Stop the gimmickry to save ODI cricket

Yesterday, it was revealed that Cricket Australia had the latest and greatest plan to revive ODI cricket.

It includes "double gaaji" for a select player, bowlers allowed to bowl 2 bouncers per over, flexibility on leg-side wides, limiting the number of fielders outside the 30 yard circle, requiring a team to only field a minimum of 4 bowlers, etc.

Except for the 2 bouncer per over change, the rest of the rules are all biased in favour of batsmen. If a team is only expected to field a minimum of 4 bowlers, and the rules are increasingly in favour of batsmen, sides will pack their side with quasi all-rounders.

Instead, the actual changes that the administrators need to make to 'save' ODI cricket are:

• Eliminate meaningless ODI series.
  
• Revamp the playing conditions to deal with weather-induced delays better.
  
• Remove limitations on the number of overs a bowler can bowl.
  
• Remove all field restrictions.
  
• Change the ICC playing conditions to enable boundaries to be 70-75 yards away from the centre of the pitch irrespective of square or straight boundaries. The current requirement is 65 yards (square) and 70 yards (straight).

Labels: australia, odi, playing conditions, rules

Thus spake Jagadish @ 11:49 pm | Sledge/Read 3 sledge(s)
Did you like the post? [ Subscribe to the blog feed - | | Tweet ]

Sloth Sehwag and it is time to ban football in cricket

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Bangladesh are indeed ordinary

India were expected to thrash Bangladesh, and when the winning margins are 100+ runs and 10 wickets, it is fair to say Bangladesh were thrashed. Bangladesh had fun for at most 1.5 days - day 1 of the first test and around 50 overs on day 3 of the second test.

There was a lot written about Sehwag's comment before the first test on Bangladesh being an 'ordinary' side. Sehwag was perhaps being politically uncorrect, saying such a thing in Bangladesh, especially when the BCCI had played a huge role in Bangladesh getting test status.

Yet, the facts are that barring a series win against a West Indies 'B' team, they had achieved zilch in nearly a decade of test cricket. There have been a few individual achievements (e.g. Aminul Islam in their first ever test, Ashraful v India in 2004, Shahriar Nafees v Australia in 2006, Shakib forming the 'SLA Atlas' club along with Vettori and occasional bursts from Mortaza).

They did run Pakistan and Australia close. They do indicate that they can be occasionally competitive. However, the reality is that as of the start of this series, they hadn't made 300 in the first innings of a test since April 2006, which was also the last time one of the batsmen scored a first-innings century.

The malaise hasn't just been with the batting. On an average, opponents can expect that one of their top 7 batsmen will score a first innings 100 every time they face Bangladesh.

There was absolutely no need for Sehwag to be politically correct. I'll repeat what I wrote nearly 6.5 years ago.

I wonder why captains are nowadays so politically correct. I'm not saying the captain should do a Richie Richardson and claim that the visiting Aussies have been the worst side to play West Indies in the last 20 years after losing the series. Tony Greig's attempt to make WI "grovel" backfired spectacularly. But why does Steve Waugh not say Australia is going to crush Bangladesh or Zimbabwe?

On a parting note, why on earth did the proceedings break for lunch with Bangladesh on the verge of defeat at 312/9? Why can't the playing conditions be changed to allow captains to opt for extra time regardless of whether it is close of play or not?

Currently, under clause 16.2 of the test match playing conditions, the umpires can extend play by 30 minutes at the end the day (except the last day) if either captain puts in the application in triplicate along with a photocopy of their last 5 years income tax payment statements and if the umpires believe that the extension could end the ordeal for everyone.

Statistical trivia: This is only the 7th time that a side has reached the target in less than 3 balls.

Labels: bangladesh, india, lunch, playing conditions, rules

Thus spake Jagadish @ 1:41 am | Sledge/Read 3 sledge(s)
Did you like the post? [ Subscribe to the blog feed - | | Tweet ]

Morons running and ruining the game

The fourth day of the Mohali test between India & England got underway at 11 am IST today, after fog caused a delay of two hours.

