World Cup semis: The stories you definitely won't see

Mahinda Rajapaksa invites Queen Elizabeth II and John Key to chill out at the World Cup semi-final

Sri Lanka's President (& head of government), Mahinda Rajapaksa, has invited New Zealand's head of state Queen Elizabeth II and the head of government John Key to enjoy his hospitality during the World Cup semi-final at the Premadasa stadium as part of a diplomatic coup. The two island nations have been engaged in a 'cold war' since December 2006 after Murali was controversially run out even as he was walking to congratulate Sangakkara on his brilliant 100 at Christchurch.

---

Nathan Guy warns team against any attempts to smoke weed before semi-final

New Zealand's Minister of Internal Affairs, Nathan Guy, has issued a strict warning to the New Zealand team ahead of the World Cup semi-final against Sri Lanka. Acknowledging that New Zealand cricketers had a past history, he indicated that the team was under surveillance. Smirking & refusing to comment when this reporter asked him if he knew what South Africa's batsmen were smoking during the quarter-final, he said "I don't know about that, but what they were doing was a phonetically similar 7 letter word ending with 'oking'".

---

All set for mother of all semi-finals

Sri Lanka's media have lapped up the world's attention around the semi-final featuring Sri Lanka and New Zealand. Hordes of politicians, businessmen & celebrities have landed in Colombo. All hotels in and around Colombo have hung 'house-full' signboards and tickets are being traded in the black markets at premiums exceeding 500% of the list price.

---

Will New Zealand finally break the World Cup jinx against Sri Lanka?

New Zealand's rugby fanatic media woke up on Saturday to the breaking news that their cricket team had finally got rid of their bogey side, South Africa. Their elation was tempered after the realization that the semi-final was against Sri Lanka, who they have never beaten in any knock-out game at an ICC event!

Labels: 2011, 2011 world cup, headline, new zealand, semi-final, sri lanka, world cup

Thus spake Jagadish @ 11:43 pm | Sledge/Read 22 sledge(s)
Did you like the post? [ Subscribe to the blog feed - | | Tweet ]

2011 World Cup squads - Sri Lanka & India

Around 10 days ago, Sri Lanka announced the 15-member squad for the 2011 World Cup and it contained 2 bizarre omissions - Jayasuriya & Vaas. Now, why would you include these two in the preliminary 30-member squad two weeks earlier and leave them out without them having played any ODIs in-between to improve or worsen their chances of selection?

It's not like they have been active ODI players over the last 1-2 years. Jayasuriya last played an ODI in December 2009 while Vaas last turned out in August 2008! Why did they even get picked in the squad of 30 in the first place?

The BCCI did something similar earlier today. Piyush Chawla, who would most likely be the player Makarand Waingankar alluded to in the context of age manipulation, hasn't played an ODI since July 2008. Yet, he was picked in the 15-member Indian squad.

There are only 2 problem selections in the squad - Piyush Chawla and the absence of a reserve wicket-keeper. I am not sure if the playing conditions have been drawn up, but it is quite likely that if a player is coming into the World Cup with a known injury (i.e. didn't pick it up on/off the field during the tournament), a replacement player may not be allowed. Even when a replacement is allowed, the injured player cannot play any further part in the tournament.

The BCCI selectors are essentially punting on skipper Mahendra Singh Dhoni not injuring himself through the tournament. That's a huge risk to take with someone who has played the 2nd most number of internationals since 2008, the triple role he plays and the multiple injuries he has been playing through.

Dinesh Karthik would have been a good 2nd choice wicket-keeper especially given his ability to keep reasonably well and play counter-attacking innings. But his last 5 ODI innings produced 30-odd runs.

With Virat Kohli (unlikely to regularly feature in the playing XI), Suresh Raina & Yusuf Pathan the only decent fielders, and the likes of Ashish Nehra, Munaf Patel, Yuvraj Singh (a pale shadow of his 2000-2006 days), Zaheer Khan, Harbhajan Singh & Praveen Kumar being first XI choices, India's opponents will have loads of opportunities to pick up at least 1-2 extra runs an over without even trying to hit a boundary or six.

