Spirit of cricket spoils Sehwag century?

Predictably enough, Suraj Randiv's no-ball to Virender Sehwag, preventing Sehwag from reaching his century with a six, is making the news on the extremely vitriolic TV channels. Did he bowl it deliberately, to ensure that Sehwag didn't reach a well-deserved 100? Who cares?

Sehwag changed his opinion from not taking it too seriously ("It happens in cricket. The other team doesn't want anybody to score a hundred against them. They tried their best. Doesn't matter to me, 99 or 100.") to claiming it was deliberate in the span of a few minutes.

Besides, Sehwag did play out a couple of dot balls. So there's no real basis for him to whine.

Is there anything in the rules that prevents a bowler from doing so? No! Even if it is there in the 'spirit of cricket', it means nothing. Captains and players have acted totally in violation of the spirit defined and no action has been taken.

Did anything prevent India from declaring & setting Sri Lanka around 70 to win immediately after VVS Laxman got out in India's 2nd innings at Galle? There was charity being doled out to Murali in the form of his 800th wicket. VVS perhaps was trying to get the message across by getting run out? Why didn't any of the other batsmen get dismissed timed out, handling the ball, obstructing the field or hitting the ball twice?

Labels: india, murali, spirit of cricket, sri lanka

Thus spake Jagadish @ 11:14 pm | Sledge/Read 14 sledge(s)
Did you like the post? [ Subscribe to the blog feed - | | Tweet ]

Mitchell Johnson is the new Harry Houdini

In December 2009, Sulieman Benn, Brad Haddin and Mitchell Johnson were involved in a downright ugly altercation at the WACA test. Johnson wasn't really the trouble-maker then, but less than three months later, during the Napier ODI against New Zealand, he was the instigator.

After being smacked for consecutive boundaries by Scott Styris in the last two balls of his 10-over quota (46th over of the innings), Johnson totally lost it.

He screamed at Styris and definitely head-butted him (see video #1 and video #2).

There were only two reasons why the situation didn't get worse - Styris was wearing a helmet, and Brad Haddin pushed Johnson away from the scene.

Again, as was the case at Perth, the umpire did nothing!

After the game, Ranjan Madugalle, the match referee had a man-to-man talk with Mitchell Johnson and Scott Styris and fined them 60% and 15% of their match fee.

Johnson was charged with a level 2 offence (2.2.4 dealing with inappropriate and deliberate physical contact). Styris was charged with a level 1 offence (2.1.8 dealing with actions contrary to the spirit of cricket, bringing the game into disrepute).

So let's go back in time. In December, Johnson brought the game into disrepute and his actions were contrary to the spirit of the game. At that same time, Sulieman Benn was given suspension points and missed two ODIs.

Yet, while Benn got suspension points, the ICC media release makes no mention of Johnson getting suspension points. I'm definitely not making the case that Benn got a harsh punishment. But the point here is around how somehow the ICC match referees tend to close at least one eye when it comes to judging Australian players' behaviour.

One suspension point means the player misses an ODI or T20 international. Two suspension points means the player misses a test or two ODIs/T20 internationals.

Clause 7.3 of the code of conduct deals with repeat offences within a 12 month (not calendar year) period. A repeat of a level 1 offence results in a fine between 50-100% of the match fee and/or 2 suspension points. A repeat of a level 2 offence results in between 2 and 8 suspension points.

In December, Johnson was hauled up under a level 1 offence charge. Last week, he was hauled up under a level 2 offence. But in both situations, his act was the same - inappropriate physical contact. Given the recurrence, it seems fairly obvious that he should have been suspended for at least 1 ODI, in addition to a monetary penalty.

Since he pleaded guilty early on, thereby escaping the match referee's wrath (?), I hereby anoint Mitchell Johnson the new Harry Houdini.

What's your opinion?

How did Mitchell Johnson get away without being banned for at least 1 ODI?
	He knows Ranjan Madugalle's dark secrets and is blackmailing him
	There was serious plea bargaining
	Ricky Ponting demanded that Madugalle take his word that Johnson was not guilty of anything
	Mitchell Johnson is the new Harry Houdini
	He's Aussie

Labels: australia, ban, behaviour, benn, chappell-hadlee, houdini, icc, johnson, match referee, new zealand, spirit of cricket, umpires

Thus spake Jagadish @ 12:07 am | Sledge/Read 3 sledge(s)
Did you like the post? [ Subscribe to the blog feed - | | Tweet ]

What were the umpires doing at Perth?

