A moronic run-out decision

Yesterday, in the Bangladesh v Pakistan game at the Asia Cup, Pakistan's Umar Amin was declared run out by the third umpire for no apparent reason.

He had driven the ball to long-on and taken a single. Since the bowler, Mahmudullah, was bowling from around the wicket, Umar walked across to the other side, oblivious to the fact that his bat was not grounded and no part of his person was grounded behind the 'popping crease' at the bowler's end.

Mahmudullah saw this and took off the bails. The on-field umpire got confused and handed over control to the third umpire. After multiple views, Umar Amin was ruled out.

This, despite law 23 (Dead ball) explicitly saying that a ball was dead when it was finally settled in the hands of the wicket-keeper or the bowler. Yes, the bowler's end umpire has to be satisfied that the fielding side and both batsmen also considered the ball to not be in play.

But even the smallest bit of common sense would indicate that there was no way Umar was attempting a second run. He was switching ends.

The ball was most definitely not in play.

Where's common sense when you need it most?

At least in the Murali run-out by McCullum instance, Murali actually walked out of the crease. Whether it was to attempt a second run or to congratulate Kumar Sangakkara is a moot point.

In Umar Amin's case, there's no way he was out!

Labels: asia cup, bangladesh, laws, pakistan, umpires

Thus spake Jagadish @ 2:16 pm | Sledge/Read 0 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 ]

Steve Bucknor to retire from international umpiring

Steve Bucknor, who has umpired the most internationals (305) and as on date, the only one to have umpired 100+ tests, will be retiring from international umpiring in March.

In an interview to the Jamaica Gleaner, he said that his last test would be the 3rd test between Australia & South Africa while his last ODI would involve England & West Indies.

Now it's a lot more easier to make sense of Ricky Ponting excusing himself from the IPL. Notice that he wrote in his column "I have made the decision I will not play in the Indian Premier League Twenty20 competition this year." He didn't write "I will not feature in the Indian Premier League". Hence, it is perhaps not too outlandish to believe that as part of his training to move into a parallel career in umpiring, as we exclusively revealed here last month, Ricky will be doing umpiring duties during this season's IPL.

Steve Bucknor had been a reasonably ok umpire for a few years (ignoring his reluctance to seek the help of the TV umpire on India's tour of South Africa in 1992/3), despite his tendency to play havoc with TV broadcasters & producers by ensuring there was a minute's delay between the appeal and his decision. Nowadays though, so much money has been invested that we don't even get to hear the appeal, because we've got switched to an ad break!

But in the last 4-5 years, Bucknor's umpiring had deteriorated significantly. I never thought he was biased. But I was convinced he was incompetent. Instances posted on this blog - 2004 Aus v Ind, 2005 Eng v RSA, 2005 Pak v Ind, 2007 World Cup final & (very obviously!) 2008 Ind v Aus at Sydney.

The ICC has a real problem on its hands - a paucity of good umpires, cramped scheduling and a reluctance to use technology appropriately. Oddly enough, Bucknor hasn't ever umpired a T20 international!

Labels: bucknor, retire, umpires, west indies

Thus spake Jagadish @ 11:46 pm | Sledge/Read 1 sledge(s)
Did you like the post? [ Subscribe to the blog feed - | | Tweet ]

Only 2 reviews in West Indies-England series

The ICC announced today that there will only be 2 reviews per innings per team during the upcoming West Indies v England tests.

In the ICC's own words

It has become clear during the trial so far that three unsuccessful reviews per innings is too many as there is potential there for frivolous or unnecessary reviews to be made by one side or the other.

I find this bizarre. So is there only 1 frivolous appeal every inning? Are teams appealing for the third review just to get it out of the way? I suspect not!

If anything, this increases the possibility that the umpire makes a howler which the players can't appeal against. Doesn't that contradict why this system was introduced in the first place?

Imagine if the test match or series was up for grabs, with the last pair at the crease and an appeal for lbw was made, but the umpire ruled not out even though it was quite plumb. The bowling team finds to its agony that it has exhausted all its reviews. The batsmen go on to save/win the test. I'm guessing that it isn't an altogether unlikely scenario. So why should a team be penalized for using up its reviews even as an umpire getting it wrong totally costs them a test/series?

Unfortunately, I don't see any indication of time restrictions being placed on players & umpires to prevent abuse of the system or pretty much bring play to a standstill. In addition, there is no mention of other technology being made available to the TV umpire.

I believe that there should be an unlimited number of reviews, with run penalties for failed attempts. What about you? Vote and tell us!