Labels: 2011, 2011 world cup, india, squad, sri lanka, world cup, world cup squads

Thus spake Jagadish @ 11:38 pm | Sledge/Read 8 sledge(s)
Did you like the post? [ Subscribe to the blog feed - | | Tweet ]

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 ]

If the law supposes that, then the law is a ass - a idiot

I'm no fan of Formula-1 racing, but what happened at Hockenheim in the German Grand Prix on Sunday was odd. Felipe Massa seemed to be following instructions to slow down, so that his teammate Fernando Alonso could win and give his team a better chance of winning the drivers' championship.

Scuderia Ferrari's (and Massa's) actions were in violation of clause 39.1 of the the 2010 Formula-1 sporting regulations, which explicitly prohibits team orders interfering with the race and clause 151.c of the FIA International Sporting Code.

I've not been able to figure out what the penalty should be as per the rules, but a monetary fine of $100,000 seems ridiculously low.

Unless the FIA does something real quickly and changes the rules to prevent such gaming of the system, I'm fairly sure that teams will attempt to repeat what Ferrari did.

We saw a similar example at the football World Cup recently where Luis Suarez (Uruguay) (possibly) deliberately obstructed the path of the ball with his hand in the last few minutes of extra time in his team's quarter-final against Ghana.

The FIFA laws resulted in him being sent off immediately, with a red card against his name, and a penalty awarded to Ghana.

Ghana failed to convert the resulting penalty, and eventually also fluffed the penalty shoot-out.

Did Ferrari or Luis Suarez do anything wrong under the rules of the game as they existed then? Of course, not!

Were the penalties strict enough?

In Ferrari's case, a fine of $100,000 is a pittance, considering their market value was estimated at over $1.5 billion last year.

The rules should ideally deduct points for such an offence, and force the team (not just the individual drivers) to be the last team to start the race, right at the back, regardless of the position achieved in the qualifying race. Actually, it's probably better if fossil fuels are conserved by disallowing the team from the qualifying race.

In Uruguay's case, it was the difference between a quarter-final stage exit (Ghana would have gone 2-1 up with about a minute to go), at least $4 million richer and a shot at reaching the tournament final. In Luis Suarez's case, it was the difference between going home a losing quarter-finalist and a hero who gave his side every chance of winning the quarter-final.

The rules should ideally award a goal to the team when the referee or linesman deduce that the player's action was deliberate, preferably through TV reviews and replays. This would be in addition to sending off the player after flashing the red card.

In my opinion, unless there are significant disincentives (including monetary ones), sportspersons (as well as teams & administrators) will attempt to push the envelope.

What's the linkage to cricket?

Someone famous (not sure who) wrote about Australia's cricket team that they would do anything to win - play within the rules, push them to the limit, and if necessary, go beyond them.

Is it Australia's fault that umpires and match referees fail to spot the obvious?

Is it Ricky Ponting's fault that the match referee Chris Broad warned Mohammed Aamer although it is quite obvious from the video that Ponting elbowed him, rather than the other way around?

Is it Sachin Tendulkar's fault that he keeps getting away with running on the centre of the pitch while others get hauled up for much lesser offenses?

Can you blame a team if it goes really slow with the bowling over rate to prevent the opposition from winning a test?

Can you blame a team if it decides to take the 2nd best option, having ruled out a win, of being thrashed and conceding a bonus point so that a 3rd team was (virtually) ruled out of contention for a finals slot?

Can you blame a team if it decides to slow down the chase so that a 3rd team would have a tougher chance of qualifying, since the rules meant that it would be carrying over 2 lesser points if the 3rd team qualified for the next round?

The administrators are responsible for drafting up laws that make sense, coming up with penalties that are appropriate, and most importantly, implementing them consistently.

This topic has a lot more immediate relevance given what's transpiring in Sri Lanka.

Unless the laws of the game are changed such that touring captains are always deemed to have won the toss, we might as well fast forward to the end of the game with the scorecard predictably reading "Sri Lanka 630/7d, Tourists 276 and 309 ao. Sri Lanka won by an innings and 45 runs".

PS: The title of the post is from Oliver Twist.