During the first over after lunch on day two of the Perth test in the Frank Worrell Trophy featuring Australia v West Indies, Sulieman Benn, Brad Haddin and Mitchell Johnson got into a fracas. The sequence of events, which you can see in the video on YouTube, was approximately this:

• Haddin plays a ball towards mid wicket and sees the possibility of a quick single
  
• Benn, bowling from around the wicket, runs across to his right to cut off the single
  
• Johnson put his head down and ran, reviving memories of Forrest Gump
  
• Benn tries to get to the ball, and ends up looking like he was dragging Johnson back with his hand
  
• When the ball is 'dead', Haddin points his bat at Benn possibly asking him to stop coming in the way
  
• Benn is now really mad and keeps chattering & abusing away
  
• Gayle is standing still, first listening to Haddin's point of view and then to Benn
  
• Umpire Billy Bowden then steps in and asks Gayle & Benn to get on with it
  
• Benn, still very angry, asks Haddin some questions, throwing in a couple of obscenities rhyming with 'chuck'
  
• Benn then bowls an absolute ripper of a delivery that Johnson has no clue about. The batsmen cross over for a bye
  
• Benn is still unhappy and chattering away. He even appears to ask Johnson something, while Johnson practices his straight drive at the non-striker's end
  
• Benn bowls to Haddin, who drives the ball straight back. Benn threatens to throw the ball back (unsure if he was threatening to hit Haddin or the stumps) and Haddin provides a view of his stumps, requesting him to take a shot
  
• That was the last ball of the over. Haddin walks down the pitch grinning and saying something to Benn
  
• Benn tries to point out something to Haddin with his hand and accidentally brushes against Johnson
  
• Johnson pushes Benn away
  
• Bowden finally realizes things could be going from bad to worse and steps in

Purely going by what was seen on TV, there were multiple people at fault here:

• Benn - He had no business tugging at Johnson's shirt and trying to drag him back
  
• Haddin - He had no business pointing his bat and interfering with something that Benn & Johnson should have (and could have) sorted out between themselves
  
• Johnson - He can't be blamed too much because it is unlikely he would have realized that Benn brushing him was accidental. But given the heated situation at that time, pushing Benn away was a bad choice
  
• Bowden & Gould - The umpires are the biggest culprits here. The moment it seemed like Benn & Haddin were in a war of words, they should have stepped in and called a halt to the verbal warfare. They didn't, couldn't, or chose not to. Then, when Johnson pushed Benn away, Bowden was almost apologetically pleading with the players to move on. All this while, Gould, the square-leg umpire, was conspicuously absent, probably day-dreaming about the sumptuous lunch he had just finished

A couple of aspects of today's incident are interesting, and give me a huge sense of deja vu.

Symonds v/s Harbhajan at Sydney in early 2008: Harbhajan patted Lee on the back and Symonds, standing quite far away from the scene of action, stepped in quite unwarrantedly to save his mate's arse from Harbhajan.

Today, Benn ran into Johnson and Haddin batted on Johnson's behalf.

A couple of years ago, during the 2nd final of the triangular ODI series in Australia, Michael Clarke, the bowler, nearly pulled down Sachin Tendulkar's pants in order to prevent Tendulkar, at the non-striker's end, from taking a single.

There was no sign of any apology from Clarke, because he was only doing it hoping that Tendulkar's greatness would have 'rubbed off' on him. Tendulkar also seems to have rather enjoyed the fondling. Gautam Gambhir, who played the shot, did nothing. Of course, it is quite likely that this unwarranted & deliberate physical contact, and the absence of any action around it, 'inspired' him to try a similar stunt a year later.

Today, Haddin couldn't keep quiet, and had to intervene. An issue that could have been sorted out in a few seconds dragged on and on. It's quite likely that there will be follow-ups over the next 3 days of the test.

Benn has now been charged with a Level 2 offence while Haddin & Johnson have been charged with Level 1 offences under the ICC's code of conduct for players.

Clause 2.2.4 refers to "Inappropriate and deliberate physical contact between Players in the course of play during an International Match".

If Benn's physical contact (the act of tugging at Johnson, for I am unaware of any other deliberate/inappropriate physical contact) was wrong, Johnson is also guilty of pushing Benn away.

Haddin would be guilty under 2.1.4 (Using language or a gesture that is obscene, offensive or insulting) or 2.1.8 (conduct that is contrary to the spirit of the game or brings the game into disrepute). I don't think he should be charged with a Level 2 offence because he only brandished his bat (admittedly, that did sort of make the whole incident a lot worse than it could have been) and almost definitely needled Benn.

Am I surprised that Haddin & Johnson are likely to get away with a lesser charge laid against them? Of course, not! We know by now who gets away with it.

Benn should actually feel proud that the Australians seem to be targetting him now. That usually happens to combustible folks who're doing well against the Aussies.

On a related note, Malcolm Conn's ghost-writer has once again forgotten to use the magic phrase "India have been the worst-behaved team in cricket over the last decade" in his latest piece.

