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 ]

The end of an enthralling period of test cricket

From November, we've been witness to enthralling test cricket action, with the Ashes being followed by India's tour of South Africa.

I feel an enormous amount of schadenfreude for the position Australia, and especially Ricky Ponting, find themselves in. Australia have, over the last 3-4 years, failed to find replacements for Warne, McGrath, Hayden, Gilchrist, and to a lesser extent Martyn and Langer.

It was never ever going to be easy to replace players of that calibre, but it didn't even seem like those in charge were trying. That's why we now have Shane Watson opening with Simon Katich. The lack of planning is the reason why as many as 7 options have been tried out since Warne retired, and none of them have worked so far.

As for Ricky Ponting, I've believed for a very long time that he was a pathetic captain. Over the past 3-4 years, he's done his best to prove it. I've enjoyed watching him bat, but his captaincy is generally ridiculous. Add in the number of times he's had run-ins with umpires, and got away with it almost all the time, and I just get more ammunition to hate him in general.

England have thoroughly deserved to win. They seem to have planned better, and more importantly, executed so much better in all departments. Strangely, I don't feel any sort of disbelief or revulsion at England's win, in total contrast to 2005.

In 2006, I wrote that a series win for India in Australia would be be my #1 preference, followed by one in South Africa. India've done exceptionally well over the last few years. The scoreline in Australia read 2-1 to Australia, but it could (and should) have been 1-1. The last time India went to South Africa, the scoreline should have been 2-1!

The fact that the 1-1 draw in the just-concluded series can be considered a failure for India is an indication of how India fluffed their lines when it mattered most, on day 4 at Cape Town. 130/6! Heck, even 233/7 would have been ok, because it would have meant a chase of 250 in an entire day.

At the same time, South Africa seemed afraid of losing. Why would you not declare with 3-4 overs to go before stumps when India was quite vulnerable to a burst just before stumps with Sehwag & Dravid not in any sort of form and Gambhir injured?

Before the series, I'd predicted to a few folks that the scoreline would be 2-0 in favour of South Africa. I'll gladly take 1-1!

There are worries though - the batting form of Sehwag & Dravid, the over-reliance on Zaheer and the general inconsistency of the other bowlers. Dravid's knock yesterday was really pressure-soaking. But his inconsistency is worrying. The next test series is in the West Indies (June). I wouldn't be surprised if he quits soon.

As for the bowling, in Zaheer's absence, the bowling unit seems totally clueless. Harbhajan's inconsistency, and inability to spearhead the bowling attack, means that he is going to be effective only once in every 3-4 tests, with the ball. Sreesanth mixed brilliance with pathetic stuff. I don't care how often he gets fined or banned if he can keep producing the brilliance and become more consistent.

Labels: ashes, ashes 2010, australia, england, india, schadenfreude, south africa

Thus spake Jagadish @ 11:09 pm | Sledge/Read 2 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 ]

Gunther glares at Andre Nel retirement press conference

In perhaps not too surprising a move, Andre Nel has announced his retirement from international cricket and will be joining Surrey from this English cricket season. He isn't actually joining them as an overseas player. Since he is South African, and since South Africa has a trade agreement with the European Union (see "Kolpak Ruling" text), he is eligible to ply his trade in the UK and not be treated as an immigrant/foreign worker.

Naturally, this suits Surrey, because now they can actually sign up some other player as an overseas player. The surprising bit though is that as per the ECB rules, players are eligible to be picked as 'Kolpak players' only if they have quit domestic cricket in their country and haven't played first-class cricket in the previous 12 months. In the case of Nel, the latter isn't true, since he's been playing the current domestic season in South Africa. As recently as 3 weeks ago, he was playing for Gauteng. I guess this means the ECB has agreed for an exception on that clause.

The reason I reckon the retirement news isn't too surprising is because he hasn't been picked for South Africa for over a year now, and the likes of the Morkels & Steyn have firmly established themselves as the next-generation quicks.

