While Sri Lanka seemed to have run short of motivation yesterday, Pakistan's short-pitched bowling ploy early on was wonderfully executed.

It is so ironic that players from the current World T20 championship winning team will not be part of the Champions Twenty20 League. Oh, have you ever seen a more 'broken' official site?

Aside from Australia's early journey to Leicester, the other stories that captured everyone's attention were (in no specific order):

• India's exit at the Super Eight stage following losses to England (!!!) and West Indies. As is usual, multiple theories started doing the rounds, such as player fatigue, infighting, lack of skills and overly focussed on ad-shoots, to name a few. The truth, as usual, probably lies in-between everything else.
  
  Fatigue is an ever-present reality in modern sport, especially when new forms of the game keep getting invented and commercialized. Players are supposed to know when their minds and bodies can't take it any longer. If India's players want a break, they always have the option of opting out, preferably an entire series/tournament so that there's some stability in the squad. If they believed that the IPL was far too lucrative to miss out on, then they could have opted out from the ODIs in Sri Lanka or the games in New Zealand. They could have also opted out of the upcoming [pointless] ODIs in West Indies.
  
  The fact that they chose to not do any of the above indicates one of three things:
  1. They are not fatigued
     
  2. They are fatigued but fear that they'll lose their place to someone who steps in while they're away
     
  3. They are fatigued but are in a 'will play for money' mode
  
  Last May, when Pieter$en revealed that he was almost certainly signing up for an IPL team a few months after complaining about burnout, I wrote

  My take on there being too much cricket is that players always have the option of opting out of series. Typically the only players you'll see complaining about too much cricket are those that play the most often, and hence are the 'star' players. Surely they've performed well enough to risk skipping a game or a series and not face a piquant situation where they won't be included next time around. Also, if a sufficiently large number of players keep opting out of tournaments, cricket administrators will realize that they may be doing a lot of damage to the golden geese.

  Gary Kirsten, India's coach, had already voiced his excuse warning prior to the tournament that fatigue would be India's biggest challenge.
  
  He was only partly right. I don't think India failed to make it to the semi-finals because of fatigue. They failed to make it to the semis because they couldn't cope with West Indies and England using the short ball to great effect. They had no plan-B. They failed to make it to the semis because the batting order bizarrely got revamped. In 'easy' games against Bangladesh and Ireland, Dhoni came in at #3. But when it was time to face the music, Raina was sent in. Where's the leadership?
  
  
• If its Pakistan in England, there must be some dark arts involved. Vettori's "informal approach" to the match officials (the umpires and the match referee, presumably) and his post-match interview comments after New Zealand got their arse whipped by Pakistan were totally unwarranted. Umpires, especially those standing in Pakistan games, will undoubtedly be examining the ball far more closely after the events at The Oval in August 2006.
  
  
• Messrs. Duckworth & Lewis made an entry during this tournament after West Indies were set a ridiculously easy target of 80 from 9 overs, with the luxury of all 11 batsmen available to have a hit, against England. Frank Duckworth, who along with Tony Lewis, devised the system, has revealed plans to rework the numbers by incorporating Twenty20's duration and far more frenetic pace.
  
  I'd really love the rules to be changed to allow only 6 players to bat and allow a maximum of 6 overs per bowler. I really don't see the possibility of this happening (because of the stupid sanctity around 11 players making up a cricket team). So I'll probably settle for the D/L method tweak restricting the [additional] number of wickets that can be lost by the chasing team. Just compare a team knowing at the start of the innings that it has 10 wickets in hand to chase down 80 in 9 overs with the team knowing it only has [say] 6 wickets to play with.

Labels: ball tampering, burnout, duckworth-lewis method, england, fatigue, india, pakistan, sri lanka, twenty20, twenty20 world cup, vettori, women

Thus spake Jagadish @ 1:17 pm | Sledge/Read 2 sledge(s)
Did you like the post? [ Subscribe to the blog feed - | | Tweet ]

Breaking news: Pakistan will not co-host the 2011 World Cup

As noted on a twitter update just now, Reuters reports that the ICC has ruled that Pakistan will not co-host the 2011 World Cup.