Labels: australia, ban, benn, frank worrell trophy, haddin, icc, johnson, match referee, perth, spirit of cricket, umpires, west indies

Thus spake Jagadish @ 12:56 am | Sledge/Read 5 sledge(s)
Did you like the post? [ Subscribe to the blog feed - | | Tweet ]

Could retainerships in Twenty20 leagues prevent premature retirements?

A couple of weeks ago, Andrew Flintoff announced his retirement from test cricket. He was followed by Chaminda Vaas. These retirements come as no surprise considering the physical strain associated with being quick/fast-medium bowlers. If Flintoff plays the remaining 3 Ashes tests, he would end up with 80 tests. The sad part is that he missed a whopping 63 tests. At 143 tests, he'd have been in the top 5 most-capped test cricketers of all time (behind Steve Waugh, Tendulkar, Border & Warne).

Last year, Scott Styris retired from tests. Earlier this year, Jacob Oram threatened to follow his teammate.

The irony is that the same cricketers who extoll the virtues of test cricket, call it the ultimate form of the game, rate their test cricket achievements as being the pinnacle compared to those in other forms of the game, etc. invariably end up retiring from test cricket. Can you point out anyone who has quit ODIs to continue playing tests? So do we all get this lip-service?

Cricket boards really run the risk of many more quality players quitting test cricket. Is it possible for everyone to have the cake and eat it to? Can T20 leagues & international cricket co-exist without antagonizing everyone involved? Is it necessarily a zero-sum game?

Let's make a few assumptions here - some could be wrong of course!

• Cricket administrators (cricket boards & organizers of T20 leagues) are telling the truth when they say test cricket needs to thrive.
  
• Cricket boards want to exercise maximum control over their players.
  
• Players believe that test cricket is the supreme form of the game.
  
• Players want to maximize their earning potential while they're still able to exhibit their skills well.
  
• Sponsors want the best players to be part of the event (not necessarily play) so that they can be used as great marketing vehicles.
  
• Cricket boards don't get anything from the IPL (or indeed any of the other proposed T20 leagues) when their contracted players participate in the tournament. So, a cricket board's first reaction to such a tournament is either that they won't allow their contracted players, or the players can participate for a ridiculously short period of time.
  
• The player's concerns are to not get injured, to play quality cricket, to earn as much as they can and to be able to fulfill their national commitments & contractual obligations with their cricket board.
  
• The T20 tournament organizer's primary concern is that the best players should be available for the maximum possible period of time, and play well enough in order to make the tournament a great success.
  
• Players are paid only on the basis of the number of games they play in T20 leagues.
  
• The money that cricketers earn from the IPL (or other leagues) is far in excess of what they have been earning so far.

Given all these assumptions, how do we best balance the self-interests of the players and the administrators? The combination of the last two factors hugely influences a player's decision to quit playing test cricket and free up that time to play more and more Twenty20, including at events like the IPL, Champions League, etc. Adam Gilchrist was largely spot-on in the talk he gave as part of the 2009 Cowdrey Spirit of Cricket Lecture (transcript & video) when he said:

An acceptance that professional players will increasingly make pragmatic decisions about their careers, which may involve playing less Test cricket or even perhaps, none at all. That the arrival of rich, franchised based competitions like the IPL will hasten this trend and reduce the primacy of playing for your country or provincial team. That a young first class cricketer in Bangladesh or the West Indies may have an entirely different set of playing priorities and goals to those youngsters playing in England or Australia. goals to those youngsters playing in England or Australia. That Cricket Administrators must adapt to these realities with clever programming of international fixtures to dove-tail off these competitions and if necessary radically change, even jettison the Future Tours Program in order to achieve this.

Let's leave aside for a moment the reality that Gilchrist contradicted himself in that statement. If the FTP was jettisoned, this would directly result in the likes of Bangladesh, West Indies & Zimbabwe playing less cricket against the 'stronger' (cricketing & economic factors) teams like Australia, South Africa, India & England. That would imply a reduction in the quality of cricket they're exposed to as well as revenue for boards. Do you seriously expect a cricketer from West Indies to say "No thanks, I'd rather play a test against Bangladesh because I'm so much in love with my administration"? Of course not! He's going to take the first opportunity available to throw away the WICB contract and play in one of the T20 leagues. So actually, by jettisoning the FTP, you could be increasing the risk that "a young first class cricketer in Bangladesh or the West Indies may have an entirely different set of playing priorities and goals to those youngsters playing in England or Australia". Having digressed, we now go back to the question - how to best balance the self-interests of the players and the administrators? Would a retainership-based payment structure work? What if the IPL (or other T20 leagues) split up the player's payment on a 60-40 basis, whereby 60% of the money they get is based on the number of games they play? But the remaining 40% is actually given to their cricket board. The cricket board could reduce the payment made to the player if he skips commitments (training, other contractual obligations, international games, etc.) because he gave a higher preference to playing in the T20 tournament. That 60-40 split is just a number. It could have been 50-50 or even 70-30, but the split-up needs to provide sufficient incentives & disincentives. Players who are not contracted to their boards would receive a pro-rata amount based on the number of games they played along with other contractual obligations fulfilled. This gives cricket boards enough incentive to release players for the tournament, knowing fully well that they will get something out of it if the players don't honour their side of the bargain. Players have an incentive to balance playing T20 leagues and international cricket. They don't fall under the 'daily wage worker' category, because really speaking when you're paid on a pro-rata basis, that is what you are! The tournament organizers & sponsors benefit since they know that cricket boards and players are both committed to the event because they both stand to gain. What are the potential problems associated with such a model? Manipulative boards (and there're plenty in that category) could reduce the payments on the basis of flimsy arguments. Players could opt out of board contracts, thereby removing the boards from the equation altogether and destabilizing international cricket. Tournament organizers & sponsors could offer incentives for players to give up their existing board contracts.

