Breaking news: Pakistan will not co-host the 2011 World Cup

As noted on a twitter update just now, Reuters reports that the ICC has ruled that Pakistan will not co-host the 2011 World Cup.

If you have an opinion about who's to blame for this move, pick from the options below!

	The PCB
	The ICC's double standards
	The BCCI and Sri Lanka Cricket
	Rest of the world (Australia, England, New Zealand, South Africa & West Indies)
	The Indian Premier League
Pollhost.com

Labels: 2011, 2011 world cup, breaking news, icc, pakistan, security, terrorism

Thus spake Jagadish @ 8:06 pm | Sledge/Read 1 sledge(s)
Did you like the post? [ Subscribe to the blog feed - | | Tweet ]

YAPTC - India will not tour Pakistan in 2009

India's tour of Pakistan, which has been in jeopardy right from the time the Pakistani link to the terror attack in Mumbai in November was identified, has now been officially called off. It is unclear if the 'prevailing circumstances' that the Indian government mentions relates to the security situation in Pakistan or the breakdown in diplomatic relations in the last 2-3 weeks.

In any case, there's little the PCB can do, since the ICC will not interfere when governments take decisions. The ICC can only interfere when a cricket board pulls out without government advisories to back the decision.

In 2003, a few months before India toured Pakistan after 14 years, I introduced the acronym YAPTC. I wrote

Pakistan has been crying itself hoarse over the last year or so about how it is a very safe place to play cricket, barring bombings in cities where matches are scheduled.
India's official stance against playing in Pakistan should be that it cannot risk sending its players and citizens to a place where there is a VERY big threat perception.
The point is that we should not tour Pakistan. Purely for security reasons. Nothing else.

In my opinion, the Indian government's decision is right, for the simple reason that India's cricketers would be sitting ducks in Pakistan given the huge potential for terrorist groups there to seek revenge for being banned. I know a lot of folks would say this robs fans of the chance to follow an eagerly awaited series, but that is secondary. The safety and security of cricketers should be the priority.

The other concern is the fate of the ICC Champions Trophy 2008 2009. If India continues with its policy of not sending its cricketers until the political/diplomatic/security situation improves, that tournament could also be cancelled.

Labels: india, pakistan, security, terrorism, yaptc

Thus spake Jagadish @ 3:20 pm | Sledge/Read 5 sledge(s)
Did you like the post? [ Subscribe to the blog feed - | | Tweet ]

"A very brave and courageous decision"

The ECB has now confirmed that England's first-choice test squad will play the two-test series in India. The announcement comes a couple of days after the ECB got its players to leave for Abu Dhabi.

If I were an England player, I'd be really scared. But scared not because of the potential of being a terror attack victim, but because of the language that Hugh Morris, the ECB Managing Director used.

The players have made a very brave and courageous decision and that will be hugely respected all around the world.

If you know your "Yes, Minister" & "Yes, Prime Minister" phrases, words like 'brave' and 'courageous' are typically used to refer to daft decisions taken without thinking through the consequences.

Sample this: "A controversial decision will merely lose you votes, a courageous decision will lose you the election"!

In a sense, the ECB has avoided a potential conflict with the BCCI. If the security advice given to the ECB been favourable to continuing the tour, and the ECB had cancelled the tour since its players were uncomfortable, the BCCI would have demanded compensation running into millions of {insert favourite non-Zimbabwe currency}.

Update: I just read Patrick Kidd's report for 'The Times' where he says the journalists saw that Steve Harmison looked positively pissed off at the turn of events and the eventual decision to go ahead to India. I don't understand why Harmison, or anyone else who was cagey about touring now, was forced to go along with the majority. If he had his own reasons for being worried, he was entitled to ask not to be picked for the tour.

In case of players complaining about burn-out, I believe they should just shut up and withdraw from tours. They're obviously taking a risk, especially in the event that the replacement does a good job. In a similar manner, players who withdraw from tours for security reasons should also be treated similarly.

Labels: ecb, eng v ind 2008, england, india, security, terrorism

Thus spake Jagadish @ 4:14 pm | Sledge/Read 0 sledge(s)
Did you like the post? [ Subscribe to the blog feed - | | Tweet ]

ECB Chairman Giles Clarke wakes up from week-long slumber

Either the ECB Chairman Giles Clarke has been living under a rock for the past week, or has been blissfully asleep for that period. Nothing else explains him saying "Under no circumstances will we allow our cricket to be dictated to by terrorists".