Andre Nel did a pretty decent job for South Africa, typically bowling first change or second change, and still picking up 123 wickets at an average of ~ 32 and strike rate of 62.

However, it isn't just his bowling that we'll recall. I'm fairly sure he's probably the only cricketer to claim that his alter ego plays cricket, by the name of Gunther. Sounds crazy isn't it?

He was first in the news when he bounced & hit Donald in a domestic game and burst into tears for felling his idol. He's not spent too much time away from the headlines since then.

I daresay he's made a lot of entertaining viewing over the years, with his odd bowling style, his glaring & eye-balling, his antics, constant chattering, etc. At times, he made Dennis Lillee look like Javagal Srinath when it came to body language. The risk with the antics though is that sometimes you're the pigeon, and sometimes you're the statue.

Labels: book cricket, england, kolpak, nel, retire, south africa, surrey

Thus spake Jagadish @ 10:13 pm | Sledge/Read 1 sledge(s)
Did you like the post? [ Subscribe to the blog feed - | | Tweet ]

Mitchell Johnson joins Craig McMillan & Brian Lara

Mitchell Johnson, has just scored 26 off an over from Paul Harris, but was stranded one boundary hit short of his first test century.

122.1 Harris to Johnson, FOUR, kneels down and slog-sweeps this one behind square leg
122.2 Harris to Johnson, FOUR, down he skips, whipping a flatter delivery off his pads over midwicket
122.3 Harris to Johnson, SIX, even better! Its maximum! Johnson goes down and slogs this one over midwicket for six, man he's targeting Harris
And that is Mitchell J's personal Test best.
122.4 Harris to Johnson, no run, fuller of off stump and this time he leaves it alone
122.5 Harris to Johnson, SIX, he's going the distance! This one's a dinger, rows back over mid-on
122.6 Harris to Johnson, SIX, oh my word, he's just going better and better! Harris keeps it flat and wide but Johnson waltzes down and clubs it across the line, off the middle of the bat for a six over long-on and out of the stadium

He is now at joint 3rd in the most runs off an over category. The other instances of 26 in an over are Craig McMillan smacking Younis Khan's part-time legbreaks around in March 2001 and Brian Lara caning Danish Kaneria in November 2006. The record holder is Brian Lara (28 off Robin Peterson) & at #2 is Shahid Afridi (27 off Harbhajan)

Labels: australia, batting, johnson, record, south africa

Thus spake Jagadish @ 6:21 pm | Sledge/Read 1 sledge(s)
Did you like the post? [ Subscribe to the blog feed - | | Tweet ]

Ricky Ponting on pressure, no pressure on Ricky Ponting

When Australia start a series as favourites, the pressure is always on the opposition. After all, they're facing the #1 side. They'll feel the pressure from the crowds when they don't do well.

When Australia go into a series not as favourites, the pressure is on the opposition. After all, they'll feel the pressure of being the favourite. They'll feel the pressure from the crowds when they don't live up to the favourites tag.

You really have to admire Ricky Ponting's ability to say it with a straight face.

I really never thought it'd come to this - an Australian captain comfortable with an 'underdog' tag, and even worse better, insisting that his side would "take the positives" (I thought that was © England cricket team!) from a pyrrhic win over South Africa at Sydney.

Labels: australia, ponting, south africa

Thus spake Jagadish @ 12:01 am | Sledge/Read 1 sledge(s)
Did you like the post? [ Subscribe to the blog feed - | | Tweet ]

South Africa do what was unthinkable a year ago

The inevitable happened. India've kept huffing & puffing at Australia for the better part of the last decade, and eventually the house fell, not to India but to South Africa, who became the first team in nearly 16 years to win a test series in Australia.

In fact, South Africa are the first non-Indian team to have defeated Australia 2 tests in a row in the last 18 years. The West Indians in 1993 & 1999 and the East Indians in 1998 & 2001 were the only sides to have done it.