If you have an opinion about who's to blame for this move, pick from the options below!

	The PCB
	The ICC's double standards
	The BCCI and Sri Lanka Cricket
	Rest of the world (Australia, England, New Zealand, South Africa & West Indies)
	The Indian Premier League
Pollhost.com

Labels: 2011, 2011 world cup, breaking news, icc, pakistan, security, terrorism

Thus spake Jagadish @ 8:06 pm | Sledge/Read 1 sledge(s)
Did you like the post? [ Subscribe to the blog feed - | | Tweet ]

Younis Khan makes yet another 250

Younis Khan, the Pakistan captain as of 3.50 pm IST on 24 Feb 2009, is now the 10th player to make multiple scores of 250 or above. The astounding bit about that list is that Don Bradman, in making 5 scores of 250 or more, hit two sixes while Graeme Smith didn't hit a single six!

Pakistan have made nearly ~ 500 so far and have avoided the follow-on. Since it has been clear for the past couple of days that on that pitch even Pommie Mbangwa & Chris Martin would have scored in double digits, I tried to find out which country's pitches were the most batting friendly.

So I took tests from the last 5 years where the team batting second made 400+ and either had a slim lead (< 50) or were trailing big time (thereby implying that the team that batted first had made something like 550-600). There were a total of 35 instances, out of which 15 were drawn games.

Tests played in England and India contribute 7 instances while Australia and Pakistan have 6 each. The number of tests played in that period in the 4 countries was 35 (England), 30 (Australia), 27 (India) & 17 (Pakistan). This implies that Pakistan has a much higher frequency (35%) of dull dreary tests where the first innings of both teams result in huge scores. The frequencies for the other countries are India - 26%, England and Australia - 20% each.

I guess over the first couple of days of this test, Pakistan's cricketers (& fans) would have been wondering about the need to play tests because after all, if you if you don't play, you can't concede 600+!

Update: Sri Lanka's first innings total of 644 is the highest total to have been overtaken in a test. The previous highest was 588, jointly held by South Africa at Antigua in 2005 (Gayle scored a triple) and Pakistan at Faisalabad in 2006 (Dhoni and Irfan Pathan saving face for India).

Labels: pakistan, statistic, younis khan

Thus spake Jagadish @ 12:17 pm | Sledge/Read 0 sledge(s)
Did you like the post? [ Subscribe to the blog feed - | | Tweet ]

YAPTC - India will not tour Pakistan in 2009

India's tour of Pakistan, which has been in jeopardy right from the time the Pakistani link to the terror attack in Mumbai in November was identified, has now been officially called off. It is unclear if the 'prevailing circumstances' that the Indian government mentions relates to the security situation in Pakistan or the breakdown in diplomatic relations in the last 2-3 weeks.

In any case, there's little the PCB can do, since the ICC will not interfere when governments take decisions. The ICC can only interfere when a cricket board pulls out without government advisories to back the decision.

In 2003, a few months before India toured Pakistan after 14 years, I introduced the acronym YAPTC. I wrote

Pakistan has been crying itself hoarse over the last year or so about how it is a very safe place to play cricket, barring bombings in cities where matches are scheduled.
India's official stance against playing in Pakistan should be that it cannot risk sending its players and citizens to a place where there is a VERY big threat perception.
The point is that we should not tour Pakistan. Purely for security reasons. Nothing else.

In my opinion, the Indian government's decision is right, for the simple reason that India's cricketers would be sitting ducks in Pakistan given the huge potential for terrorist groups there to seek revenge for being banned. I know a lot of folks would say this robs fans of the chance to follow an eagerly awaited series, but that is secondary. The safety and security of cricketers should be the priority.

The other concern is the fate of the ICC Champions Trophy 2008 2009. If India continues with its policy of not sending its cricketers until the political/diplomatic/security situation improves, that tournament could also be cancelled.