Umm, then why is there so much ambiguity around England's players returning for the tests? Why did the ECB get the test venues shifted? Why did the BCCI and the ECB agree to cancel the last two one-dayers? Why is the BCCI waiting for the Indian government's decision on touring Pakistan, assuming that the main reason for denying permission is the allegation of Pakistani involvement in the attacks? Why was the T20 Champions League postponed? Why was the ICL World Series called off?

Lip-service! The ECB is right in demanding quality security, as a deterrent to terrorists potentially targetting England's cricketers. Why be apologetic about it?

Update: The test match series is on, but will England's players turn up in the right country please?

After spending the last 72 hours consulting security advisers and Government agencies at the highest level, the England and Wales Cricket Board has determined that England will leave for Abu Dhabi tomorrow (Thursday) to resume their two Test tour of India.

I normally don't make fun of people's names, but I do find the England team security adviser's second name really funny - Reg Dickason. It's a bit like someone (John Arlott? John Warr?) describing Bob Cunis' name as "neither one thing nor the other".

Labels: ecb, eng v ind 2008, england, india, security, terrorism

Thus spake Jagadish @ 3:03 am | Sledge/Read 2 sledge(s)
Did you like the post? [ Subscribe to the blog feed - | | Tweet ]

England's test tour of India - should it go ahead or not?

Perhaps waiting for a few days after the terrorist attacks in Mumbai has helped me develop a better & clearer understanding of the implications, and the possible responses.

Soon after the attacks, the Twenty20 Champions League was cancelled. Then the BCCI announced that the remaining two one-dayers of the one-day series were off. As an aside, it is interesting though that had India won the series 7-0, it would have been the first ever time that a bilateral ODI series had that kind of result.

Interestingly, and perhaps disturbingly, the BCCI's press release on its website says that the last 2 ODIs have been postponed. Even more worrying is the fact that N Srinivasan, the treasurer said that the cancellation (or postponement?) of the 2 ODIs was done on the ECB's behalf. Why should the BCCI have waited until the ECB requested for it? Wasn't it bleedin' (pardon the insensitive pun) obvious that there was no way the ODI series would pan out as scheduled?

The second test, scheduled for the Brabourne Stadium at Mumbai, was moved to Chennai on the ECB's insistence for holding the game in a south Indian state.

Why wasn't Eden Gardens considered when it had last hosted a test a year ago? To what extent can the ECB dictate the choice of venues? I suppose the fact that among India's major cities, Chennai has not been impacted by terror attacks (so far, and touching wood as I type!) would have played a major role.

The way things stand now, England would be foolish to commit to a return in time for the tests, especially considering the first test is at Ahmedabad, where 17 were killed in July 2008. So, I don't really expect them to return for the test series unless the security folks give the venues a clean chit.

Should sport be used as a mechanism to heal wounds and ensure that civilians defeat the evil designs of terrorists? Is it the sportsman's duty to help with the process of healing, by entertaining?

Perhaps, to some extent. But the ones that play the sport are humans too. When the first reports of South Africa's players expressing a preference to go home came in, Ganesh wrote

The South African players, especially, seem to be afraid to stay in the island anymore and want to get back home which is completely understandable. We should realize that they are also humans and have their own families.

When South Africa did pack up and leave, I wrote

But human lives are far more important, more important than cricket. All this talk on the lines of "Blasts and terrorism are part of daily life. We ought not to be cowed down. The terrorists should not win. They won't target cricketers anyway" is just plain bull excreta. Even if blasts and terrorism are an everyday event, that does not mean cricketers, and indeed spectators, ought to invite trouble by playing games. The terrorists may not target cricketers explicitly. What if they hit the security folks who had the responsibility of guarding the cricketers? What if their aim missed and hit the cricket players' bus instead?

If England's players have even an iota of doubt about their safety in India, they aren't going to do justice to their their family, profession, their employers and other loved ones. If the security agencies give a go-ahead, individual preferences and choices must be factored in.

Also keep in mind the worries that India's players are likely to have. Sachin Tendulkar is apparently on the hit list of a few groups. The others are also likely to be extremely concerned for their safety. Playing international cricket now is probably the least of their priorities.

Not everyone is the same. Some are far more likely to prefer the comfort zone of their family & home. In such a situation, there's nothing wrong with it. Finding a slot for the test series or the T20 Champions League in the short-term future is not a big deal at all. It's just a sport, seen in perspective. Lance Klusener, if he indeed say it in the South African dressing room after he and Allan Donald had memorably cocked up at Edgbaston in the 1999 World Cup semi-final, wasn't too far off the mark in his assessment of the outcome of that game.

Vote in the poll.