PS: Is the West Indies-England series still called the "Wisden Trophy" or is it now called the Bloomsbury Trophy?

Labels: england, icc, reviews, umpires, west indies

Thus spake Jagadish @ 1:29 pm | Sledge/Read 1 sledge(s)
Did you like the post? [ Subscribe to the blog feed - | | Tweet ]

Exclusive: ICC to appoint Ricky Ponting to umpires panel

In a dramatic revelation exclusive to Cricket 24x7, an ICC source who preferred not to be named has announced that the ICC is considering appointing Ricky Ponting, Australia's captain, as an umpire in their panel. An agreement has been struck with Cricket Australia which will allow Ricky Ponting to be the first player to umpire even though he has not retired from the game. Although Ponting has never publicly expressed interest in the role, his comments last January about umpires being stressed out and the need to expand the panel do offer a hint.

There are apparently multiple reasons for this move by the ICC:

• The ICC umpires panel has taken a hit in the recent past, with the exits of Darrell Hair, Ian Robinson and Peter Parker. In addition, Simon Taufel had spoken about the possibility of quitting and Steve Bucknor didn't have a great start to the year.
  
• The ICC, and the other cricket boards, are encouraging former players to take up umpiring and Paul Reiffel has moved up the Australian umpiring ranks to now become an ODI umpire. Ricky Ponting is part of the natural progression. His appointment isn't expected to impact his media commitments. As for impacting the captaincy, Cricket Australia sources revealed that it couldn't possibly get worse anyway.
  
• The ICC is embarking on a cost-cutting measure. So we could potentially see some of the bad umpires replaced over a period of time by players and the individual cricket boards would pay the bills.
  
• The most important criterion, and the clincher, is that Ponting has already displayed, twice within a year, his ability to be pro-active and one step ahead of the umpires. The ICC has been extremely impressed by Ponting's eagerness & willingness to declare out Sourav Ganguly in early 2008 and Jacques Kallis a couple of days ago, both at Sydney in controversial circumstances, when the on-field umpires, unsure about whether the ball had carried (to Clarke & McDonald respectively), had referred it to the TV umpire who was still taking a look at the replay for the 23rd time from the 7th possible angle.

It is expected that Ponting would first be drafted in to the International Panel and then promoted to the Elite Panel. It is not yet confirmed if Ponting will be allowed to umpire in games that he captains in, but it is likely to be the case if the ICC is really serious about cutting costs.

Labels: exclusive, icc, ponting, umpires

Thus spake Jagadish @ 11:33 am | 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 ]

Dissecting the player referral regulation

The ICC has published the regulations around players seeking reviews of umpiring decisions (player referrals, in short). This was originally to have been implemented during South Africa's tour of England, but the two sides were reluctant to be the guinea pigs. Perhaps, if Geraint Jones (born in Papua New Guinea) had been playing, there would have found a guinea pig!

It cannot be denied that the umpiring howlers at Sydney 2008 were what accelerated the decision-making process.

My belief is that this is a good thing. I do not buy the argument that good and bad decisions are part of the game. I do not understand why they should be part of the game. I know that it is not possible for on-field umpires to get all their decisions right all the time. But the administrators need to either improve the standard of on-field umpires or relieve some of the stress that they go through. If this isn't done, we'll keep seeing umpires apologizing for incorrect decisions.

Some of my thoughts around the proposed player referral system:

• The regulation says "The total time elapsed between the ball becoming dead and the review request being made should be no more than a few seconds.". Hence, this rules out the possibility of the fielding side discussing and then asking for the referral. The captain could walk up to some of his players and say "Hey, do we really want to get him out? He's anyway batting stupidly". Imagine it is a limited overs international and Jacques Kallis is batting with South Africa needing to make 8 an over across 35 overs and Kallis has 20(43). If I were the opposing captain, I'd really want Kallis to bat on for 10 overs more and I'd never ask for a referral!
  
• What sort of question does the on-field umpire ask? Let's say there was an lbw appeal and then the fielders also went up for a bat-pad catch. Will the fielding side appeal for the lbw or the bat-pad for the referral? Can the on-field umpire just ask the TV umpire "Tell me if he is out, and in what manner"? Or should he specify the mode of dismissal being appealed?
  
• Like Ian Chappell says, the problem with 3 referrals is that the biggest impacting wrong decision cannot be questioned. My suggestion is that instead of a limit of 3 referrals, there should be a run penalty per unsuccessful appeal (say 5 runs in ODIs and 20 runs in tests). But, I don't quite agree with his argument that this doesn't solve the problems around umpiring standards. It should be possible for the ICC committees to keep track of which umpires' decisions are successfully challenged the most frequently.
  