Labels: india, pakistan, security, terrorism, yaptc

Thus spake Jagadish @ 3:20 pm | Sledge/Read 5 sledge(s)
Did you like the post? [ Subscribe to the blog feed - | | Tweet ]

Mohammad Yousuf joins the ICL, but had he ever gone away?

A little over a year after speculation began that Mohammad Yousuf had joined the Indian Cricket League, he confirmed the news in a press conference yesterday.

Yousuf and the ICL go back a fair distance. First, he joined the ICL. Then, faced with the possibility of the PCB banning him, he backed out and wanted to join the Indian Premier League. After that, he was dragged to court by the ICL since he had obviously reneged on a contractual obligation.

Then, he couldn't play in the IPL tournament earlier this year since the ICL folks correctly reckoned that he would be breaching the contractual obligation if he played in that tournament. Meanwhile, since he had informed the PCB that he was no longer associated with the ICL, he was picked for series against South Africa and India where he failed in the tests but did very well in the ODIs.

Despite the PCB fighting his case against the ICL on his behalf, he has now opted to join the ICL, barely a day after being named in an ODI squad against the West Indies. The Pakistan Cricket Board has obviously banned him now.

In other news, a Lahore court lifted the life ban on Saleem Malik imposed as a result of the Justice Qayyum investigation into the match fixing controversy. Once that was out of the way, he declared that he had been offered the post of the head coach of the National Cricket Academy, which the PCB denied.

Meanwhile, when he came to know about Malik's claim, Rashid Latif promptly resigned, and as is expected with Pakistan cricket, reversed his decision within a day.

Pakistan cricket could be going through a very tough phase potentially lasting a year at least! The national side is ranked six in tests and ODIs. There's no cricket scheduled in Pakistan for the foreseeable future aside from the series against India.

There was a change in the PCB administration following the presidential election. There has been a change in the coach before the tenure ended (Intikhab Alam replacing Geoff Lawson). The current captain is being pilloried by everyone, and not everyone in the cricketing circles is convinced he can hold his place in the test side. Two of their stalwart bowlers, Mushtaq Ahmed & Waqar Younis, have been lured away for coaching positions with the ECB.

Labels: indian cricket league, mohammad yousuf, pakistan, saleem malik, twenty20

Thus spake Jagadish @ 11:50 pm | Sledge/Read 0 sledge(s)
Did you like the post? [ Subscribe to the blog feed - | | Tweet ]

Mushtaq Ahmed retires from county cricket after his right arm goes on strike

For the past few years, the only competitive cricket Mushtaq Ahmed had been playing was while representing Sussex, the 2007 County Championship winners, in England's domestic tournaments. Hence, his retirement from county cricket also potentially means an end to his cricket career. It is unlikely that he will play in Pakistan's domestic tournaments for two reasons: his knee trouble is obviously troubling him, and he signed up for the ICL. Nevertheless, the book cricket league can use his skills!

The Sussex CCC press release says

Taking 598 wickets in all competitions and bowling over 26,000 overs, Mushtaq has bowled his way in to the record books and has become an integral part of the Sussex community.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but that amounts to a wicket every 43 overs. In my opinion, that is quite a pathetic strike rate (260+ balls per wicket). Admittedly it includes bowling in limited overs games where you could go 2-3 games without a wicket despite bowling 10 overs each time. Even then, a strike rate of 260 is abysmal. I know its probably unfair to compare it with test bowling strike rates, but Mushy would be at #2 in the all-time worst strike rate list! Funnily enough, #1 is Asoka de Silva, a very ordinary umpire who was in the wilderness for the past couple of years but is now #1 in the ICC's Elite Panel of umpires (#1 since the list is in alphabetical order!)

But there seems to be something fundamentally totally wrong about that stat. Mushy's been playing for Sussex since 2003. Over 6 years, if he's bowled 26000 overs, it works out to 4300+ overs per season. That is one heck of a bowling effort! In the previous 3 seasons, for which I was able to dig up information on Cricinfo, he had bowled 1894 overs in first-class cricket, 334 overs in List A games & 70 overs in T20 games, amounting to a total of 2298 overs in those forms of the game across 3 seasons. How could he have bowled 4300 overs a season!?

