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 ]

Brett Lee retires, BCCI asks for a rule change

Yesterday, Brett Lee announced his retirement from test cricket, to focus on playing limited overs cricket (ODIs and T20 games). There's nothing novel about such an announcement. He's just following in the footsteps of others like Flintoff, Oram, Styris and Vaas. You could argue though that given Vaas hasn't been picked in any ODI or T20 game by Sri Lanka for over 6 months after he retired from tests, he is unlikely to make it to the 2011 World Cup as a Sri Lankan player.

I had pointed out when Flintoff, Oram, Styris and Vaas retired that cricket boards run a huge risk of many marquee names, especially quick bowlers and all-rounders, quitting test cricket. Will they wake up now and figure out how to optimally schedule tests, ODIs, T20 games, ICC events, bilateral & multi-lateral ODI series and T20 leagues like the IPL, Champions League, KFC Big Bash, Twenty20 Cup, etc.?

Lee's decision to retire was widely expected. He hasn't played a test since the series loss to South Africa at home. He didn't manage to last out the ODIs against India. He hasn't played a T20 game for Australia since August 2009.

Yesterday, Sachin Tendulkar became the first man to score a double-century in a ODI game, with Belinda Clark having been the first to reach the mark in a limited overs international. The logical question is if other cricketers will now start scoring 200s for fun.

It only took one effort of 400+ (Australia, at the Wanderers in 2006) and in the next 4 years, we've had 9 instances. It is quite likely that Sachin Tendulkar's achievement of scoring 200 will also fall in the next 1 year. After all, it wasn't too long ago that Herschelle Gibbs made 175 in 111 balls and Tillakaratne Dilshan made 160 in 124 balls.

In an unexpected development, it is learnt that the BCCI has approached the ICC with a proposal to limit the number of batsmen in an ODI innings to 7. While publicly, the BCCI claims to have done so to protect the ODI game and to reduce the imbalance between bat & ball, sources in the BCCI told this blogger that the main reason was the abject failure of India's bowlers after South Africa recovered from 180/7 (Jaipur) and 134/7 (Jaipur).

A few other occurences in the recent past have convinced the BCCI that getting the likes of Ashish Nehra, Sreesanth and Ishant Sharma to bowl well to tail-enders is really not worth the trouble. The better option is to ensure that they don't even bowl to #8-#11., thereby insuring against last-minute carnage by the batsmen.

Labels: 2006 champions trophy, bcci, icc, lee, retire, rules, tendulkar, test cricket

Thus spake Jagadish @ 12:27 am | Sledge/Read 0 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 ]

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 ]

Time for a reality check and some common sense

For nearly a week now, India's 1983 World Cup winning team has been feted every day. Obviously they do deserve it all, for what they actually did still gives me goose-pimples.

But frequently, the gloating does get to me. It really is time for a reality check. The fact is that, like it or not, Malcolm Speed has been right (barring 1 or 2 exceptions) about India not translating its administrative and money power off the field into victories on it for nearly two decades now.

Significant test series wins, especially overseas (pedantic question: If the team goes to Pakistan from a flight originating from New Delhi, does it count as an overseas trip?!) have been rare. Since 2003, it is around one a year: Pakistan in 2004, West Indies in 2006 and England in 2007.

It is only in the last year or so that the Indian team has done reasonably consistently in limited overs cricket (fifty overs and Twenty20), with the Commonwealth Bank Series win in Australia and the Twenty20 World Cup. Before these wins, you've to go as far back as the 2002 NatWest Series for a win in a multi-nation tournament.

Hence, it is very important that the BCCI administrators, the selectors, the coaching staff and the leadership team amongst the players (Kumble, Dhoni, Tendulkar, Dravid, Ganguly, Yuvraj, Zaheer, to name a few) get together and come up with a strategy on what and how Indian cricket will achieve on the field over the next decade.

I've never really had too much respect for the ECB or the England cricket team. But having said that, the ECB came up with such a plan in 2005. Their aim was to become the best test team by 2009. Whether they reach that goal is not quite the point, at least they have a plan to get there and there's some motivation to execute on the plan. I haven't seen any such attempt from the BCCI.