India wrapped up England's lower order in quick time and at the time of writing, have a lead of 160 runs. There's no doubt that the aim would be to score at least 150-180 more runs by end of day today, and preferably bowl at least 3-4 overs at England.

That said, India may (unnecessarily) decide to play it a little safer. Remember that until a week ago, even 387, let alone 414 was considered nearly impossible to chase.

By the way, did anyone notice that West Indies' chase of 418 against Australia in 2003 had a debutant (Omari Banks) batting when the game was won, and yesterday, South Africa had Jean-Paul Duminy hitting the winning runs? It seems to me that South Africa's lower order batting is at its weakest since they came back to international cricket in 1992. They've always had chaps who could bat down the order. But they got blown away by Mitchell Johnson in the first innings. Since 1992, their #9, #10 & #11 have typically averaged 15-20 runs per wicket, but in the last 2 years its down to 12 & 9!

What was Ricky Ponting doing as captain? His main spinner was leaking 4.5 runs an over. Yet he didn't even bring on Symonds or Katich to try and do something different? I'm having evil thoughts now about why Ponting did nothing!

With Kevin Pietersen in such form in the test, there's a very high chance that India will end up batting all day and declaring only tomorrow morning after a couple of overs. Speaking of him, he has 15 test hundreds in just 3.5 years of test cricket. He has 4000 runs in that period, from just 45 tests. He's 28, and could really play for at least another 8 years. If England continue to play more tests than most other teams and he keeps going with his batting, he could end up with at least 12000 runs and 30+ centuries. In fact, I think he may go past Tendulkar and Ponting (if & when he gets there) in the centuries and runs tallies.

How amazing is that? I think he's a prick, but I have a lot more respect for him than someone like Hayden (I just love the scrutiny Hayden is facing having made 282 runs in his last 13 innings). Pietersen hits some amazing shots, and showed us the reverse hit yesterday. Until his innings yesterday, he only had 221 runs from 8 innings in India. I hope he doesn't get any more!

Coming back to the Mohali game and why I started this post, isn't it so f#@king stupid that when the light is good enough for play, the umpires decide to take lunch? This, when they've spent the last 2 hours trying to establish when play can start! Spectators and audiences (TV, radio, mobile phones, internet, etc.) get shortchanged due to such stupidity. Yet, the ICC ostrich continues to tell us that cricket is in good shape and its Chief Executives announce, after pointless meetings, that "There was also a general discussion on the issue of Test cricket with Members acknowledging the need to find ways in which this format of the game can be protected and promoted.". There's nonsense happening pretty much on a series-by-series basis, and yet the members keep acknowledging the need to find ways to protect & promote test cricket.

Speaking of the ICC, has it relaxed the rules on 'public criticism of, or inappropriate comment on a match related incident or match official' which is normally categorized as a level 1 offense? In the past week, there have been two players who've spoken out in the press conferences about the umpiring decision that ruled them out - Sehwag at Chennai and Pietersen at Mohali have both said that they reckoned the decisions should have gone their way.

Since there has been no action from the ICC against both players (especially considering Sehwag's statement was a week ago), can we assume that the ICC has decided to allow players a little more leeway in expressing their dissatisfaction with the umpiring? If so, why can't they just announce it officially so everyone can do the same without fear of being pulled up?

Labels: bad light, eng v ind 2008, england, icc, india, lunch, match referee, mohali, pietersen, playing conditions, rules

Thus spake Jagadish @ 3:08 pm | Sledge/Read 2 sledge(s)
Did you like the post? [ Subscribe to the blog feed - | | Tweet ]

Cricket digs its own grave

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A great advertisement for test cricket, if you can excuse a few things

The Bangalore test was superb to follow, regardless of your cricket affiliations. It was a fairly low-scoring game. The balance swung so often (more often in favour of Australia). As late as the last hour, Australia were still in with a chance before bad light ensured there was going to be only one result.