Then I suspected something. Could it have been 'over 26000 balls' instead of 'over 26000 overs'? That seemed a possibility, since it would have worked out to a strike rate of 40 or so. It was confirmed from CricketArchive's listing of Mushtaq Ahmed's bowling statistics for each team he represented in first-class, List A and Twenty20 games. He had bowled 26503 balls for Sussex, taking 598 wickets for them (strike rate of 44.32, avg. of 25.37).

Needless to say, this was a stupid gaffe from Sussex! Even worse, every single news agency and website used the numbers without any sort of thought about whether it made sense!

I didn't see too much of him, but whatever I did, convinced me that he would definitely be in my list of top 10 spinners over the last 15 years. He ends up with over 1400 first-class wickets.

He was Pakistan's assistant coach during the 2007 World Cup.

Labels: book cricket, england, mushtaq ahmed, pakistan, retire, statistic, sussex

Thus spake Jagadish @ 11:50 am | Sledge/Read 0 sledge(s)
Did you like the post? [ Subscribe to the blog feed - | | Tweet ]

More torture for ODI cricket watchers

The 2007 World Cup lasted nearly 1.5 months and involved 16 teams. It is common knowledge and opinion that the tournament was really and got boring far too often for one that was touted as the ICC's flagship tournament.

At least the ICC is doing something about the format for the 2011 World Cup.

But when it comes to a 'much-ado-about-nothing' tournament, nothing beats the Asia Cup. Beginning tomorrow, the cream of Asian cricket (6 teams) will feature in the tournament, over a span of 2 weeks. The tournament is eagerly expected to be very tightly fought with Bangladesh, Sri Lanka and UAE in one group while Hong Kong, India and Pakistan are in the other group.

I'm fairly sure that the organizers reckon that there is always the likelihood of an upset by UAE or Hong Kong which could throw up a surprise 2nd round lineup. But I'd reckon the chances of that are lesser than the probability that the ICC will wake up to its responsibilities, or indeed the likelihood that someone will clarify why the BCCI announces decisions on ICL players playing in the Champions League when Cricket Australia is supposed to be drawing up the rules!

Instead of getting the tournament done and dusted with as soon as possible by having the top 2 qualifiers from each group play in the semi finals, spectators & viewers will undergo the torture of watching these 4 teams play in a league. The schedule doesn't make it immediately apparent, but it seems like the top 2 from that league play in the final.

It gets even more sickening when you realize that 3 out of the 6 teams were playing in a triangular barely 10 days ago. So the organizers could have just had one single tournament, the Asia Cup, and donated some money to the Bangladesh Cricket Board instead of having the triangular tournament there!

Yet another case of ODI cricket digging its own grave.

Labels: asia cup, bangladesh, hong kong, india, minnows, odi, pakistan, scheduling, sri lanka, uae

Thus spake Jagadish @ 3:50 pm | Sledge/Read 0 sledge(s)
Did you like the post? [ Subscribe to the blog feed - | | Tweet ]

Shoaib Akhtar banned for five years

In a dramatic decision, the Pakistan Cricket Board announced that Shoaib Akhtar had been banned for 5 years for violating the players' code of conduct, a document that I'm unable to locate on the PCB website.

As per the ICC code of conduct, a ban of 2-5 years is imposed on a player in the following situations:

• Betting on a game/series where the player/his team was a participant.
  
• Tried to sweet-talk someone else into betting.
  
• Gambled on a game/event.
  
• Tried to sweet-talk someone else into gambling.
  
• Received money/benefit/rewards for providing weather, team and pitch information.
  
• Received money/benefit/rewards and thus brought the game into disrepute.
  
• Provided money/benefit/rewards and thus brought the game into disrepute.
  
• Was approached to bet/gamble/provide information but didn't disclose the event to designated staff.
  