Labels: australia, behaviour, icc, laws, match referee, over rates, sri lanka

Thus spake Jagadish @ 11:03 pm | Sledge/Read 2 sledge(s)
Did you like the post? [ Subscribe to the blog feed - | | Tweet ]

Mahela: Kotla wasn't a fair wicket for one-day cricket

Mahela Jayawardene sounded very reasonable, it until he told Cricinfo that his team and the Indian team thought that the Kotla pitch was not a fair wicket to play one-day cricket.

I wonder what his opinion was about the Rajkot pitch where 820 runs were scored across 100 overs. Was that a "fair" wicket for one-day cricket? I'm totally on Jarrod Kimber's side when he writes "If these batsmen want to come out with two inches of unprotected space on their bodies, then they can take whatever comes at them".

The ICC's monitoring process is bound to kick in now since the assumption seems to be that all low-scoring pitches are sub-standard.

The Feroz Shah Kotla could be banned from hosting internationals for at least a year, although it is likely that the punishment could be more lenient considering this was the first adverse report by the ICC for a game played at the venue. There doesn't seem to be any evidence that previous ICC feedback implied that the ground conditions were poor.

Of course there was a risk of physical injury for batsmen yesterday. Of course that isn't fair to batsmen. But life isn't fair either, and I'm assuming all cricketers and cricket fans do agree that cricket mirrors life, to a large extent.

Don't bowlers risk physical injury and permanent mental scarring when they run in (some morons run in nearly 25 metres each ball) pointlessly, especially on hot sultry days? They put in their maximum effort, hoping that the batsman would defend the ball near his chest, only to see that it ended up at his knees and the ball ended up over mid-wicket.

So, who is responsible for the Kotla ODI being abandoned?
	BCCI
	DDCA (Delhi & District Cricket Association)
	ICC
	IPL
	Batsmen-friendly rules and committees

Labels: bcci, ddca, delhi, farce, icc, india, pitch, sri lanka

Thus spake Jagadish @ 5:10 pm | Sledge/Read 6 sledge(s)
Did you like the post? [ Subscribe to the blog feed - | | Tweet ]

The 2009 T20 World Cup - quite eventful

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

ICC's weather bureau gets into the act

One month ago, the ICC announced that the next edition (let's not split hairs over whether it is the 2008 edition or 2009 one!) of the ICC Champions Trophy would not be held in Pakistan. While the decision on the new venue was to have been announced in April, there were rumours about Sri Lanka hosting the tournament.

Now, the ICC's general manager, Dave Richardson reckons that Sri Lanka was unlikely to host the event because of concerns over the weather. Well, here's what we tell him. We told you so, Dave!. If only you'd bothered to check with us!

We wrote, a month ago, about the impact of the weather.

There's talk of Sri Lanka hosting the tournament, currently scheduled for September-October 2009. But consider that Colombo, the main cricketing centre there with three international grounds, typically has heavy rainfall from end-September all the way till November. The only international cricket venue which will be unaffected by the monsoon is Dambulla, in the centre of the country. Can the pitch handle 15 matches in a span of 17 days? I suspect not!

Besides, as Patrick Kidd helpfully points out, the 2002 edition of the tournament was held in Sri Lanka in the last 15-20 days of September, and two attempts at a trophy-deciding final were damp squibs.

Spare everyone the torture. Just scrap the concept. Instead, ensure that the time that gets freed up helps test-playing countries play each other for at least 3-test series. Spend some time and come up with a way to get Bangladesh & Zimbabwe to improve more dramatically. If this requires a two-tiered test championship, figure out how to do so in the best manner without impacting TV rights owners.

Labels: 2009 champions trophy, champions trophy, icc, rain, sri lanka

Thus spake Jagadish @ 11:19 pm | Sledge/Read 0 sledge(s)
Did you like the post? [ Subscribe to the blog feed - | | Tweet ]

Triple role Tillakaratne

Tillakaratne Dilshan will captain, keep and open in today's T20 game against India.

If he doesn't trip over a teammate's lengthy name, like Hettiarachchi Gamage Jeevantha Mahesh Kulatunga, he will become the third player, after Gilchrist & McCullum to have played a triple role in a T20 international.