• The one good thing that may come out of the referral system is that meaningless appeals could come down. e.g. if a batsman is struck on the pads and it looks fairly adjacent, previously there'd have been very vociferous appealing hoping that the umpire would ignore the obvious inside edge off the bat. Now, since the batsman can question the decision, such appeals would be reduced. You could also see less instances of player dissent.

You can vote on whether the new mechanism of players seeking a review of umpiring decisions will reduce the number of umpiring mistakes.

Labels: icc, reviews, umpires

Thus spake Jagadish @ 11:29 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 future of cricket, as I see it

A few days after a Twenty20 Champions League was announced, followed promptly by the ECB's partnership (?) with Allen Stanford for a series of five Twenty20 games where the winner of each game received US $20 million (and the loser got to watch the winner's cheques), it is fairly obvious that the ICC's hold on cricket is being loosened, and big time at that!

For all their talk about how having three forms of the game is so wonderful, it is hard to see how the ICC can come up with a calendar which accommodates enough quantities of test, 50-over and 20-over cricket. In fact, it is all the more baffling that even after these two announcements, they have not said a word about the impact on their vision for international cricket.

Instead, what we got was an announcement yesterday about the launch of the ICC Champions Trophy 2008 in Pakistan. Now that tournament is probably the most despised one-day tournament in the world given how it turns up unnecessarily every couple of years, a year before, or a year after the World Cup.

It does seem as though the ICC is totally oblivious about how the big money flowing in to promote Twenty20 will impact test and 50-over cricket. Assuming that all 3 forms of the game will co-exist, and every year there's one major ICC event lasting a month, it's hard to put up a schedule which accomodates 10 tests per country per year and 30 ODIs, aside from Twenty20 games. So is it fair to assume that in a few years, we won't actually have 3 forms of the game?

You can vote in our poll on a hypothetical scenario where the ICC allowed you to choose the two forms of the game. Which ones would you choose: Tests and Twenty20, ODIs and Twenty20 or Tests and ODIs?.

I don't believe there's enough time in the international calendar to support 3 forms of the game in addition to tournaments like the PLPL, TTPL, IPL, SAWEPL, WSPL, etc. Given that aside from England and West Indies, most other countries have overlapping domestic and international cricket seasons, it is highly unlikely that cricketers would be able to play for sufficient lengths of time in more than one such league.

Brendon McCullum, to pick a random name, could turn out for his IPL team for 3-4 games, scoot off to play 2 games in the TTPL, come back to the sub-continent for 2 games in the PLPL but miss out on the SAWEPL because he has to join his Kiwi mates for a test series against Bangladesh.

If Lalit Modi had his way, McCullum would have to apply to him for a work permit to play in other leagues. In the event that there was a conflict of interest between choosing which team to play for in the Champions League tournament, McCullum's interest would be over-riden by Lalit Modi's brainwave for the day. In addition, McCullum would need to be careful about who he hobnobs with and if he's caught talking to 'rebels', he can forget his pay cheque.

I don't think advertisers and sponsors are quite ready to throw away the 50-over game and the 8 uninterrupted hours of audience attention that they get through 100 guaranteed over-breaks, upto 20 wicket breaks and 1 hour of pre-match and post-match analysis. I believe that the ICC will end up kowtowing to 'market' interests and we will have (perhaps in the span of 5-8 years) two forms of the game, neither of which will seem remotely like the way they are now.

Bangladesh and Zimbabwe would still be playing test cricket, but they'd only play 3-day 'tests' against each other, Ireland & Kenya for 3 years and then move on to 4-day tests. All other test matches would perhaps still be played over 5 days, but there would be radical changes. Over rates would become faster, reaching 100 per day. Teams will be allowed to break-up the total number of overs they receive or bowl across two innings and the winner of the toss would choose from 3 options (1st innings overs faced-2nd innings overs faced): 150-100, 125-125 or 100-150. I'd detailed this out in a post in October 2004.

50-over and 20-over cricket will be merged and we will have 30-over games split across 3 innings of 10 overs each per team. There would be an alternating pattern to each team's innings (A1, B1, A2, B2, A3 & B3), similar to baseball. Each 10 over inning would have 3 overs of power-play, 2 of them at the start and 1 at the end. Teams would comprise 11 players, with only 7 allowed to bat. Boundary ropes would be around 50 m away from the wicket, enabling even scrawny chaps and no-hoper batsmen like Ashish Nehra to hit sixes. On a side note, there'd be some critics who'd complain that the middle 7 overs are boring. But those same critics would complain about the middle 3 balls being boring even if we reduced games to 1-over per innings! There'd be a Dirty-Thirty World Cup, sponsored by Surf (or pick your favourite detergent brand), held every 2 years.