South Africa have played brilliantly and it has been a total team effort - its tough to pick the top performers from Steyn, Smith, Duminy, de Villiers, Kallis & Amla. Essentially though, Australia's weakness against good quality swing bowling has been shown up yet again. It was the case in 2003/4 against India, 2005 against England, 2007/8 against India, 2008/9 against India and now against South Africa. Maybe its something to do with the batting technique or just the attacking instinct. Australia better get its act together on countering swing bowling, because now that the formula is out there, more teams will use it hoping for success, sometimes without having the quality of resources.

I have no sympathy for Australia though. The side and the cricketing establishment have been in denial mode ever since the defeat in India, and especially after thrashing New Zealand. Over rate problems? Let's blame the sightscreens and talk of maintaining the spirit of the game when a series was at stake. Lee's "performances"? Let's blame his breakup. Hayden in terrible form? Let's talk of poor umpiring decisions & run outs (as if he wasn't responsible for the runouts!). No spinners? Let's say they're young & inexperienced when they've had 15 years to groom someone to take over from Warne.

The first thing Australia's selectors need to do is to drop Hayden. His batting has been hopeless. It's not just that - he doesn't even look like he wants to be out there batting! In fact he wants to get off the strike so often - maybe thats what's got him run out twice in the last few tests! I've always thought he was over-rated. Among the top run-getters since 1 Jan 1990, only 2 batsmen (Mark Waugh & Alec Stewart) have worse away batting averages. Hayden averages 42.7 outside Australia compared with 58.4 at home. It's quite obvious he's a home town bully. He doesn't deserve to be rated amongst the modern greats, let alone the all-time greats!

The second thing Australia's selectors need to do is to pick a new captain. I just think they have a hopeless moron as captain right now. Ponting's captaincy has been 'moronic' in my books right from the time he sent England (0-1 down) in on a superb batting wicket at Edgbaston in 2005 minutes after McGrath had been ruled out of the test (& possibly the series). His subsequent acts (Nagpur, for e.g.) merely confirmed the belief.

Despite South Africa's series win, in my opinion Australia are #1 until the time they actually lose home and away. India can't claim the #1 spot because after all, they didn't win in Australia. I'd say that the return series against South Africa & the 2009 Ashes will give a fair indication of whether Australia will remain #1 or not.

Think about it - despite losing Langer, Warne, McGrath & Gilchrist in the span of a year, they've more than managed to hold their own most of the time. I know that isn't a great benchmark for #1, but you do need to give weightage to the quality of personnel lost. India're bound to go down that road sometime in the next 2 years and we'll eagerly see if the batting holds up.

Labels: australia, india, rankings, south africa, statistic

Thus spake Jagadish @ 11:45 pm | Sledge/Read 10 sledge(s)
Did you like the post? [ Subscribe to the blog feed - | | Tweet ]

Sorry Mr. Ted, it is very pathetic

I have been tracking Ted Corbett's articles written in 'The Hindu' for a while and I have not seen anyone write in such a biased manner towards any country. Each article was more biased in favour of England than the previous one. In fact many times, I have lost interest half-way through and stopped reading it completely.

I was very happy last night as South Africa won with ridiculous ease at Headingley and was very eager to read Ted's excuses and gloatings. But, what I read this morning was too shocking for me to not write about it.



If you didn't know the result and you started reading the match report, you'd think that England managed to do what South Africa did at Lord's - bat out of their skins for a draw. Over the years that I have followed cricket, I have read so many articles and heard commentary where the bias is pretty obvious. But Ted Corbett has blown away the competition with this piece when he talks highly about Broad and the pyrrhic 61-run tenth wicket partnership which is not even the best for England at home.

In fact, I was half expecting him to point out gleefully that South Africa took 7 balls to win, rather than getting the 9 runs in 2 balls.