It may still be an option worth considering. If the model can prevent even one star player from quitting test cricket, I'd reckon it has done its job.

Labels: ashes, ashes 2009, burnout, champions league, colin cowdrey lecture, fatigue, flintoff, future tours programme, gilchrist, indian premier league, lord's, mcc, retire, spirit of cricket, twenty20, vaas

Thus spake Jagadish @ 11:35 pm | Sledge/Read 1 sledge(s)
Did you like the post? [ Subscribe to the blog feed - | | Tweet ]

Gautam Gambhir will miss the Nagpur test

Gautam Gambhir, who was banned for a test after he elbowed Shane Watson at Mohali, will sit out of the Nagpur test. This is because his appeal for a review of the ban has been rejected.

It is the right decision for several reasons.

• Gambhir was guilty of a physical offence, which carries a greater punishment than verbal abuse
  
• This was Gambhir's second physical offense in less than a year
  
• Gambhir had pleaded guilty to the charge

In the light of these facts, I have no idea what prompted the BCCI to go in for a review of the original decision in the first place! In fact now, the BCCI is threatening to up the ante by refusing to accept the decision. I have no idea why this is happening. In any case, Justice Albie Sachs, who was appointed by the ICC to hear the appeal, has presented a fact-based ruling about why the 1 test match ban should stand.

Malcolm Conn can keep writing about how the ruling would confirm India's standing as the worst-behaved team in the last decade. But the facts of this hearing and the Justice Hansen hearing of the Harbhajan v Symonds episode confirms Australia's standing as consistently displaying equally pathetic (if not worse) behaviour, considering the number of times opponents have complained about provocative and abusive language having been used by Australian players. The only difference is that, for whatever reasons, Australia's players are rarely pulled up before the match referee, and when they are, they get off lightly.

In a sense, it is good that Australia being the provocateurs most of the time is being exposed so that the players' double standards are brought out in the open. When Australia's players abuse and sledge, since it is the way they have always played their cricket, it is par for the course and opponents must cop it. But when opponents sledge or abuse, they go complaining to the umpires.

Mind you, this doesn't justify Gambhir's actions. But the fact is that the incessant abuse obviously got to him and that is what Justice Sachs hints at in his decision.

[16] In considering the proportionality of the penalty, I am prepared to accept that he had been the victim of prolonged and persistent verbal abuse by members of the Australian team, culminating in a moment of anger that led to his unfortunate lapse. I would add in his favour that the manner in which Shane Watson had raised an arm as he ran past for the first run, could have been taken by him as a mocking gesture, and thereby could have served as the last provocative straw.

[22] At the same time, it is not only physical argy-bargy that must be minimised. Constant verbal assaults are also unbecoming, and also bring the game into disrepute, the more so if their intention is to break the player’s concentration and provoke a loss of temper. To my mind, these 'verbals' as they are euphemistically called, whether they involve swearing or not, provide a kind of tension and aggression inconsistent with the spirit of cricket. Yet even if a case can be made out that the time has come to consider whether sledging has any place in cricket at all, one form of unbecoming conduct cannot justify another. However severe the verbal assaults on them may be, players are obliged not to give vent to their anger through physical retaliation. They must respond with their prowess as cricketers, and not with the furious muscle of out-of-control anger. Even a hint of physical retaliation must be strongly dealt with. And captains and umpires should be astute not to allow any badgering which raises the temperature and encourages undue ire.

This is a great opportunity for the ICC to step in and do something about abuse and sledging.

Update: Michael Jeh, on the Cricinfo 'Different Strokes' blog, has a good post on why the ICC needs to step in now. He also questions why the umpires did nothing about the constant abuse that Gambhir was copping. He asks an interesting question - Are these chaps at a workplace or playing a sport? If it is a workplace, clearly this abuse is unacceptable. If its a sport, then why not pay them commensurately, and besides, why abuse if it isn't something to be taken too seriously?