In fact, there have only been 7 other players across 132 years of tests, 38 years of ODIs & 3 years of T20 internationals to have opened, captained and kept wickets in a game.

Labels: dilshan, sri lanka, statistic

Thus spake Jagadish @ 3:20 pm | Sledge/Read 2 sledge(s)
Did you like the post? [ Subscribe to the blog feed - | | Tweet ]

India wins 9 ODIs in a row

The Indian ODI side, after ODI series wins away last year in Australia & Sri Lanka and at home against England, now has a 5-0 clean sweep in its sights in Sri Lanka.

They've now won 9 ODIs in a row, 1 more than previous streaks of 8 - 1985, 2003 during the World Cup & 2006 in a thrashing of England. The interesting aspect is that all these sequences either started or ended in February!

The Indian media has gone overboard in describing the team as the #1 side, conveniently forgetting that Sri Lanka is ranked #7 while South Africa beat the incumbent #1, Australia. There is no doubt that this side has immense potential. The batting is very good and has a great blend of aggression (Gambhir, Sehwag, Yuvraj, Raina & Yusuf Pathan) & solidity (Tendulkar, Dhoni - depending on his mood & Rohit). The bowling has also been impressive & the new-ball bowlers (Zaheer, Ishant & Praveen) have picked up top order wickets repeatedly. Harbhajan's absence has given Pragyan Ojha the scope to display his ability and also put more responsibility on Sehwag, Yusuf Pathan & Yuvraj. The fielding is very good (Yuvraj, Raina, Rohit, Yusuf Pathan & even Ishant Sharma).

Yet, could it be a false dawn? After all, the personnel were fairly similar during the Dravid-Chappell years where India's ODI side promised so much in terms of fielding, flexibility of batting order & bowling. Yet, within a year, the team had more or less lost the 'zing' when "seniors" were restored, thus driving up the age & bringing down the fielding & running-between-wickets.

At least this time it is inconceivable that the personnel will change significantly. What could change is how the team responds to losing. Starting from the Australia tri-series, the side has won 20 out of 28 games against decent opposition (including England is a stretch of the term 'decent', admittedly!).

The toss hasn't played too significant a role - 15 tosses won, 13 lost. Out of those 15 games where India won the toss, 3 games were lost. Out of the 13 tosses lost, 8 games were won. Out of the 13 games where the side batted first, it won 10. Out of the 15 times it chased, it won 10. Not a very significant difference.

Yet, the elation must be tempered with the reality that after the Australia tri-series, the wins have all been in the sub-continent. Yes, the team can't really help that since that's how the scheduling is. That is why it is so crucial to win the ODIs against New Zealand.

Labels: india, sri lanka, statistic, streak

Thus spake Jagadish @ 12:37 am | Sledge/Read 0 sledge(s)
Did you like the post? [ Subscribe to the blog feed - | | Tweet ]

Quite a weekend, that!

The weekend was quite eventful.

First, Marcus Stresscothick Trescothick revealed in his newly published autobiography that during the 2005 Ashes, England tampered with the ball by using mints to polish the ball. Rahul Dravid must be wondering about how stupid he was, not for using a lozenge, but for getting caught while doing so!

Update: I came across Ricky Ponting's response when asked about Dravid being pulled up. He said

I don't think you'll see us doing anything like that.

Ricky's response confirms that Dravid's mistake was in getting caught. Notice that Ponting didn't say "We never do such things". What he said was "You won't see us doing anything like that". i.e. his team would never be caught by umpires, match referees, opponents (live or on television) doing something like that.

However, remember that the ICC, in July, altered the result of a test match two years after the game was completed! So it may not be a bad ploy for Australia to lobby the ICC to reverse the result of the 2005 Ashes series.

Then, the ICC decided that the ICC Champions Trophy would be postponed to Oct 2009, with the proviso that the environment is deemed fit for an international tournament to be staged and there are no security concerns. In case people didn't notice, the boards that wanted the tournament to be moved or rescheduled weren't all 'white'. South Africa and West Indies had concerns as well. In my opinion, this is certainly not an instance of a racial split in cricket, as is often made out to be!