All this, after South Africa have just managed to claw back to a draw in the Lord's Test, thanks to a splendid display with the bat and then adding insult to England's injuries by wrapping up the Leeds test in four days.

It should be very interesting to continue reading more such excuses from England.

Labels: bias, comments, england, south africa, ted corbett

Thus spake Ganesh @ 3:25 pm | Sledge/Read 0 sledge(s)
Did you like the post? [ Subscribe to the blog feed - | | Tweet ]

South Africa suffer from Lord's curse

Since 2000, there have been 7 instances where the touring team sent England in to bat at Lord's. The data is fairly emphatically indicative of the fact that touring teams almost always get it wrong when they opt to field first at Lord's. This is something I mentioned in a post on AOL's cricket blogs section last year before the India v England test at Lord's.

I probably don't have the stats to back me up, but I've seen many visiting teams (not named Australia) flounder at Lord's and opting to bowl first. Then they repent for a couple of days. After that, they realise that the pitch has changed character and the game is out of their grasp before either of the two captains can say 'inexperienced bowling attack'.

England's first innings scores have been 391, 187, 472, 173, 568, 553 & 593. Only Australia (2001) & South Africa (2003) shot out England for a low score.

There're far too many people who're credited with having given advice to the effect of "If you win the toss, you should bat first 9 times out of 10. On that one other instance, you think again, and bat first." I read a similar line in Ashley Mallett's book featuring Ian Chappell - "Chappelli Speaks Out" a couple of weeks ago and Mike Brearley's "The Art of Captaincy". I've also seen this sort of quote attributed to the likes of Richie Benaud & Don Bradman.

That last total of 593 came in the on-going England v South Africa test, the first of an eagerly awaited series. Graeme Smith sent England in and watched with horror as his bowlers failed to pick up a wicket before lunch on day one and England piled up 309/3 at stumps on the first day. First, Kevin Pietersen got a century in his first test against South Africa. He now has 13 centuries from 74 innings, the most for any current English batsman not named Michael Vaughan (assuming that Trescothick is unlikely to make a comeback).

Ian Bell is actually the interesting part of this post. He now has 8 centuries from 71 innings, but all his centuries have had the cushion of someone else also scoring a hundred. You could look at it in two ways.

• He cashes in when someone else does, implying that the conditions are good for batting most of the time.
  
• He strings together big partnerships when his team is in a spot of bother.

But when I looked at his centuries, there've really been only 2 instances (aside from the on-going test where he came in after England had dramatically collapsed from 114/0 to 117/3) when he has come in and done a good job when England was in trouble. These were at Faisalabad (which was quite a dramatic game since Shahid Afridi first smashed 92 in 85 balls and was then caught on TV damaging the pitch while Pakistan was fielding. After Afridi's innings, Inzamam was wrongly ruled run out when he took evasive action after Harmison hurled the ball on the striker's stumps) and at Napier earlier this year when England & New Zealand were in the early stages of their love affair lasting 19 consecutive internationals.

I'm not saying he's not a good batsman. He obviously is. But he'd rate far more highly if he made centuries when others made 30s and 40s. Patrick Kidd from the Times Online is also thinking on similar lines.

Labels: england, ian bell, lord's, pietersen, south africa, statistic, toss

Thus spake Jagadish @ 11:00 pm | Sledge/Read 1 sledge(s)
Did you like the post? [ Subscribe to the blog feed - | | Tweet ]

What Graeme Smith should have said

After the events during the Sydney test earlier this year, a disgusted Kumble said "Only one team is playing in the spirit of the game", sending all of Australia into a tizzy, for it invoked parallels with Bill Woodfull telling Pelham Warner "There are two teams out there; one is trying to play cricket and the other is not".

After the events at Kanpur Ahmedabad, South Africa's skipper Graeme Smith should have said "There were two teams out there, and only one of them was anywhere close to playing cricket".