Labels: aus v ind 2008, ban, gambhir, icc, match referee, sledging, spirit of cricket

Thus spake Jagadish @ 6:54 pm | Sledge/Read 3 sledge(s)
Did you like the post? [ Subscribe to the blog feed - | | Tweet ]

Deja vu all over again

It seems so surreal and there's so much deja vu around the last few days.

Blatantly obvious decisions going against the touring team (Sehwag today, a couple at Bangalore, Ganguly in the first innings at Mohali). Batsmen almost definitely out, but the ball was a no-ball (Sehwag today). Home team piling on the runs regardless. Opposing captain invokes 'spirit of cricket' by saying that the batsman should have walked when he had obviously nicked it (Sehwag today).

Touring team's players injured (Jaques, McGain & Clark) while the others who filled in (or those who would have otherwise potentially been replaced) aren't quite doing a good job (Hayden, White, Krejza). Touring captain is at his wits' end.

Of course, this could all be extremely premature. Australia could still get away from Mohali 0-0 (or even better 1-0) and go on to win the series.

But it does feel good when the boot is on the other foot!

Talking of boots, I guess no situation better typifies the familiar adage 'when you've got Australia by the unmentionables, you hold on'.

At stumps yesterday, Australia were 300 behind and India still having 10 wickets in hand. Now, Australia needs 516 to win over more than 4 sessions (135+ overs). The most runs ever made in the fourth innings of a test is 654, followed by New Zealand's 451 featuring Astle's blitz a few years ago.

Labels: aus v ind 2008, australia, australia by the balls cliche, deja vu, india, spirit of cricket

Thus spake Jagadish @ 1:14 pm | 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 ]

The 2007 Colin Cowdrey lecture

The 2007 MCC Colin Cowdrey lecture was delivered by Christopher Martin-Jenkins, the Chief Cricket Correspondent of 'The Times'. Incidentally, his (CMJ's, not Cowdrey's!) son, Robin Martin-Jenkins, thwarted the Indians twice during the tour game against Sussex.

His talk (text & audio) focussed on players 'walking' when they know they're out, speeding up over rates, 4-day tests (in contrast, last year, Inzy was talking about six day tests!), an innovative bidding option at the toss, having just 3 umpires around, a shorter 2011 World Cup, the BCCI's 'administration', the ICC's stand on Zimbabwe and the recent influx of non-England born players into the England team.

Broadly, there's not much I disagree with. I totally agree that teams need to bowl their overs much faster than they are right now. Monetary fines are not the solution. Docking runs, not allowing teams to complete their innings, giving runs to the opposition or forcing the team bowling slowly to take 11 or 12 wickets rather than 10, etc. seem the right way to go.

I'm not a huge fan of walking. While my argument isn't based on the fact that decisions even out (they don't!), I believe that batsmen have a right to wait for the umpire to make a decision. The other problem I have with 'walking' is that there's a huge potential for players to walk when it is convenient. In my opinion, Gilchrist abuses the 'karma' he has earned.

I don't think 4-day tests are a solution. That could be a reality when teams bowl 20 overs per hour, but I don't see that happening soon.

I totally agree that the BCCI's lack of transparency, over-commercialized mentality, etc. are pathetic, but that seems to be a recurring theme across all cricket boards. Why else would everyone agree to play Australia/India/Pakistan in venues spread all over the world?

The fact that Zimbabwe are now out of the ICC test rankings means that the administration has failed the players. Yet, they're not held accountable - at least not yet.

Past Colin Cowdrey lectures were delivered by Richie Benaud, Barry Richards, Sunil Gavaskar, Clive Lloyd, Geoff Boycott and Martin Crowe.

Labels: 2011, bcci, colin cowdrey lecture, icc, spirit of cricket, walking, world cup, zimbabwe

Thus spake Jagadish @ 7:14 pm | Sledge/Read 0 sledge(s)
Did you like the post? [ Subscribe to the blog feed - | | Tweet ]

Controversy? What? Why?

Sri Lanka & Jayawardena are being a bit unintelligent in trying to create a controversy out of the Muralitharan run-out, after the 5-wicket loss. I watched it live and I had no qualms about the decision and I am definitely shocked that it has been projected as a controversy. Anyday, I will want Sri Lanka to win over New Zealand. But, that has got nothing to do with unfair cricket. The rules cannot be messed up with.

Muralitharan had no business to go and greet Sangakkara so early. It may be Sangakkara's 100th run for the innings, but just another run in the scorecard and it cannot be excused of any rules and hence Muralitharan is very clearly out as he would have been if he had fallen short in reaching for the first run itself - but that would have been very unfortunate for Sangakkara as he would have finished with 99*. Instead of blaming the Kiwis and talking about spirit of cricket etc., Jayawardena would do well to gift a Laws of Cricket to Muralitharan. As someone rightly said, though its a gentleman's game, they are out there to win and hence they are allowed to do anything within the rules.