• Is aware of another player doing so but didn't report to the designated staff.

Was Shoaib's offense more severe than the above? Now, he cannot play for Pakistan or in Pakistan. Does this mean he will stick to the IPL? His fee is $425,000. Given the number of times he gets injured, he is unlikely to earn that full amount.

Perhaps the ICL is a better prospect, especially for a guaranteed income. In addition, the IPL is played in a very limited period of time (April-May). If Akhtar wants to play cricket for a longer duration, the ICL is a better place to display his wares.

Labels: akhtar, ban, indian cricket league, indian premier league, ipl 2008, pakistan, shoaib, shoaib akhtar, twenty20

Thus spake Jagadish @ 11:07 pm | Sledge/Read 2 sledge(s)
Did you like the post? [ Subscribe to the blog feed - | | Tweet ]

ICC gets a few things right at least

The ICC's board met yesterday and there were quite a few significant announcements.

• It emphasized that bilateral series commitments would take precedence over IPL. Now will the WICB do something about Gayle, Chanderpaul and Sarwan who say they will play in the IPL rather than against Australia? I suppose player contracts would have clauses that prevent players from plying their trade elsewhere when they are required to turn out for the national side. That aspect can and should be enforced against Gayle, Chanderpaul and Sarwan. Unlike the bans imposed on ICL players, I don't think this is a restraint of trade situation.
  
• The Zimbabwe Cricket Union gets away scot-free despite the continued scrutiny over the handling of ICC-released funds for over three years now.
  
• The format for the 2011 World Cup is finalized. My post a year ago or so proposed only the top 8 teams having an automatic qualification while the remaining teams play against the ICC trophy finalists in a round-robin manner with the top 2 making it to the main draw. The main draw would have 2 groups of 5 teams each, played in round-robin. The top 3 from each group qualify for a Super Six round with the top 4 being the semi-finalists. There'd be a total of 42 games played, 32 of them being in the main tournament. Subsequent comments argued (rightly) for the second stage being a quarter-final knockout. This'd reduce the number of main draw games to 27. The ICC's thinking is on the lines of all 10 full ODI playing countries being joined by the top 4 finishers from a qualified (presumably the ICC trophy). The 14 teams are split into 2 groups of 7 each. The top 4 from each group go on to play quarter-finals and the winners of the quarter finals play the semis. This means there'd be 28 47 (2 x 7C2 + 4 + 2 + 1) games. Perhaps, in the interest of 'inclusivity' in cricket, the ICC's format is acceptable. That's far too many games!
  
• Player referrals will be trialled from South Africa's tour of England this summer. I eagerly look forward to player revolts, especially by lower order batsmen and part-time bowlers, against captains and team management, who discourage them from appealing against on-field umpire decisions so that the better batsmen or bowlers can benefit, just in case the appeal isn't worth it.
  
• Darrell Hair, who was hung out to dry in around November 2006, has been reinstated and will be eligible to umpire games between full member teams until March 2009, when his contract expires. This was always the right thing to do. Darrell Hair is a good umpire. He isn't incompetent, when you compare him with Bucknor or Benson. He took a harsh decision on 20 Aug 2006, but it was the right decision.
  
• Imtiaz Patel has been 'selected' as the CEO, but the negotiations are not yet done. Last year, we saw a similar situation with the farce around Graham Ford's appointment, and subsequent withdrawal, as India's coach. Why did the ICC put its foot firmly in its mouth by prematurely announcing Imtiaz Patel's name when he hadn't even agreed?!

Labels: 2011, 2011 world cup, ball tampering, forfeit, hair, icc, indian premier league, ipl 2008, oval 2006, pakistan, reviews, scheduling, twenty20, west indies, world cup, zimbabwe

Thus spake Jagadish @ 4:19 pm | Sledge/Read 0 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 ]

Will he do it again?

In April this year, Rudi Koertzen was part of the elite group of umpires who wanted Australia and Sri Lanka to come back the next day to complete the final of the 2007 World Cup.