Subhash Chandra would have wound up the Indian Cricket League in 2010 and Zee would thus get the telecast rights it wanted or ownership of an IPL team. It'd really seem like a win-win situation for all. Except that 30-year olds like Ambati Rayudu, Tejinder Pal Singh, R Sathish, Shalabh Srivastava and Abhishek Jhunjhunwala would feel so ridiculous that their prime years were spent (wasted?) in missing out on good money in the IPL and not being picked for India because of selectorial squabbles or because they were associated with the ICL. To paraphrase Marlon Brando's superb dialogue in 'On the Waterfront', they could have had class, they could have been contenders, they could have been somebodies. Instead of bums, which is what they became, let's face it!

Technology would finally be used appropriately in making several line decisions. Someone like Andrew Symonds would never keep getting away with umpiring howlers. Tony Cozier seems so frustrated, he forgets that this wasn't the first time in the last 6 months that Symonds has benefitted.

For a nation that is constantly hunting for 'the next big wrist spinner', Australia will give up their 5-year search for a half-decent spinner and settle on using Michael Clarke (current strike rate: 45, current avg: 20.5) and Andrew Symonds (current strike rate 83, current avg: 36.5) as their spinners in test cricket.

Shoaib Akhtar will be banned yet again, this time for using the Prime Minister's helicopter to arrive in time for a World Cup game. His excuse would be that he was helping the PM with campaigning for the general election.

Labels: champions trophy, future, icc, indian premier league, ipl 2008, lalit modi, prediction, stanford 2020, twenty20, umpires

Thus spake Jagadish @ 1:48 pm | Sledge/Read 1 sledge(s)
Did you like the post? [ Subscribe to the blog feed - | | Tweet ]

Let's embrace IPL, but with a little more maturity

Graeme Smith's catch off Ganguly was looking perfectly right to me. It was as fair as you can get and I was baffled when the third umpire ruled it not out. Also, Ganguly should not have asked the on-field umpire to check with the third umpire. I expected a few words to be exchanged, knowing Ganguly, Smith & Warne and that did happen.

But, what I saw on news channels this morning was atrocious. They were trying to make it yet another India v Australia issue. There were even clips of the Sydney test where Australia clearly played foul. But, for heaven's sake, let's not mix the IPL with international cricket.

Everyone should learn to see IPL as a stand-alone league and it will definitely help the game in all ways. Let's not drag in issues in international cricket and extend the verbal warfare to IPL as well.

I have started to love IPL and I'm not particularly concerned about all the talk of Bollywood, cheergirls and too much glamour, as I love the cricket that's being played and it's extremely nice to see McGrath and Sehwag celebrating Dravid's dismissal or Afridi knocking fists with Rohit Sharma after the latter's sixer or Sohail Tanvir getting ecstatic after dismissing Salman Butt and being hugged by a lesser known Indian cricketer or Laxman, along with Symonds and Gilchrist, plotting ways to dismiss Watson.

To me, instances like these make IPL very interesting though I still like international cricket and Test cricket is definitely my first love. IPL is superb cricket entertainment without the international boundaries. Let's keep it that way and not create unnecessary controversies. Things are bad as it is with two Indian cricketers having a go at each other. Let's not make it worse by bringing international cricket's enmity into IPL.

Let IPL live for long and forever as I definitely feel that it would reduce animosity among players and it would be carried over to international games as well which is eventually what we are all looking for, in the best interests of the game.

Labels: ganguly, graeme smith, india, indian premier league, ipl 2008, twenty20, umpires, walking, warne

Thus spake Ganesh @ 1:59 pm | Sledge/Read 2 sledge(s)
Did you like the post? [ Subscribe to the blog feed - | | Tweet ]

Australia helped by ICC rules?

Australia was fined for a slow over-rate in yesterday's ODI against India at Sydney. Ricky Ponting copped a 20% match fee fine under Clause J-5 of the ICC code of CONduct which prescribes a 5% match fee cut for the players (and 10% for the skipper) for the each of the first 5 overs short of the minimum overs which should have been bowled.

So far so good. Except, Australia were well in excess of 2 overs short. They bowled 49.1 overs in 225 minutes. Being 2 overs short implies they overshot the time allocation by ~ 10 minutes. Which is obviously untrue since they overshot it by 25 minutes!