Labels: graeme smith, india, south africa, sydney 2008

Thus spake Jagadish @ 9:11 am | Sledge/Read 4 sledge(s)
Did you like the post? [ Subscribe to the blog feed - | | Tweet ]

How does the ICC ODI ranking work?

Australia's ODI record since 1 Jan 2005: Played 102, Won 70, Lost 25.

South Africa's ODI record since 1 Jan 2005: Played 86, Won 60, Lost 22.

Take away wallopings of Bangladesh, Zimbabwe and the other minnows and Australia's record is played 92, won 61, lost 24 (win % of 66, loss % of 26) while South Africa's is played 78, won 53, lost 21 (win % of 68, loss % of 27).

Keep in mind though that both teams have lost to Bangladesh in this duration - Australia in England and South Africa at the 2007 World Cup.

Their record against each other: Australia have won 7 while South Africa have won 4. South Africa's moments of glory were bundling Australia out for 93 and chasing down 434 in the GODOAT to win the series 3-2. On the other hand, Australia forced South Africa into self-destruct mode when Kallis scored 48(63) when the required runrate was 8 an over during the league game of the 2007 World Cup and then larruped them in the semi final.

South Africa are now the #1 ODI side. Obviously Australia's losses in the 2007 and 2008 editions of the Commonwealth Bank Series did have an impact, but surely a World Cup win must count for something! But apparently not.

In fact, the ICC rankings site says

The weighting of 'matches' is reduced over time so does not reflect the full number of matches played in the rating period

So, Australia's wins in 2007 should have a higher weightage comopared to South Africa's wins in 2006! Which is why, will someone please explain how the ICC ODI ranking system works?

Labels: australia, icc, rankings, south africa

Thus spake Jagadish @ 7:30 pm | Sledge/Read 2 sledge(s)
Did you like the post? [ Subscribe to the blog feed - | | Tweet ]

The ones who get away, and those who don't

I've seen several quotes in the Australian media about how the likes of Harbhajan, Ganguly, etc. have been so frequent visitors to the match referees' rooms, unlike Australian players, which proved that Australia plays the game 'hard and fair'. Sample this gem from Mark Waugh. Keep in mind that 'Junior' has said a few stupid things in the recent past for us to not take his words completely at face value.

And in terms of sledging, certainly a couple of Australian players can take it over the top on some occasions - but overall, they aren't too bad when you look at the fines and penalties for each country.

The statement indicates to me that Australia's cricketers, despite going over the top on some occasions, don't get pulled up by ICC match referees. How about using some data to strengthen the hypothesis? I documented all the various rulings by ICC match referees listed in the 'ICC Code of Conduct hearings and their outcomes' section of the ICC website from 1992 (when the code was introduced) to 2007. Some aspects of the analysis that need to be mentioned:

• Penalties imposed for logo violations were excluded.
  
• The outcome is purely based on the instances reported on the website. There would be several occasions where the match referee has dozed off. Such issues aren't captured in this analysis. For e.g., McGrath v Sarwan, over-rate issues, such as in the 2005 Ashes, on England's 2006 tour of India and the recently concluded India-Australia series (India was the only team to average 14 overs an hour in a single inning. Australia twice bowled less than 13 an hour. Across the tests, India averaged 13.4 overs an hour while Australia averaged 13.2 overs an hour).
  
• There's no categorization based on the size of the penalty (match fee percentage or number of games).
  
• Any instance of multiple penalties (match fee fine + game ban) is categorized in the higher penalty (game ban). Suspended sentences count as reprimands, unless there is a financial penalty, in which case it gets categorized as a match fee fine.
  
• I'm almost certain I've accounted for all the non-logo issue match referee decisions, but the accuracy of the data could be linked to the fact that this post is going up at around 2 am!