It would have been awesome (for cricket, not necessarily for the Indian team & its supporters) had both teams agreed to use floodlights when the light conditions were poor. I don't understand why teams need to agree about these things. Why can't the ICC impose these rules by making them part of the standard playing conditions? As long as the playing venue has floodlights (regardless of the availability/quality of lights at other venues hosting games in the series), the umpires must be empowered to have them switched on. If test cricket is to survive, anachronistic aspects of the game such as tea breaks or bad light must go!

While ideally both teams would have dearly wanted a win, I guess they'll both take a draw. Australia were touted by many as being the underdogs, but like I pointed out, that can never be the case. It is actually funny how this 'inexperience' excuse works. When Lee, Johnson, Clark & co. have never played a test in India, they're inexperienced. But when you stack it up against all the years (5 for Lee, 8 for Clark, 5 for Watson & 5 for Johnson) they've spent playing in TSFCCCITU before being picked for Australia, that inexperience disappears.

Australia's only problem was going to be spin, and despite White picking up his first test wicket, the questions will persist. He bowled 18 overs on the last day only because Clark was not fully fit, and the light situation meant the umpires would have offered the light multiple times if quicks were operating. While he did biff the ball around in the second innings when Australia were going for quick runs, he didn't offer too much hope. As a package, I guess he's better than Krejza. Unless he disgraces himself at Mohali, he will play all four tests, if only to have some sort of balance in the bowling department because Clarke may not be able to bowl 20 overs every innings.

Australia's batting is in much better shape, despite Hayden and Clarke failing twice. Haddin's horror show behind the stumps will be put down to the vagaries of the pitch.

India's problem before the test was the aging middle order. Despite not having any big score (Dravid's 51 was the highest of the lot), all of them got some crucial runs. The first innings middle-order collapse was shocking though - going from 70/0 to 106/4 & 155/5. Sehwag and Gambhir frustrated everyone as usual, putting on a 50-stand and not quite going on either individually or as a partnership. The main problem in the batting is Dhoni. He pottered around for 51 balls and made 9. It'd have been interesting to see his batting approach if he'd come out to bat today. His batting average has been stuck between 33 and 35 for nearly a year now. The last time his batting significantly impacted the result of a game was the Lord's draw in 2007. After that, he did try and save the Sydney test but ended up using a periscope rather than a bat and forged a valuable partnership with Pathan at Perth. Barring these two, he's largely been anonymous. In fact, the more surprising aspect of his batting is the strike rate. If you considered his fastest innings (of say 25 or more) the only inning from 2008 was against South Africa at Kanpur, and his innings strike rate was marginally less than 60.

We've seen him change his batting style in one-dayers over the past 2-3 years. Even as the strike rate has gone from 100 to 80, his average has increased from 40 to 60. Is he unable to adapt to test cricket? Can he actually handle his job of wicket-keeper batsman? Given he is the vice-captain, are we to assume he will become the test captain after Kumble? At this point in time, I hope not. Someone like Sehwag, who returned after a post-World Cup 2007 cleanup, and is now a regular, would be a better option if Dhoni doesn't do anything of note soon.

He's definitely a very safe keeper. Barring dropping Hussey, he kept well throughout the game. Overall, you don't remember too many of his bad wicket-keeping days. But is 9(51) what the side wants from him? There's no chance of him being dropped. I'd really love him to change his batting style. In one-dayers, he typically waits for 20 balls and then starts hitting the boundaries. Why can't he do something similar in tests? Well, if not the boundaries, he can start taking singles for starters!