During the Perth test match last month, Australia were fined for being 2 overs short. This, when they bowled 98 ov in 450 min (> 45 min delay => at least 10 ov lag) and 80 ov in 360 min (> 30 min delay => at least 7 ov lag). Yet, the penalty was for being 2 ov slow.

The code of conduct considers a 5 over lag in a test and a 2 over lag in a ODI as a level 2 offense (50% or more of the match fee as penalty and/or a 1 test/2 ODI ban). The match referees' decisions to report that Australia were lagging by 2 overs implied that Australia couldn't be charged with a level-2 offense. Further, a repeat of a level-2 offense within 12 months upgrades the 2nd offense to a level-3 offense which warrants a 2-4 tests or 4-8 ODIs ban.

Ergo, Ricky Ponting should have actually been banned after this hearing. Yet, like we've pointed out here, some get away, and some don't. Maybe the fact that the penalty for the Perth game isn't even listed on the ICC website in the 2008 breaches & penalties section means that he managed to get away thanks to yet another ICC administrative screw-up.

PS: Were you surprised when Ponting made runs on the best batting track in the one-day series? I'm not! You can also vote in the new poll: "Are Ricky Ponting and Andrew Symonds cricket's worst whiners?"

Labels: australia, ban, Commonwealth Bank Series, icc, india, match referee, over rates, umpires

Thus spake Jagadish @ 6:41 pm | Sledge/Read 2 sledge(s)
Did you like the post? [ Subscribe to the blog feed - | | Tweet ]

Crisis time for cricket?

It doesn't seem like a great time to be a cricket administrator, especially if you aren't an Indian cricket administrator. I'd say this is a pretty testing time for cricket and I really hope the powers-that-be recognize it and fix the real problems.

New Zealand cricket could really do with some help. Shane Bond's NZ Cricket contract was terminated since he wanted to play in the Indian Cricket League. Scott Styris retired from test cricket to focus on playing limited overs cricket. He'd only played 8 tests in the last 3 years, compared to 49 ODIs and 13 Twenty20 games in that same period. I just don't understand exactly how playing 3 tests a year stressed him out. Most other players play between 8 and 12 tests a year on an average! Stephen Fleming may retire from test cricket less than a year after retiring from ODIs after the 2007 World Cup. A whole bunch of Pakistani cricketers, including Mohammad Sami and Naved-ul-Hasan Rana, have joined the ICL.

Update on 14 Feb: Stephen Fleming has confirmed that he will retire after New Zealand's upcoming test series against England.

The Indian Cricket League isn't the only reason why players are retiring. The Indian Premier League (website) is also likely to result in several cricketers in the twilight of their careers retiring to earn a lot of money for a few weeks of effort. Adam Gilchrist is possibly only the first of a long list. Australia's star players are at loggerheads with their cricket board over potential sponsor clashes in the Indian Premier League. Simon Taufel is indicating that he may not renew his umpiring contract with the ICC. Given the umpiring cock-ups we've seen recently and the number of umpires available/eligible, this is a huge problem for the ICC. I'm fairly sure quite a few English county sides are worried as well, since the star overseas players they have signed up, at huge costs, would miss a few weeks of their county commitments to play in the IPL. There was a suggestion by an administrator (possibly from the IPL committee) that the ICC's Future Tours Programme (FTP) could be changed to accomodate IPL tournaments.

But is it fair to assume that the BCCI is the only one which will be sitting pretty? I'm not so sure about it. As various commentators have observed, given the amount of money the franchise owners have pumped in, they will eventually demand that their players be more frequently available to them. Even if they agree to priority being given for international cricket commitments, the owners could insist that the players join the teams late and play IPL games instead of playing in warm-up games. Alternately, they could insist that players play for their IPL sides when they're rested or in-between tours. Will the IPL cannibalize the BCCI's domestic cricket tournaments? Eventually, could the IPL cannibalize international cricket per se to the extent that players will opt for the IPL over an international tour?

So what are the problems here?

• Availability of players: The IPL may insist, eventually when it is successful, that players need to spend more time playing their league rather than international cricket. Can cricket boards make it very clear to the IPL and the franchisees that their contracted players will be available only if they are fit and there are no international or domestic commitments? They may allow players who are dropped to participate in the IPL. Hence this implies that the board's international commitments and domestic cricket tournaments take precedence over the IPL tournaments.
  
• Players retiring to play in the IPL: Once a player retires from international cricket, they are no longer contracted to the cricket board. Hence the board cannot bar a player from playing in the IPL. At most, if the player is still playing domestic cricket, then his state association can do something about it.
  