At Bangalore, bad light has just stopped play on day five with Pakistan having 3 wickets in hand, needing to get 212 runs and win or bat out 11 overs and draw.

Will Koertzen ask the players to come back tomorrow?

Labels: bad light, bangalore, india, koertzen, pakistan, umpires

Thus spake Jagadish @ 4:26 pm | Sledge/Read 1 sledge(s)
Did you like the post? [ Subscribe to the blog feed - | | Tweet ]

A stat question

Yuvraj and Ganguly helped India recover at Bangalore from 61/4 by putting on 300. This must be one of the rare instances of a 300-run partnership on day one of a test match.

A couple of others that come to mind are Taylor & Warne Marsh in the 1989 Ashes and Gibbs & Smith against West Indies in 2004. How many such instances are there?

Labels: bangalore, ganguly, india, pakistan, statistic, yuvraj

Thus spake Jagadish @ 6:45 pm | Sledge/Read 4 sledge(s)
Did you like the post? [ Subscribe to the blog feed - | | Tweet ]

A stats post

VVS Laxman got his second test wicket, the first being Adam Sanford, in 2002.

Rahul Dravid and Anil Kumble combined for the 51st time in test cricket. They're now level with Taylor & Warne. Murali and Jayawardene have the record, with 63 dismissals.

PS: I really hope India bat out the next 1.5 days at Eden Gardens, ensuring that Pakistan's bowlers are not fit enough to take the field at Bangalore. The escape scripted by Misbah, Akmal and Sami would have given them a lot of motivation, so declaring would be a pretty poor idea.

Labels: catching, dravid, fielding, india, jayawardene, kumble, laxman, murali, pakistan, statistic, taylor, warne

Thus spake Jagadish @ 1:09 pm | Sledge/Read 0 sledge(s)
Did you like the post? [ Subscribe to the blog feed - | | Tweet ]

More power to test cricket

It's a bit odd, really. The first forty four tests between India and Pakistan yielded 33 draws/no-results. The next 13 tests have seen only 3 draws! Out of those 3 draws, one was drawn due to some excellent rescue acts while the other two games were drawn because of flat pitches.

I think the Kotla test was played out on a very good test wicket. The pitch did have some uneven bounce earlier on, but on days 3 and 4, it was very good for batting. Bowlers who were able to exploit the pitch and the swing, did very well. It wasn't a bat-a-thon wicket. Neither was it one of those Kotla specials!

I don't know the crowd numbers for yesterday, but I believe around 38,000 watched the third day from the stadium. That is very good going for a test match in India. I really hope Eden Gardens and Chinnaswamy also produce good wickets and ensure players put up a good show.

Labels: india, pakistan, pitch

Thus spake Jagadish @ 2:48 pm | Sledge/Read 1 sledge(s)
Did you like the post? [ Subscribe to the blog feed - | | Tweet ]

That déjà vu feeling!

Pakistan's top order has been 'blown away' on the first day of the Kotla test at Delhi.

Is this a mandatory happening in an Ind-Pak test series?

Labels: deja vu, india, pakistan

Thus spake Jagadish @ 1:01 pm | Sledge/Read 0 sledge(s)
Did you like the post? [ Subscribe to the blog feed - | | Tweet ]

Five runs penalty for Pakistan, again!

One of Inzamam's first acts on returning to the Pakistan team for his farewell test was to accidentally palm the ball onto the helmet behind Kamran Akmal, thereby costing Pakistan five runs.

38.4 Mohammad Asif to Prince, no run, outside off, and he gets the edge at last, falls short of Inzamam at slip, Akmal may have reached that if he had dived, the ball comes off Inzamam's hand, rolls away and into the helmet, 5 penalty runs given

The significance of this is that it was a rather uneventful act in comparison to the last time he/his team were involved in an act which cost five runs.

Delicious irony and coincidence, considering this happened just one day before Darrell Hair withdrew his allegations of racial discrimination by the ICC.

Labels: ball tampering, forfeit, hair, inzamam, oval 2006, pakistan, retire

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