Harbhajan was bad on the first day and ranged between good & very good on other days. Zaheer and Ishant were very good. It isn't too often that two Indian quicks share 9 wickets. There've only been 3 other instances this decade and 7 others overall, including the unlikely pairing of Madan Lal & Mohinder Amarnath against New Zealand in 1976! Interestingly enough, it is the first time this is happening at home. In 2001, Zaheer and Venkatesh Prasad got 9 at Kandy against Sri Lanka. In 2005, when Zaheer & Pathan got 9 when India beat Zimbabwe while internally self-destructing thanks to the Greg-Sourav war. Last year at Lord's, Zaheer & RP Singh got 9.

The elephant in the house is Kumble. He has been below average for nearly a year now (bowling avg. 52 & strike rate 100 from 9 tests this year, last 5 wicket haul was 10 tests ago). India can't afford to carry a passenger. He really needs to get himself sorted out before Mohali, assuming he plays.

Just as I wrote last week, the lower order batting has impacted the result of this game. It remains to be seen if any of the top order batsmen have an impact. I believe that Hussey's inning was more significant for Australia than Ponting's, because he got them to 430 instead of 350. The game may have developed totally differently if Australia had been dismissed for 350. I also think Ponting should have declared overnight. The target (264) was already stiff. The overall runrate in the test had been around 3 an over, so it would have given Ponting more time to force a result, given India's propensity to screw up 4th innings chases of over 200. If India Sehwag had got off to a good start, the option to use the sweeper cover & other defensive fielding positions was always going to be there.

I suspect that Australia will be more disappointed than India.

Labels: aus v ind 2008, australia, bad light, bangalore, india, pitch, playing conditions

Thus spake Jagadish @ 11:48 pm | Sledge/Read 1 sledge(s)
Did you like the post? [ Subscribe to the blog feed - | | Tweet ]

Abraham Lincoln, on fielding and cricket

Watching the Indian fielding yesterday, it was so obvious that a generational change is needed in the Indian team, for its fielding alone, if for nothing else!

To paraphrase an apocryphal Abraham Lincoln quote - "You can hide some of the fielders all of the time, and all of the fielders some of the time, but you can not hide all of the fielders all of the time."

It's not just the over-35s who're slouches. Yesterday, Australia was taking quick singles and converting singles into twos against just about every fielder.

Ponting said his side would play 'new age' cricket, targetting India's "seniors" (not sure if he meant it as targetting their running between wickets, or their fielding, or both!). Actually it's hardly 'new age' cricket. This is the way modern cricket is. India's fielding positively belongs to the 'pre-90s' era of cricket!

As an aside, I wonder why play only goes on for 90 overs, and stops when 90 overs have been bowled. There was enough sunlight yesterday for at least 30-45 minutes more of play. They could have bowled another 10 overs in that duration, implying 100 overs for the day.

Whenever possible, the umpires should really try and get in 100 overs bowled. If a game starts at 9.30 am and ends at 4.30 pm, with sunlight around till 5.30 pm, it seems such a joke. In contrast, 100 overs will be bowled in a one-dayer played during daytime, starting at 9.30 am going on till 5.15-5.30 pm. Why can't tests also have 100 overs bowled a day? I can understand it if the light isn't good enough to start early or end late, but surely that isn't the case here, or indeed at several other grounds.

If playing an extra half-hour isn't possible, the anachronistic tea break really can be removed. 20 minutes is wasted. Instead, the players can take an extra drink's break, which only lasts 5 minutes. This means 15 minutes extra playing time a day, which is around 4 overs. I'll still take that marginal improvement!

In fact, once it has been established that floodlights can be used in test matches everywhere, I am all for having at least 7 hours of play a day, to ensure that at least 100 overs are bowled, with the lights being used if the sun is playing truant.