The move is highly likely to cause a lot of ripples in international series scheduling. The ICC's Future Tours Programme doesn't seem to have too much flexibility to accommodate the tournament in 2009. Looking at the schedule, mid-Apr 2009 to early-May 2009 seems the only time period when there's very little international cricket scheduled. West Indies host Bangladesh in that duration, but come on, who cares about that series!

Amidst all the chaos, India have gone 2-1 up against Sri Lanka in the one-day series with a fairly comprehensive 33 run win in the 3rd ODI. But I still don't understand why Sri Lanka were allowed to recover from 59/6 & 94/7. For some bizarre reason, Yuvraj was persisted with despite having done his job in providing the breakthrough (Kulasekara). He's a part-time bowler, yet Dhoni got him to bowl 8 overs on the trot. Naturally, Yuvraj became less effective as his spell dragged on, conceding 16 runs in his last 2 overs. Dhoni should have brought back Munaf or Zaheer or Praveen (in that order of priority) to try and get the remaining 3 wickets (or at least get Jayawardene out).

Sangakkara needs to do something about Zaheer Khan's stranglehold on him. In 6 matches this year, he has been dismissed 5 times by Zaheer and has barely got a run. In the tests, he was driving away from the body and getting caught in the slips. In the one-dayers, he's been troubled by Zaheer getting the ball to cut in. I think this is because Sangakkara is moving a lot outside offstump when the ball is being delivered, possibly to cope with the swing or just as an attacking measure. As a result, he's forced to play at outswingers and when the ball does nip back, he's caught on the move. In any case, I hope he doesn't sort it out for the next couple of games at least!

Charles Davis, an Aussie statistician, seems to have misread his calendar. After a lot of meticulous & painstaking research, he claims to have discovered that 4 runs had to be added to Bradman's test run aggregate, which would give the Don an average of 100. But he seems to have sent in his report around 8 months too early - 1 Apr 2009 would have been the appropriate date for the story!

Darrell Hair, who had been reinstated to the ICC's Elite panel of umpires in March this year, has resigned and will be coaching umpires in New South Wales. There is some ambiguity about when his ICC contract actually expires - Oct 2008 or Mar 2009. In any case, the ICC is really messing up the quality of umpiring in international cricket.

PS: Forget Beefy, I want to know who the heck writes Pietersen's scripts! He got a 100 and England won his first test in charge. Last week, in his first ODI as the official captain, he scored 90, helped England get 270, got two crucial wickets and England won!

Labels: 2009 champions trophy, ashes, autobiography, ball tampering, champions trophy, england, icc, india, pietersen, sangakkara, security, sri lanka, zaheer khan

Thus spake Jagadish @ 5:07 pm | Sledge/Read 2 sledge(s)
Did you like the post? [ Subscribe to the blog feed - | | Tweet ]

Tinkering with the review system

The newly introduced review system whereby players can seek reviews of on-field umpiring decisions has just completed one trial run. I'm fairly sure that this isn't the only trial run it will go through. I wouldn't be surprised if it was also used for the India-Australia series later this year, if not for some other series held earlier.

I still believe this is a good thing, as long as the ICC also does something to improve umpiring standards based on the data available on number of decisions changed for each umpire over the course of, say, a year.

In addition to reducing, not removing altogether, obviously wrong decisions handed out to bowlers and batsmen, I believe that the review system will result in batsmen using their bats more than pads, against spinners and slower bowlers, especially. In the Sri Lanka v India series that ended yesterday with a walloping for India, there were 16 lbw decisions given favouring Murali & Mendis, across 6 innings. The corresponding number for Sri Lanka (effectively only 4 innings since they declared at 6 down once and won with 8 wickets to spare yesterday) against Kumble & Harbhajan was 7.

I interpret the numbers to arrive at two decisions:

1. Murali & Mendis were far more accurate than Kumble & Harbhajan. This is also reinforced by the fact that India's spinners only dismissed one Sri Lankan batsman bowled, while Sri Lanka's spinners dismissed 7 Indian batsmen bowled.
   