There have been a total of 291 hearings by match referees: 29 of those resulted in a ban (one or more internationals), 22 resulted in a not guilty verdict, 63 finished up with a reprimand (including instances where the penalty was a suspended sentence) and 177 ended with financial penalties imposed on the player/official.

2001 was the busiest year (35 players pulled up), with 2004 and 2005 seeing 33 players pulled up. 2002 seems to have been an abnormally quiet year (6 visits). Perhaps the players used up their quotas in 2001!

Inzamam leads the players list (12 times, with 3 bans). At #2 is another perennial favourite, Sourav Ganguly (10 times, with 4 bans). Since Inzamam is now retired, Ganguly is very well placed to get to #1. Glenn McGrath, Graeme Smith and Shoaib Akhtar have 6 visits to their names. Special mentions for Sreesanth, who made his test debut in 2006 but notched up 3 visits to the ref in the span of 1.5 years and Graeme Smith, who debuted in 2002 and has already been hauled up 6 times, including 2 bans!

Pakistan leads with 56 visits to the ref's room, India is 2nd with 49, Australia is 3rd with 37, just ahead of South Africa's 36. I believe it is sufficient to consider the data in the context of these teams alone, primarily since the percentages could get skewed with teams who don't see the refs too often. Special mentions for West Indies and Sri Lanka who only got called to the refs' rooms 20 and 19 times. Over a data set of 15 years, that is a very good indicator that these two teams are fairly ... fair!

In terms of match referee verdicts where there was no penalty (financial or ban), Australia is a clear-cut winner. On nearly 30% of the occasions (29.7% - 11 out of 37), there was either a reprimand or a 'not guilty' verdict. The percentage of times Pakistan, South Africa and India were not penalized was fairly similar (25%, 22.2% and 26.5% respectively). Among those 4 teams, Australia's cricketers were banned the fewest times (5.4% - 2 out of 37, one of them being Darren Lehmann) while Pakistan copped it hardest (23.2% - 13 out of 56). Interestingly enough, South Africa copped it worse (13.9% bans - 5 out of 36) than India (10.2% bans - 5 out of 49).

To me, this is an indication that Australia does get away with it more often than others. Plus, there're probably umpteen other instances where the match referee, umpires or the ICC didn't even get to laying down charges. I'm not saying that this isn't likely for other teams, but based on the number of times Australia have not been penalized that is the inference I draw.

Glenn McGrath was found guilty of spitting at an opponent in 1999, and paid up 30% of his match fee. On another occasion, Damien Fleming pushed a Sri Lankan batsman after dismissing him. He paid up 50%. Then there was Slater losing it against Dravid despite the third umpire ruling not-out. In 2004, Langer was ruled not guilty despite dislodging a bail himself and then appealing for a hit-wicket in a match against Sri Lanka.

I believe it is high time the cricketing world called the bluff on Australia playing 'hard and fair' and hence not being taken to task by match referees. If India's financial clout has resulted in the board resorting to brinkmanship on a number of occasions, Australia's cricketing clout has potentially resulted in match referees looking the other way when Australia's players flout the rules, or letting them off with a 'Naughty boy. Don't do it again, ok?' warning.

Labels: australia, ban, icc, ind v aus 2008, india, match referee, over rates, pakistan, south africa, statistic

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

A sobering thought

Rawl Lewis, who has played four tests in a decade (a career bowling average of nearly 400 may be a good pointer to why this'd be the case), is currently in action in the 2nd test between West Indies & South Africa.

South Africa are 152/5, in response to West Indies' 243. It is a sobering thought that even if Rawl Lewis (currently 0/12 from 4 overs) took the remaining South African wickets cheaply and ended up with something like 5/40 from 15 overs, his test bowling average would be 71.3 while his strike rate (balls per wicket) would be 141.5. In fact he'd have a 400% improvement on his career wickets tally!

This is surely one of those instances where the only way possible is up, for his average before the test was 388 while his strike rate was 759!