• Umpires causing the same problems as players: Like Taufel is possibly hinting, he could join the IPL at the expense of his international umpiring career. Also, umpires could opt to umpire IPL games rather than tests or ODIs.
  
• Player/Umpire contracts being terminated since they want to be part of the ICL: This potentially results in a dwindling player/umpire pool for the cricket board since the current ICC policy is that the ICL is an unauthorized tournament.

Labels: australia, bcci, bond, book cricket, fleming, icc, india, indian cricket league, indian premier league, ipl 2008, new zealand, retire, stephen fleming, styris, taufel, twenty20, umpires

Thus spake Jagadish @ 6:00 pm | Sledge/Read 4 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 ]

A scared draw

Australia have just played a Test match which has ended in a draw without any interference from the weather. It is so hard even to imagine this, but it has happened, more so when the team which wanted the draw badly and played to it was Australia and not the opponent!

This was clearly evident on day three when Australia batted 90 overs, scored 260 runs and lost 3 wickets. I certainly don't remember the last time when the Aussies batted an entire day and scored at less than 3 runs per over. Irrespective of the state of the match, no Aussie batsman would even dream of scoring at such a pace. The display of 'batting' on day three almost ensured that a draw was the most probable result unless the Indians decided to gift the match.

India have pushed Australia so much that they even won at Perth and hence 'The Great B*st@#ds' decided to opt for a draw to save some face and ensure that they would win the series 2-1, thanks to Steve & Mark, not the Waughs, but Bucknor & Benson respectively.

If a lot of things had happened efficiently & honestly in the first 2 Tests, the series could have been 1-1 or even 2-1 in favour of India, coming into Adelaide. With such a scoreline, the Australians would have definitely batted differently and would have tried to score at a much better pace and may or may not have lost more wickets in the bargain and most probably would have won this Test match.

It would have still been the Aussie-brand of cricket we all know. Any other team batting out in such a manner isn't any news, but even Australia was pushed to bat for the draw. I am tempted to say that the Indians have pushed them so, but deep inside I know its Bucknor & Benson who gave them the liberty to do the unthinkable to win the series. It does seem to me that Virender Sehwag wasn't wrong at all when he said that Australia were scared of losing.

It seems like the curator had prepared a pitch that'd yield a result on day six. Someone needed to have told him that the rules on test cricket were the same for Australia and other teams. Just because Australia lost the Perth test in four days, it doesn't translate into an extra day in the Adelaide test. Then again, perhaps the curator was just doing what he was told to!

Labels: australia, benson, bucknor, ind v aus 2008, india, perth, perth 2008, pitch, sydney 2008, umpires

Thus spake Ganesh @ 4:12 pm | Sledge/Read 1 sledge(s)
Did you like the post? [ Subscribe to the blog feed - | | Tweet ]

The outcome of Sydney 2008

The outcome of the events at Sydney last week, where pathetic umpiring and a charge of racial abuse marred a superb game, will hopefully make international cricket better, for administrators, players, match officials and fans/spectators.

After the game, a chat with Ganesh, went like this:

14:24 me: i see a few benefits coming out of this entire test:
14:25 1. icc could do something about umpiring standards

2. icc could clearly define what constitutes a racial abuse and what doesn't - is bastard racial, for e.g?

3. teams will swear to not agree to ponting's gentleman agreement on catches

14:26 4. players will stop walking [esp. if #1 isn't handled]

Among these, if the ICC can ensure #1 and #2, then a lot of the problems could be solved. Good umpires will refer to the third umpire at the right time and take decisions on the field at the right time. They will get a higher %age of decisions right. Continuing with my tirade against the ICC's repeated claims to umpires getting 94% of their decisions right, the Sydney game was a classic example of what happens when umpires get 100% of all irrelevant decisions right and 0% of all critical decisions wrong.

It is fairly obvious that Symonds and Hussey benefitted significantly from umpiring errors [Symonds went from 30 to 162 while Hussey went from 45 to 145], Ponting had the best worst of both worlds while Dravid and Ganguly suffered significantly.

To my mind Hussey not being given out in the second innings when he edged RP Singh down legside having scored 45 perhaps had as significant an impact on the outcome as the other umpiring cock-ups. It is strange that his let-off is not discussed as widely as Symonds' or Ponting's.