2. Sri Lanka's batsmen used the pad more effectively (not necessarily lesser) than India's batsmen. In addition, India's batsmen did not figure out that the TV umpire was more inclined to ruling in favour of bowlers when batsmen didn't attempt to (or make a show of) using bat instead of pad. As a result, we had the spectacle in India's 2nd innings at the P Saravanamuttu stadium (3rd test) where Tendulkar was nearly given out lbw twice in a row when facing Muralitharan and the TV umpire ruled in his favour. Next over, he padded up to Mendis and was sent packing by the on-field umpire and by the TV umpire, when it was referred on Tendulkar's appeal for a review.

I'm going to stick with my earlier stand that there should be no limit on the number of reviews that a team can ask. But, there's an additional caveat. We've seen that captains (or batsmen) take a long time to ask for the review. So, the review must be asked for within a time limit of (say) 10 seconds after the ball has gone dead (i.e. from the moment the on-field umpire gave the original decision). The TV umpire must also be given a fixed time limit, of say 3 minutes, within which he should use the available evidence to arrive at a decision. If he is unable to do so, the on-field umpire's decision should stand.

One possible deterrent to players taking their own sweet time to ask for the review is to include the time taken to make that decision while calculating their over-rate while bowling and enforce the appropriate penalty. The other option is for the ICC to slowly increase the minimum over-rate limit, to say 17 an hour and then eventually end at 20 an hour.

The one aspect that the ICC needs to ensure is to make available more technology (and camera angles) to the TV umpire to ensure he gets the decision right, without wasting too much time. If that means using other gadgets (Snickometer, HotSpot, etc.), then they ought to make sure that happens. The inconsistency in decisions needs to be reduced removed. Some common sense is needed as well. If a batsman has been struck on the pad, and the point of impact is nearly 3m from the stumps, it is very tough to accurately determine that the ball will go on to hit the wicket, even if it pitched in line and the impact was in line with the stumps (Ganguly being given out lbw to Murali in the 2nd innings of the 3rd test).

The Indian team may possibly have the feeling that the review system hasn't really resulted in a decrease in the number of decisions going against them. It is in a trial phase. If the ICC does decide that the system is going to stay for the next few years at least, it makes sense to do more trials and then set the the benchmarks. It'd be stupid for the BCCI to now complain about the system, since the major trigger for this system being introduced was the horrible umpiring at Sydney 2008. For starters, if the Indian batsmen used bat more often than pad, they'd get out lbw a lot less often. To paraphrase King Cricket from his superb post last year when Pietersen was given out to a slip catch that didn't look too clean, the main problem was that the Indian batsmen played with pad. As a batsman, if you use pad rather than bat to spinners bowling accurately, there’s a fair chance you’re going to be out lbw.

Labels: ajantha mendis, icc, india, murali, reviews, sri lanka, umpires

Thus spake Jagadish @ 1:57 pm | Sledge/Read 2 sledge(s)
Did you like the post? [ Subscribe to the blog feed - | | Tweet ]

Squad announcements: India's tour to Sri Lanka & Champions Trophy

The BCCI announced the Indian squad for the test series in Sri Lanka today. Since Dhoni had opted out, citing overwork, there is no designated vice-captain. I guess Sehwag, who was sacked from the role during India's tour of South Africa in 2006, will step in when required. In any case, Kumble has more than enough people to chip in with suggestions (Dravid, Tendulkar, Ganguly, Laxman, Zaheer & Harbhajan).

Dhoni had opted out since he was obviously tired, stressed & probably getting burnt out from having played out his multiple roles as captain, wicket-keeper & star batsman almost continously for over a year without ever getting a chance to sit out a game or two. He has done the right thing. On his personal website, Gary Kirsten touched upon the necessity to give Dhoni a break.

Mahendra Singh Dhoni is probably the most obvious example of a man needing a break. In my own experience, by the time a player is feeling tired or 'flat', it is already too late to rest him. The rest needs to happen before fatigue sets in. MS is a brilliant cricketer and the sort of man who is happy to play every game, but he knows that it is not practical. Fatigue can lead to loss of form as well as injuries, both of which can adversely affect a player's long-term career.