Labels: rawl lewis, south africa, statistic, west indies

Thus spake Jagadish @ 8:05 pm | Sledge/Read 3 sledge(s)
Did you like the post? [ Subscribe to the blog feed - | | Tweet ]

The coach question

It increasingly looks like the BCCI have found an answer to the question mark which was hanging over the Indian cricket team ever since Greg Chappell decided to stop being coach of the team. Looks like, it would be Gary Kirsten, who has really tormented the Indian bowlers in the late 90s especially in the ODIs. Let's keep our fingers crossed until the official announcement is made and also hope that this coach doesn't turn Ford.

Labels: chappell, coach, ford, greg chappell, india, kirsten, south africa

Thus spake Ganesh @ 7:46 pm | Sledge/Read 4 sledge(s)
Did you like the post? [ Subscribe to the blog feed - | | Tweet ]

Will Jacques Kallis sign up for the ICL?

Jacques Kallis quit as South Africa's vice-captain a couple of days ago after he was omitted from South Africa's squad for the Twenty20 World Cup.

Clearly miffed at his exclusion, he talked about having a re-think on his future.

Is there a possibility he will be joining the Indian Cricket League? There's news that Yousuf, Razzaq and Farhat have signed up for the ICL.

It could get pretty serious soon. The boards have thus far been happy with threatening to ban/deny benefits for those who join the ICL. But what happens if marquee names, especially ones who haven't retired, join the ICL? The boards will probably need to get into an agreement with the ICL. The ICL clearly indicates that it is willing to use money power to attract top players.

Labels: indian cricket league, kallis, south africa, twenty20, twenty20 world cup

Thus spake Jagadish @ 1:52 pm | Sledge/Read 1 sledge(s)
Did you like the post? [ Subscribe to the blog feed - | | Tweet ]

Recent posts on AOL

1. Wishlist for the 2011 World Cup.
   
2. In such a rapid set of one-dayers (India in Ireland), what the Indian team needs to do is to get the momentum going by winning the first 2-3 games.
   
3. South Africa wants Australia to give up its monopoly over hosting Boxing Day and New Year's Day tests. This was always going to happen at some point of time or the other. What should the BCCI do?

Labels: 2011, 2011 world cup, aol, australia, bcci, guest blogger, india, scheduling, south africa, world cup

Thus spake Jagadish @ 6:14 pm | Sledge/Read 0 sledge(s)
Did you like the post? [ Subscribe to the blog feed - | | Tweet ]

Capitulation - Outplayed and out-psyched

I commented over on Will's site during the first devastating and match winning 10 overs of the Aus v SA semi-final, that I haven't enjoyed watching a one day match this much since 1999 - yep, that other semi-final.

Contrasting means, to the same end though. Many people say "we want good close, exciting matches". They must be supporters of other sides! When it's your side playing, I don't care how much they win by, and just quietly when it's South Africa you're thumping - I say bring it on! I'd rather that than a tie any day.

I sat down to take in this game thinking I wouldn't be able to stay up late enough into the night (with work the next day) to see anything too decisive. Especially when South Africa won what everyone thought would be potentially a match winning toss - I figured they'd post some sort of reasonable total and Australia would struggle. I honestly thought, based on what Botham and other commentators were saying, that 250 odd would be too much for the Aussie's to chase down, under pressure, late on a dieing wicket.

Well the wicket never got a chance to die, and by the time I was forced to retire to bed, the matched seemed fairly safe. Thanks mainly to a mind melt down by captain Graeme Smith, who seemed to think he was Matty Hayden, walking down the track - twice - missing both, the first nearly an edge and second taking off stump, then disintergration by Kallis, who was completely sucked in by the Aussie's talk. Kallis fell hook, line and sinker for the talk about "letting him occupy the crease and take up valulable deliveries", managing to strike one nice four then being cleaned up by a regulation, full pitched McGrath ball, while Kallis was stretching across from somewhere over on the leg side? Mind boggling! Even Andre Nell was seen to be shaking his head - no doubt because bowling to the looming low total was never going to leave him much room for sledging.