53.4 Singh to Hussey, no run, a big noise, huge appeals for a strangle down the legs, India think they have their man and replays suggest that he did press the face of the bat on to it

It is high time the ICC clamped down on:

1. Umpiring standards: The ridiculously poor umpiring can & should be fixed by expanding the panel and ensuring that the workload is distributed evenly across four qualified umpires rather than the situation currently where two umpires slog it out in the sun and are under tremendous pressure, with the other two enjoying the comforts of an air-conditioned box and called upon only every now and then [especially the fourth umpire!] to do some work. In addition, there must be something done to increase the accountability of umpires. They can't just say sorry to players for bad decisions and get away with it. Players are dropped for poor performance. Why should umpires be handled with kid gloves?
   
   
2. Walking: The act of a batsman walking insults the collective intelligence of umpires, teammates and spectators. It is a great tool to be (ab)used [and there are several instances where it has been] either by players walking selectively (after they have scored a lot of runs, but not if they're on a pair, for e.g.) or by players appealing to the umpire's conscience for the umpire could assume that the 'walker' player's appeal for a catch/lbw was valid since he was inherently honest.
   
   
3. Pre-series agreements on taking the fielder's word for catches: This sort of agreement is total rubbish and I have no idea why Kumble agreed to it when several other captains (Vaughan & Fleming, to name two) have disagreed with Ponting's suggestion. Ricky Ponting got enraged at the post-match press conference when it was suggested that he had actually grounded the ball after 'catching' Dhoni in India's second innings at Sydney. He was affronted enough to take the query as an question about his integrity and advised that the journalist should not even be in the room [I take it that no-one who has any questions about Ponting's conduct should be in the press conference henceforth]. In fact, he held up his conduct in the first innings [where he didn't claim a catch that Dravid had edged since it had bounced] as an example of how he plays the game. It sort of reminds me of the 'walking' business where a player's conduct could be used by umpires to influence their decisions in his favour. That is exactly what seemed to happen with Ganguly dismissal. Clarke caught the ball and rolled over. Ponting asked Clarke (he who edged to first slip and didn't walk) if he caught it. The umpire asked Ponting if Clarke caught it. The umpire took Ponting's word for it. Mr. Ponting is an honourable man. Didn't you see the way he did not appeal after Dravid's edge fell short in the first innings? Thank us for small mercies. Ponting's argument perhaps goes like this: "I didn't appeal for that catch. This shows how I play the game. Hence if I appeal for a catch, it is always a valid appeal and the umpires are duty-bound to adjudicate in my favour."
   
   
4. Sledging/Abuse: There should be a total ban on any sort of sledging, including banter. There's no saying when a comment becomes offensive, and there is a huge difference in the way people see barbs aimed at them. Sad as it might seem, it means that witty & creative comments obviously also become a victim of the tough measures to prevent situations from boiling over.

PS: Steve Waugh, in his column, wrote about the things that Australian cricketers hate.

On the other hand, Australian teams can't stomach time-wasting and perceived manipulation of the rules, including calling for runners, over-appealing and the alleged altering of the condition of the ball.

So let's see how Australia's players fared at Sydney.

• Time wasting: Wasn't Clarke wasting everyone's time by staying at the crease after edging to slip?
  
• Manipulation of the rules through using runners: Let's see what Hayden did. After he'd reached 71 [off 132 balls], Hayden got himself a runner (Ponting), since he had started limping a couple of overs later. When he got out on 123, he had faced 192 balls. In the 60 balls that he played after apparently getting injured, going by Cricinfo's commentary and based on what I saw on TV, he played at least 10 booming drives and 10 sweep shots. Add in a couple of pulls and a couple of reverse sweeps. I don't know too much about sportsmen's bodies, but it seems highly unlikely that a batsman with a serious-enough injury to warrant a runner, would be able to play such shots by placing so much stress on his leg.
  
• Over-appealing: When Ricky Ponting 'catches' the ball, falls down and his appeal is turned down, he mentions at a press conference that he caught the ball. Isn't that carrying on with the appeal a little too long?

Labels: australia, benson, bucknor, icc, ind v aus 2008, india, ponting, racism, sydney, sydney 2008, umpires, walking

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

Why India lost at Sydney

There were quite a few reasons actually, not all of them were related to the umpiring.

1. Letting 'The Great B*st@#ds' go from 134/6 to 463. Even if Symonds had been given out on 30 or 48, let's not forget that Hogg, Lee & Johnson made 166 runs between themselves at 4 runs an over.
   
2. Losing Dravid and Laxman an hour before stumps in the first innings. They were batting really well, had just gone past personal milestones. But they played horrible shots (ok, let's give some credit to the bowling!). Both ought to have continued on. 180/1 became 185/3! A 600+ total became 532.
   