Labels: murali, new zealand, spirit of cricket, sri lanka

Thus spake Ganesh @ 3:20 pm | Sledge/Read 1 sledge(s)
Did you like the post? [ Subscribe to the blog feed - | | Tweet ]

Martin Crowe's Cowdrey lecture

Martin Crowe, the brilliant New Zealand all-time great batsman, and a personal favourite, delivered the 2006 Cowdrey 'Spirit of Cricket' lecture at Lord's.

Last year's lecture was delivered by Geoff Boycott. The 2001 lecture was delivered by Richie Benaud, the 2002 lecture was by Barry Richards, the 2003 one by Sunil Gavaskar and the 2004 lecture was delivered by Clive Lloyd.

Crowe, who has previously expressed his views on the ICC tweaking around with one-day cricket, felt that Hawkeye's role in cricket needed to be re-assessed and use it in a consistent manner, across countries. He suggested that the ICC could 'own' Hawkeye and then 'provide' it to broadcasters. Clearly he didn't read the Wisden Group's media release of a month ago when it announced that it had bought over the Hawk-Eye technology.

He then went on to ask for umpires to be helped in adjudicating no-balls by either scrapping the front-foot no-ball rule or allowing the TV umpire to call front-foot no-balls. He also called for chucking to be determined by umpires, using the naked eye, rather than using tolerance levels of 15°. He also asked for the ICC's elite panel of umpires to be expanded, chosen purely on merit, regardless of their nationality and get all the umpires (two on-field and one third umpire) to share the duties.

Interestingly enough, this is an idea I propounded on my personal blog nearly 2^1/2 years ago where I in fact suggested that all four umpires, including the reserve umpire, should share duties. I'm happy that I was two years ahead of Martin Crowe :)

Crowe also made his point on ensuring sufficient rest between tours, injuries, player burn-out and meaningless games. He asked for tours to henceforth constitute three tests, three one-dayers and three Twenty20 games. He also wanted Zimbabwe and Bangladesh to be thrown out of international cricket, which'd go a long way in reducing the amount of international cricket played.

You can listen to the lecture online.

Labels: chucking, colin cowdrey lecture, spirit of cricket

Thus spake Jagadish @ 11:54 am | Sledge/Read 2 sledge(s)
Did you like the post? [ Subscribe to the blog feed - | | Tweet ]

Naughty naughty Ricky

Ricky Ponting effectively got a slap on the wrists when he was fined a paltry 25% of his match fee for his disgraceful (and successful) attempt to get the on-field umpires to revert to the third umpire again when Aftab Ahmed was ruled not out by the third umpire yesterday. I watched the proceedings on TV and Ponting had no business going back to the umpire Ian Howell after the third umpire had given his decision. Ponting kept pointing towards the pavillion/tv umpire's room and after that, Howell & Dar discussed and asked for a rethink by the third umpire, who then ruled Aftab Ahmed out.

The point isn't about whether Aftab Ahmed was actually out. Replays were inconclusive and so, under the current rules, he ought to have got the benefit of doubt, which he did for a few fleeting seconds. The on-field umpires should have asked Ricky Ponting to go and mind his own business. Ponting clearly breached the rules and the spirit of the game when he discussed the decision with the umpires, forcing them to go back to the third umpire.

Perhaps Ponting was over-eager to demonstrate that Australia could actually crush Bangladesh, given the result in the first test. Maybe he felt that Aftab would make a blitz 150-ball double century. Why on earth did Australia send in a nightwatchman, against Bangladesh, when they didn't even have to worry about a follow-on this game? Scared, perhaps?

The ICC's Code of Conduct document clearly puts the onus of playing within the spirit and laws of the game on the captains.

Players and/or Team Officials shall at all times conduct play within the spirit of the game as well as within the Laws of Cricket and the Captains are responsible at all times for ensuring that this is adhered to (Rule CC 5.1 deals with the application of and penalties for breach of this Rule).

5.7 Nothing in this Code of Conduct alters the onus on the Captain to ensure that the Spirit of the Game is adhered to as stated and defined in the preamble to the Laws of Cricket.

Today Jeff Crowe let Ponting get away with a miniscule deduction in his match fee, despite the fact that as captain, it was Ricky Ponting's responsibility to act within the code of conduct and the laws & spirit of the game. If he felt that Ponting moved to the umpires and spoke to them and it meant that he had prompted a referral, why wasn't Ponting fined the full 50% and given an official reprimand?

Labels: spirit of cricket

Thus spake Jagadish @ 7:26 pm | Sledge/Read 11 sledge(s)
Did you like the post? [ Subscribe to the blog feed - | | Tweet ]

Spirit of the game gone awol at Rawalpindi?