Update: BCCI have now issued a revised schedule with Ahmedabad also not hosting a England Test this series. Looks like it would be Mohali & Chennai for the 2 Tests, although England haven't confirmed participation yet. This is baffling news, since Mohali had hosted a Test very recently, against Australia. Can someone remind the BCCI that only Ganguly retired and not his city?

Labels: bcci, ecb, eng v ind 2008, england, india, security, terrorism

Thus spake Jagadish @ 4:04 am | Sledge/Read 3 sledge(s)
Did you like the post? [ Subscribe to the blog feed - | | Tweet ]

Two sides do not make a triangle

South Africa have pulled out of the rain tournament following the bomb blast in Colombo a couple of days ago.

It is the right thing to do. As a cricket fan, I'm obviously sad. As a blogger, I'm probably happy that I don't need to write about some very meaningless games.

But human lives are far more important, more important than cricket. All this talk on the lines of "Blasts and terrorism are part of daily life. We ought not to be cowed down. The terrorists should not win. They won't target cricketers anyway" is just plain bull excreta. Even if blasts and terrorism are an everyday event, that does not mean cricketers, and indeed spectators, ought to invite trouble by playing games. The terrorists may not target cricketers explicitly. What if they hit the security folks who had the responsibility of guarding the cricketers? What if their aim missed and hit the cricket players' bus instead?

There was a nice dosage of double standards last year when Australia played on in England after the bomb blasts in London even as the ECB was trying to get Karachi off the agenda for the England team's tour of Pakistan late last year.

Now, it seems like India & Sri Lanka will play a few one-dayers to make up for the absence of South Africa.

All this reminds me of Sohrab Modi's immortal dialogue in Bimal Roy's 'Yahudi': "Tumhara khoon khoon aur hamara khoon paani?" That translates to "Is your blood blood and ours water?"

Labels: security, terrorism

Thus spake Jagadish @ 7:19 pm | Sledge/Read 0 sledge(s)
Did you like the post? [ Subscribe to the blog feed - | | Tweet ]

The expected and the unexpected

The rain tournament started on expected lines with the first match getting called off today with a remote possibility of play being possible on the reserve day tomorrow. Though this was not surprising, there was a bomb blast which has obviously given a shock to many including the players and the fate of the tri-series is undecided. The South African players, especially, seem to be afraid to stay in the island anymore and want to get back home which is completely understandable. We should realize that they are also humans and have their own families. It is believed that the Sri Lankan security officials are responsible for safety when the teams are travelling, but what can they do once a damage is done to any of the players. Its better to call off the series now.

Anyways, we are in for more call-offs due to rain. It would be better served atleast for the safety of the players. Also, it would reduce the pressure back home for their families if they fly back immediately.

Labels: security, terrorism

Thus spake Ganesh @ 6:58 pm | Sledge/Read 1 sledge(s)
Did you like the post? [ Subscribe to the blog feed - | | Tweet ]

England thrash Australia, London matches to go on, bowlers kiss their bats goodbye and rewinding to 1981

Strauss and Trescothick continued from 85/0 and put on a century partnership as England thrashed Australia by nine wickets in the first game of the NatWest Challenge. Jonathan Agnew is rightly bemused at how the one-dayer played without the new rules, which are aimed at sprucing up the game, turned out to be far more interesting than the first one played under the new rules! England's seamers, Paul Collingwood being the surprise package, did the job and one of our favourites, Ashley Giles didnt even get to bowl. That also implies that Australia's batting was downright pathetic. Their bowling was no better either.

Following yesterday's bomb blasts in London, there was speculation about whether the one-day series would go on, given that the next two games were scheduled for Lord's and the Oval, both in London. There is now confirmation that the circus would go on.

Andrew Ramsey takes a whimsical look at how the bowlers fraternity reacted to the new rules which could possibly mean the likes of McGrath, Muralitharan, Harmison and Ashish Nehra have played their last ever one-day innings.

Harsha Bhogle comes up with his wishlist on what Greg Chappell must focus on. Chappell has, for the past couple of weeks, been overseeing the Indian team's training at Bangalore, his first cricketing act since taking over as India's coach.

We now rewind to 1981 as Ian Botham's performances with bat and ball end up creating the legend of "Botham's Ashes". Peter Willey played his part in that series and he talks about how it felt to win against Australia after being down in the dumps.

Andrew Miller picks his ten momentum seizing Ashes tests of all time.

Labels: terrorism

Thus spake Jagadish @ 7:33 pm | Sledge/Read 0 sledge(s)
Did you like the post? [ Subscribe to the blog feed - | | Tweet ]