Like I've mentioned before, the responsibility and right ultimately rests with the player. Unless the players have a mechanism to be actively consulted when the board draws up schedules, they have to play when required to.

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

Thankfully, the selectors have lost patience with Yuvraj. After his blazing century against Pakistan at Bangalore, he has been quite hopeless. He'll keep saying all the right things about the need to make an impact in test cricket, but personally, despite the fact that he is only 27, I think he should just stick to limited overs cricket. I'm sure he'll do a very good job.

Presumably Dravid & Ganguly have been 'rested' for the ICC Champions Trophy later this year, since they don't feature in the list of 30 probables.

Labels: bcci, burnout, champions trophy, dhoni, fatigue, india, squad, sri lanka

Thus spake Jagadish @ 11:34 am | Sledge/Read 3 sledge(s)
Did you like the post? [ Subscribe to the blog feed - | | Tweet ]

More torture for ODI cricket watchers

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

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

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

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

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

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

Yet another case of ODI cricket digging its own grave.

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

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

Rohit Sharma fined 10%

Rohit Sharma was found guilty of violating clause 1.3 of the ICC's code of conduct and he was fined 10% of his match fee for showing dissent at an umpire's decision in the game against Sri Lanka yesterday.

I wonder if there was any attempt by the Indian representatives (Rohit Sharma & the manager, Chetan Chauhan) to tell Jeff Crowe (who has previously let off Brett Lee despite being a repeat level-1 offender and Ricky Ponting for disgracefully attempting to get the on-field umpires to re-refer a decision to the third umpire) that Rohit Sharma was terribly disappointed that Rudi Koertzen (who has a habit of apologizing after screwing up with his decisions) gave him out stumped when his foot was very firmly behind/in the crease.

The sub-text is that Rohit Sharma was bloody obviously not out caught, since he never even touched the ball! This is yet another instance of the hopeless quality of umpiring, especially in the last few months.

At least someone like Rohit Sharma is unlikely to be dropped on the basis of one duck. There are several instances of players not being considered after an inning or two, or after bowling a handful of overs, in international cricket. How likely is it that some of those players copped horrendous decisions from the umpires?

Labels: Commonwealth Bank Series, icc, india, rohit sharma, sri lanka, statistic, umpires

Thus spake Jagadish @ 3:17 pm | Sledge/Read 1 sledge(s)
Did you like the post? [ Subscribe to the blog feed - | | Tweet ]

Warne-Murali trophy? Naah!

To commemorate the 25th anniversary of test cricket between Australia and Sri Lanka (lest we forget, they've played the grand total of eight series in this period), there is a proposal by Sri Lanka's cricket board to name a trophy after the two spinning legends.

I have a few [better, imho!] suggestions. If they wanted to use legendary spinners, then why not name it the McIntyre-Dharmasena trophy? If they wanted to celebrate batting under-achievers in tests, why not name it the Law (avg. infinity)-Nawaz (Test batting avg. of 99) trophy? If they had to celebrate pleasing batting, then they could have named it the Waugh (Mark, not Steve! Are you serious?!) - De Silva trophy? They could also name it the 'Audi' trophy in honour of Mark Waugh's four ducks in a row against Sri Lanka (facing a total of 12 balls) and pocket a nice sponsorship from Volkswagen in the bargain! To honour two bowlers with dubious actions, may I suggest the Mura-Lee trophy?

Labels: aravinda de silva, australia, humour, mark waugh, murali, sri lanka, warne

Thus spake Jagadish @ 6:44 pm | Sledge/Read 2 sledge(s)
Did you like the post? [ Subscribe to the blog feed - | | Tweet ]

Grin and bear it?

It is totally bizarre and stinks of double-standards. Jason Gillespie's viewpoint is that the abuse that Andrew Symonds copped in India is "totally unacceptable" while he doesn't use the same words in the context of Murali being targetted by Australian spectators.