So that's the reality check part of this post.

The common sense bit has two parts.

Part one is in the context of the controversy a couple of days ago in the England v New Zealand one-dayer where Sidebottom (bowler) collided with Elliott (batsman) when the batsman was going for a quick single. Watch the video and see some photos.

Elliott and Sidebottom were floored, Bell threw the ball to Pietersen who was at the non-striker's end stumps and ran out Elliott. There is absolutely no doubt that as per the law, Elliott was run out since Sidebottom's actions and his injury did not come under the purview of Law 23 (Dead ball).

Elliott received some treatment since he seemed injured. The umpires conferred among themselves, and then checked with Collingwood if he wanted to withdraw his appeal. Collingwood was perfectly justified in not recalling Elliott. There was far too much at stake: New Zealand needed 26 (39) with 3 wickets in hand and the series was level 1-1 with one more game to go.

Lots of commentators are passing judgement on how Collingwood was not right and he had violated the spirit of the game. Some say that the umpires should have stepped in and called a dead ball. But this was, in no way, a case of a wilful and deliberate collision by Sidebottom. In fact, no bowler (especially a fast bowler) would ever want to have such a forceful collision deliberately, because the resultant injury could force him out of the game forever!

There are two options:

1. Do nothing. The law stays as it is.
   
2. Change the law such that if any sort of collision occurs, regardless of the severity or whether it was deliberate, the ball should be called a dead ball.

I would vote for #1 so that references to the 'spirit of cricket' can be countered with the fact that the umpires only did what the law said.

We keep seeing these instances of people going by the law and getting castigated for it. Here're three samples.

• In 1981, Greg Chappell instructed Trevor Chappell to bowl under-arm when New Zealand needed 6 to tie the game, with one ball remaining.
  
• In 2005, Darrell Hair flicked off the bails and declared that Pakistan had forfeited the Oval test.
  
• In 2006 during a test against New Zealand, Murali was stupid enough to leave his crease and run up to congratulate Sangakkara on his century (video) while the ball was still in play. Fleming was asked a lot of questions about whether it was right to appeal for the run out.

In all these cases, the players and the umpires followed the law. More importantly, they followed the law as it existed then. Subsequently, laws were changed to ban under-arm bowling and to transfer the power of deciding on a game forfeit to the match referee.

The second part on common sense is about the real farce that is developing with respect to Zimbabwe's presence in international cricket. South Africa and England have snapped cricketing relations with Zimbabwe. Barely three months ago, the ICC's board let the ZCU off scot-free despite there being enough cause for concern over handling of finances and the state of cricket in the country. It is high time the ICC did something about Zimbabwe. More importantly, the BCCI needs to realize that it can't continue to be solely focussed on its self-interest to the extent that international cricket gets devalued. Zimbabwe is obviously important in the context of votes, but if the BCCI's administrators act sanely and keep the interests of the game in mind, they may not even need votes at ICC meetings!

Zimbabwe doesn't feature in the ICC test rankings since they haven't played a test for nearly three years now. The last time Zimbabwe won a ODI against major countries other than Bangladesh was in November 2007 (against West Indies). Before that, we go back to November 2003 (West Indies again!). They've been that pathetic.

Let's just give you some idea of how long ago they last played a test. That last test featured Sourav Ganguly as India's captain and Greg Chappell as India's coach. This was the test after the one where Ganguly revealed that Chappell had asked him to quit as captain. In 3 years, so much has changed: Ganguly was out of the side for over a year while Chappell resigned after the pathetic show at the 2007 World Cup.

Yet, Zimbabwe continues to receive assistance and funds from the ICC. This just doesn't make sense. Even if the BCCI does plan to object to Zimbabwe's status being demoted, they should come up with an alternate plan that improves the standard of cricket as well as making the ZCU more accountable for its actions.

Labels: 1983, bcci, common sense, icc, india, laws, rules, spirit of cricket, twenty20 world cup, umpires, world cup, zimbabwe

Thus spake Jagadish @ 11:03 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 ]

Kevin Pietersen could end up changing the rules

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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 ]