Labels: aus v ind 2008, bangalore, fielding, playing conditions, rules, tea

Thus spake Jagadish @ 10:56 am | Sledge/Read 0 sledge(s)
Did you like the post? [ Subscribe to the blog feed - | | Tweet ]

ODI cricket digs its own grave

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sehwag and Gambhir light up gloomy rain-affected Mohali

Virender Sehwag was in sight of his 9th test century as India ended the second day on 184/1. Only 40 overs were bowled in the day. Sehwag and Gambhir got India off to a flier, putting on 113 for the first wicket in just 17 overs. None of the bowlers really troubled either batsmen, barring Kaneria, who had Gambhir caught attempting to loft over the infield. Pakistan did drop their normal share of catches to enable Sehwag to score really rapidly. His half-century came off just 49 balls and if it were not for Kaneria's good bowling and Dravid's calming influence, he'd have gone well past a century by stumps today. If he does get to a century tomorrow, he'd just be continuing with his ability to consistently score at least one century in every series. Ok, he doesnt have a century every series, but 8 in 14 is still very good, considering the century is invariably in the first test of the series often, setting the tone for the rest of the series.

Considering that the light was quite poor when the day ended, questions will have to be asked about the need to go off for tea 11 overs into India's innings. The concept of tea, by itself, is an anachronistic one. The players had been cooling their heels in the pavillion for nearly four hours (play only started around 2 pm IST). So why should they go back for a tea break? I am fairly sure that the light was good enough, considering that India made 67 runs in those 11 overs. So why could they not play on and have an extra drinks break instead?

Last year, after rain delayed the start of play between New Zealand and England at Leeds, the players promptly trooped off for lunch despite the possibility of play.

Labels: icc, lunch, playing conditions, rules, tea

Thus spake Jagadish @ 7:23 pm | Sledge/Read 0 sledge(s)
Did you like the post? [ Subscribe to the blog feed - | | Tweet ]

Nasser Hussain on captaining England, his favourite opponents, regrets and about cricket in general

In a two-part interview with the Daily Mail, Nasser Hussain reveals the most hilarious sledge he has ever been a target of and how he wants a bigger tea break. While that sledge is superb, his suggestion for tea isnt. It is such an anachronistic feature of cricket. I am all for doing away with tea breaks and making teams bowl 100 overs in a day.

Labels: playing conditions, rules, tea

Thus spake Jagadish @ 6:30 pm | Sledge/Read 0 sledge(s)
Did you like the post? [ Subscribe to the blog feed - | | Tweet ]

The start of the Headingley test between England and New Zealand was delayed due to rain. The captains finally tossed around 1245 pm local time. The scheduled start was 1100 am. The crowd, sparse though it would have been, would have waited for over 2 hours for play to start soon after the toss. However, the umpires, in their infinite wisdom [and obviously bound by the rules & traditions of the game] thought that it was time for some more food and promptly declared Lunch.

Lunch!! Without a single ball being bowled? Aren't players, like anyone else, supposed to earn their money? Even though cricket is moving from being a spectators' game to a sponsors' game, I'm fairly sure the players don't like playing in an empty stadium. Ask any of the players who were at the ground on the final day of the Asian Test Championship game at Calcutta between India & Pakistan in 1999. The players were obviously weary of gulping down snacks, tea or juices in the cauldron of the dressing room.

Cricket, especially test cricket, will cease to be a spectator's game if it doesn't rid itself of such anachronistic and archaic traditions. If there has been rain in the morning, I can't see any reason why the players shouldn't play as soon as the toss is over. In fact, in any situation where the day's play is curtailed, the number of breaks for the players should also be reduced so that the spectators get their full money's worth. In fact it is in the interest of the sponsors too that the cricket is played for as long as possible. The more cricket that's played, the more the breaks between overs & wickets, the more the advertisements they can slip in. When the game is on, an ad can be shown every 4-5 minutes. However if there's no play and an older match/chat show being shown, the ads are shown only every 10 minutes.

Labels: icc, lunch, playing conditions, rules, tea

Thus spake Jagadish @ 5:25 pm | Sledge/Read 0 sledge(s)
Did you like the post? [ Subscribe to the blog feed - | | Tweet ]