McGrath, who many believed shouldn't go on this tour, moved to front runner for taking out the player of the series. No-one will write him of now, even when he's been out of the game for 10 years! He cleaned up Kallis, was lucky when Prince chased what, had it not been for his thick outside edge would've been a side, then, possibly the most important one of all - Boucher - so often a lower order thorn in the side of the opposition, was dismissed by a ripper, moving away, taking the edged and finished off by big Matty Hayden. At 5 for 27, SA got another let off with Gibbs given not out, from what seemd like a fairly obvious inside edge. 6 for 27 would've seen a total around 50 I believe, as it was they only managed to limp to 149.

Australia cruised passed, the one concern - Gilchrist again failing. Surely now, he'll make up for everything with a classic Gilly ton in Glenn McGrath's fair well performance, a World Cup Final which could be a "three-peat" for the Aussies.

Labels: 2007 world cup, australia, south africa, world cup, world cup final

Thus spake Stuart Helwig @ 8:22 am | Sledge/Read 2 sledge(s)
Did you like the post? [ Subscribe to the blog feed - | | Tweet ]

May the sledging begin ...

If there's an Australia v South Africa game coming up, it is fairly obvious that Aussies will bleat on about South Africa being chokers while South Africa will deny it and claim that they've moved on.

Surprisingly, for someone who (blame it on the ghost-writer!) has a history of being a loose cannon (See 'Sack Ganguly', 'We need stronger opposition', 'Stuart MacGill is the 2nd best spinner', 'Stuart MacGill is the 3rd best spinner' and 'Stop the stereo-typing, Sunny!'), Mark Waugh has made a fair amount of sense with his latest column in the Sun-Herald on this choking issue, and a few others.

Plenty of people are dismissing Australia's World Cup semi-final opponents South Africa as little or no threat to our title hopes because they're a team of "chokers" who crumble when the screws are turned.

Believe that at your peril.

Then again, there maybe a choking issue there. At least, the stats say so. South Africa haven't beaten Australia in a World Cup game for 4 tournaments so far. If the scene was even in the 1990s (19-19 & 1 tie, that game), it becomes very lopsided in this decade (16-9, despite South Africa winning twice in a series)

Labels: 2007 world cup, australia, south africa, world cup

Thus spake Jagadish @ 3:55 pm | Sledge/Read 0 sledge(s)
Did you like the post? [ Subscribe to the blog feed - | | Tweet ]

England out of the World Cup

Labels: 2007 world cup, andrew hall, england, graeme smith, ian botham, south africa, vaughan, world cup

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

SA takes 10 wickets - finally

For me, the most impressive part of the win of yesterday, was the fact that SA took 10 wickets (2nd time this tournament previous was the win against Sri Lanka). Finally SA takes 10 wickets. I assume the pitch had something to do with it, and also the pressure of this crunch game may have gotten to England, but SA took 10.

This feat will prove the real challenge when SA will (almost 100% likelihood) play Australia in St Lucia. If SA can make some inroads, and take wickets semi-regularly, the game will be on, and it will be tight.

But SA takes wickets like this: Create pressure, and then take the wicket. The only 1 ball wicket taker is Ntini, but he is not on song this world cup. I guess I have to say Langeveldt too, as he has a hat-trick behind his name.

The next exciting game is NZ vs Aus, and I am really, really looking forward to that.

If NZ can beat Australia, then they could have slight doubts when SA gets them, and it could count for SA. But if Australia beats them, they may have overconfidence, and it seems SA is peaking at the moment.

Labels: 2007 world cup, england, south africa, world cup

Thus spake Reenen @ 4:20 pm | Sledge/Read 0 sledge(s)
Did you like the post? [ Subscribe to the blog feed - | | Tweet ]