On Saturday, in the second one-dayer Rawalpindi, Virender Sehwag was dismissed in a most freakish manner. Dravid flicked a ball from Razzaq to fine leg and took off for two easy runs. Sehwag then noticed that there was scope for a third and ran to the striker's end. Meanwhile, Umar Gul had fielded the ball and thrown it back to the wicket-keeper. But Kamran Akmal is unfortunately a tad shorter than Curtly Ambrose, who'd surely have had no problems in catching Gul's throw. So the throw overshot Akmal's desperate leap ... and hit the stumps, with Sehwag out of his ground!

Even as Akmal realized he'd not collected the ball, he tried to fake running out Dravid at the non-striker's end and was elated when he saw the direct hit! This is how Cricinfo described it, sans too many details unfortunately.

17.2 Abdul Razzaq to Dravid, two runs, RUN OUT! inside edged down to fine-leg, Sehwag is coming back for a third, amazingly the throw from Umar Gul at fine-leg nails the stumps! Sehwag is short of his crease!

India 123/2, Partnership of 18
V Sehwag run out (Umar Gul) 67 (60b 10x4 1x6)

So here is a question for you, Inzi. Did this act by Pakistan conform to the spirit of the game you bleated about last week? After all, Sehwag had absolutely no idea that he was being targetted by Gul. More importantly, neither did Akmal. His act of faking the throw obviously misled Sehwag.

Earlier in the day, Shoaib Malik indulged in a game of rugby with Zaheer Khan.

NB: Please to note, above post is purely tongue-in-cheek.

Labels: spirit of cricket

Thus spake Jagadish @ 12:23 pm | Sledge/Read 0 sledge(s)
Did you like the post? [ Subscribe to the blog feed - | | Tweet ]

Moin Khan - the upholder of the spirit of the game

Read Zainub's brilliant post, writing as the 'Spirit of the game'.

I think she may be called up on to do one more post, after Moin Khan's rant echoing Inzamam's whinging at the Indians rightfully appealed against his act of obstructing the field. Of course, it is a moot point if you actually don't take Moin seriously, given he questioned Sachin Tendulkar's future and the way he played Shoaib Akhtar at Faisalabad. Oh, and a lecture on 'Spirit of the game' from someone who was severely reprimanded for being captain when Waqar Younis was hauled up for tampering with the ball against South Africa in a one-day series in Sri Lanka in 2000 and on another occasion, fined 75% of his match fee for showing serious dissent during the Multan test in 2004.

One of the comments to my post on Inzy's whinging mentioned how Pakistan could actually talk about 'Spirit of the game' when one of their own, Shahid Afridi, not too long ago, was hauled up and banned for a few games after he accidentally dug up the pitch with his spikes at Faisalabad against England.

I am now convinced that there will be repercussions, in the form of more aggression, sledging, ball throwing and perhaps even beamers, in the next four one-dayers, from the crowds, the media ... and most critically, from the Pakistani players.

Update: Anantha brings up another instance of Moin Khan's allegiance to the spirit of the game.

Labels: spirit of cricket

Thus spake Jagadish @ 8:40 am | Sledge/Read 7 sledge(s)
Did you like the post? [ Subscribe to the blog feed - | | Tweet ]

Stop making a fool of yourself, Inzy

Inzamam's lack of understanding of the 'obstructing the field' rule after he was ruled out at Peshawar manifested itself further in the form of his column for 'The News'. He wrote:

In my role as the Pakistan captain, I would say that the appeal from the Indian fielders was against the spirit of cricket.

The Indian fielders appealed when the Peshawar match was in a crucial state. I would not have imagined that Rahul Dravid and his team would do such a thing. I am not bothered about my dismissal but an appeal made in an unsportsmanlike manner by the visiting team can have an adverse affect on the relations between the two opponents.

I have surely asserted on my boys not to make much of the Peshawar incident, however, in my personal opinion the appeal was not made in a sporting manner. Instead, it just might have left a bad taste in the mouth.

When he writes about an unsportsmanlike appeal, I think he was implying that he expected the Indian fielders to ask the umpire "Sir, is that out?" rather than "Howizaaaaaat?".

I don't get why he thinks his thoughtless act should not have been appealed against by the Indians. He acknowledges that the game was progressing to a tight finish when the incident happened. Did he expect the Indian players to not appeal? I'm fairly sure they'd have appealed even if the game was one-sided, in either direction. He was being an idiot when he played the defensive stroke to Raina's throw from mid-off. He was violating the laws of the game.

Is he threatening retaliation when he writes about 'adverse effect'? In fact, contrary to what he actually writes, I'm sure there will be many balls hurled at the Indian batsmen even when they're well inside their creases. If batsmen complain about it, they make asses of themselves, as Hayden found out last year.

Update: Scott located a video of the dismissal!