Instead, he advises Murali to 'grin and bear it'. I am emphatically against the way the crowds targetted Andrew Symonds, but for a minute, I am tempted to ask Symonds to 'grin and bear it' as well. Then again, maybe Gillespie is saying this because he's perhaps not going to return to the international side again, having been first dropped in the post-2005 Ashes cleanup and then not having been picked since April 2006 after scoring a double-century.

In fact, right now, he has the 5th highest final test innings score, behind Sandham, Ponsford, Nurse and Aravinda de Silva. Sangakkara's last test innings was 222, but he's definitely going to play another test. Gillespie? Umm, I think not!

Labels: australia, gillespie, murali, racism, sri lanka, symonds

Thus spake Jagadish @ 6:43 pm | Sledge/Read 2 sledge(s)
Did you like the post? [ Subscribe to the blog feed - | | Tweet ]

Problems aplenty for Australia

Though the Aussies have just crushed every possible opponent and have won the World Cup for the third successive time, its not without a few problems. Infact, Rohit Brijnath aptly explains their problems and compares with India and also sees that India are better off even without the victories. He sums up brilliantly...

In short, the Australians play brilliant cricket but do not enjoy the game. Not like us. Which is why, one can now reveal, they sent Greg Chappell to India. But apparently en route he forgot his orders. He thought he was here to teach. But it was to learn.

He has infact written it even before the World Cup final victory, but does it matter at all?

Labels: 2007 world cup, australia, sri lanka, world cup, world cup final

Thus spake Ganesh @ 11:56 am | Sledge/Read 0 sledge(s)
Did you like the post? [ Subscribe to the blog feed - | | Tweet ]

A fitting end...

Well, what can you say about the calamity, the debacle, the shamozzle that was the final of the 2007 World Cup other than, fitting.

The best team won - the most worthy challenger throughout the tournament made it to the final, Glenn McGrath goes out on a high, and the long drawn out, badly organised tournament ended in a debacle, in darkness, with wides being called, video referees making decisions, all this, after the batsmen had already left the field for bad light. This tournament will not be forgotten now and changes will be made. A thrilling cracker of a final would've pushed all the other nonsense to the background and maybe have smoothed some issues over - now, we will never forget it.

Now, correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought once you went off for light of rain, you couldn't come back until the light improves or the rain stops.

If we believe the commentators, there was even talk of coming back the next day to complete the match, at one point - what a joke.

Anyway, the important points are - Sri Lanka were gallant in defeat, I guess acknowledging that they were probably not going to win anyway, but clearly could have been quite justified in being very upset at how their assault on a winning total was inhibited by lack of accurate information and organisation - and, that other point - Australia won the World Cup.

You beauty!

Labels: 2007 world cup, australia, bad light, gilchrist, mcgrath, sri lanka, world cup, world cup final

Thus spake Stuart Helwig @ 7:09 am | Sledge/Read 1 sledge(s)
Did you like the post? [ Subscribe to the blog feed - | | Tweet ]

One nice big laugh at Rudi Koertzen please!

Neither his country, nor he will be out on the field during the final tomorrow.

Steve Bucknor's presence in his fifth consecutive final is the clearest indicator of how crappy West Indies have been, especially in one-day cricket, over the past 15 years. David Shepherd umpired three consecutive finals (1996, 1999 and 2003). That shows how poor England were at one-day cricket! Zimbabwe have never had an umpire in a World Cup final, which is an obvious indicator of how good they have been!

Labels: 2007 world cup, australia, bucknor, koertzen, sri lanka, umpires, world cup, world cup final

Thus spake Jagadish @ 1:49 pm | Sledge/Read 2 sledge(s)
Did you like the post? [ Subscribe to the blog feed - | | Tweet ]

Go, the sub-continent

Sri Lanka: The last team to beat Australia in a World Cup final.

Pakistan: The last team to beat Australia in a World Cup game.

India: The last team to play Australia in a World Cup final.

Bangladesh: The last team I will mention here.

Labels: 2007 world cup, australia, bangladesh, india, pakistan, sri lanka, world cup, world cup final

Thus spake Jagadish @ 9:03 pm | Sledge/Read 2 sledge(s)
Did you like the post? [ Subscribe to the blog feed - | | Tweet ]