Labels: spirit of cricket

Thus spake Jagadish @ 2:17 pm | Sledge/Read 11 sledge(s)
Did you like the post? [ Subscribe to the blog feed - | | Tweet ]

Boycott hits out at ICC in Cowdrey lecture

Since 2001, the MCC has invited distinguished ex-cricketers to deliver the "Colin Cowdrey Spirit of Cricket" lecture as part of the MCC Spirit of Cricket initiative.

Richie Benaud, who turned 1250 years old last October, delivered the first lecture. I have not been able to locate its contents on the internet. If someone can point me to the text/summary, I will link it up, with due credit.
Barry Richards did his bit in 2002 where he focussed on how cricket needed to entertain in order to survive. I'm sure he will be very happy with the way Twenty20 is shaping up.

In 2003, Sunil Gavaskar was invited to deliver the lecture. He came down severely on sledging and poor behaviour, especially by Australia. He did start off with a couple of potshots at the Lord's security staff, who had been disallowed him, during his playing days, from entering the ground because he wasnt properly attired.

Last year, Clive Lloyd spoke about restructuring cricket and assist countries who are suffering from lack of funds, infrastructure etc. He also ventured into talking about technology for umpires, match referees etc.

Geoff Boycott spoke a couple of days ago and blasted the ICC for not recognizing that teams like Zimbabwe and Bangladesh were dragging down the standard of international cricket. He also dragged his mum into the picture by claiming that she'd have loved to have batted and bowled against these teams, from both ends. He wanted four day test matches with teams bowling 105 overs a day, 15 overs an hour at least. This means seven hours of play. I really wonder how you could have seven hours of play on a cold dreary English summer day. But he has a good point about day-night tests. The BCCI did try out a day-night Ranji Trophy final in 1996/97 but the players' reaction was not encouraging enough for the experiment to continue the next season.

The only positive thing he said in the lecture was about Twenty20. Come on Boycs, there're quite a few other things you can praise about the game, especially when your country's side is aiming to beat Australia and feels it has a realistic chance to do so.

Anand Vasu writes that Boycs shouldnt have bothered because Bangladesh were here to stay. It really does become more difficult to question Bangladesh's existence in international cricket after beating Australia last month.

Listen to his lecture.

Labels: colin cowdrey lecture, spirit of cricket

Thus spake Jagadish @ 1:25 pm | Sledge/Read 0 sledge(s)
Did you like the post? [ Subscribe to the blog feed - | | Tweet ]

Aussies' behaviour has improved: Ponting

Even as fellow Aussies leap to Warne's defence, Ricky Ponting has claimed that his side's behaviour has been excellent over the last year or so. I'm certain that the Australian team's behaviour has improved when he's been in charge. You dont really expect good behaviour when Steve Waugh is the skipper, do you? Sunil Gavaskar spoke about this when he delivered the Spirit of Cricket lecture a couple of years ago.

Evidently the likes of Darren Lehmann, Symonds, Gilchrist, Langer and McGrath don't play for Australia. All these players had charges of dissent or poor conduct etc. brought against them in 2003 and 2004. Some got away scot-free. Some got away lightly.

Labels: spirit of cricket

Thus spake Jagadish @ 7:01 pm | Sledge/Read 0 sledge(s)
Did you like the post? [ Subscribe to the blog feed - | | Tweet ]

Richardson (in)directly says that the numbers racked up by the Kiwis in Bangladesh are nothing to crow(e) about. Sorry about that awful pun! Meanwhile, McMillan and Styris will not be too proud about the tour either, after they besmirched New Zealand's reputation of playing in the spirit of cricket.

Labels: spirit of cricket

Thus spake Ganesh @ 8:34 am | Sledge/Read 0 sledge(s)
Did you like the post? [ Subscribe to the blog feed - | | Tweet ]

Andrew Miller argues that giving the 'Spirit of Cricket' award to New Zealand was quite ridiculous.

Labels: spirit of cricket

Thus spake Jagadish @ 3:29 pm | Sledge/Read 0 sledge(s)
Did you like the post? [ Subscribe to the blog feed - | | Tweet ]

Here is the full text of Clive Lloyd's Colin Cowdrey Spirit of Cricket lecture.

Labels: colin cowdrey lecture, spirit of cricket

Thus spake Jagadish @ 9:00 pm | Sledge/Read 0 sledge(s)
Did you like the post? [ Subscribe to the blog feed - | | Tweet ]

Clive Lloyd delivered the Colin Cowdrey Spirit of Cricket lecture at Lord's yesterday. In his speech, he talked about the need for more technology aids to help umpires. You can listen to the lecture as well as a discussion on Lloyd's address.

Labels: colin cowdrey lecture, spirit of cricket

Thus spake Jagadish @ 2:49 pm | Sledge/Read 0 sledge(s)
Did you like the post? [ Subscribe to the blog feed - | | Tweet ]