3. Ganguly not going on. He has now played 4 innings in the series for scores of 43, 40, 67 & 51 (at a strike rate of ~ 70). The most balls he has faced in an innings so far is 79. Dravid has probably faced that many before he decides to display the on-drive! It's all nice scoring 1000 runs in 2007, including a splendid last few tests. But to beat Australia, like Geoff wrote before last year's Ashes, you need to score big hundreds. You can bat like a millionaire and still get big scores. Ganguly needs to convert those 40s & 50s into 150s. Otherwise the runs are a waste. They help India get some momentum, but he gets out at the wrong time (as if there was ever a right time for a batsman to get out!)
   
4. Yuvraj and Dhoni spectacularly failing. I've never been in favour of Yuvraj's inclusion in the test team, especially when he was going to force Dravid to open. I mentioned to Ganesh after his 169 that I still thought Yuvraj was not ready for test cricket. I reckoned he was probably the best replacement batsman around. But on the evidence he had presented in the past few test series where he'd played 2-3 tests on the trot, he has a long way to go before being considered in the first XI. All his dismissals are boiling down to lack of footwork. Sadly, I'm being proved right about his ability. I could still be proved wrong, with two tests to go. Dhoni's dismissals, barring today's, are all nicks to Gilchrist outside off-stump off short-of-length balls. He can be a very destructive batsman after he has batted around half-an-hour. But you need to guts it out before you get to the half-hour mark. He has not done that at all!
   
5. Letting Australia score at 4 an over this morning. When Kumble threw the ball to Ishant late last evening, I thought it was a superb move. Australia weren't scoring quickly at that time. The fact that they went off for light yesterday meant that they were undecided about what rate to score at and when to declare (for if that were not the case, they'd have opted to stay on). But this morning, after an hour of play, all hell broke loose. Symonds & Hussey scored at will, giving Australia enough overs to bowl in the remaining part of the day.
   
6. Edging to second slip. Like King Cricket brilliantly wrote late last year when Pietersen was given out after a catch was taken very close to the ground at second slip. He wrote: "However, from England’s point of view, as regards this Test match, the main problem was that Kevin Pietersen edged a ball to second slip. As a batsman, if you edge the ball to second slip, there’s a fair chance you’re going to be out." That is exactly what Ganguly did. He edged to second slip. The previous ball had been at his body, and I was waiting for Lee to give him the full ball.
   
7. Dhoni not offering a shot. Steve Bucknor was the umpire. Was it a stupid idea or what, to offer pad with no intention of playing a shot? You have a bat in your hand. It isn't meant to be used as a periscope.

Like the Bard wrote, 'The fault, dear Brutus, is not in our stars, but in ourselves, that we are underlings'.

Labels: australia, ind v aus 2008, india, sydney, sydney 2008, umpires

Thus spake Jagadish @ 11:06 pm | Sledge/Read 3 sledge(s)
Did you like the post? [ Subscribe to the blog feed - | | Tweet ]

"I know he's bowled, but is he out?"

There's this apocryphal story of BS Chandrasekhar getting frustrated with the umpiring on a tour (there're many accounts of this tale, with the umpire nationality varying from Australian to English to Kiwi). He had 4-5 plumb lbws turned down. Then he clean bowled the batsman and appealed "Howzzaaaat?" The umpire was surprised and told him the batsman was bowled. Chandra apparently replied "I know he's bowled, but is he out?"

Seeing the umpiring standards at the Sydney test, I'm fairly sure bowlers will start asking similar questions. Ricky Ponting was first wrongly given not out (caught down the legside). Then he was wrongly given out lbw (inside edge). Andrew Symonds was wrongly given not out (caught behind off a thick outside edge). Some time later, he again benefitted by the third umpire getting a stumping decision wrong. After he was well past 100, Steve Bucknor didn't even refer a stumping appeal to the third umpire, despite there being considerable doubt on if he did have his foot grounded behind the line.

I don't recall any shocker during India's first innings, but today, Hussey was not given out caught when he'd obviously edged the ball down legside. But what took the biscuit was Michael Clarke's reaction after he'd so obviously edged Kumble to Dravid at slip. Clarke was, in Hayden's words, waiting for the umpire's finger to go up.

To me, this is as damning an indictment of the quality of umpiring in this test as it can get. A batsman lingers around at the crease after edging to first slip, because he hopes that the umpire will get another decision wrong. Chances are he'd hope for a favourable decision even if he'd hit one to mid-wicket or got bowled.

I won't blame Clarke for it at all. He is well within his rights to stand his ground since it is the bowling team's right/duty to appeal and the umpire's duty to give the decision.

More technology is possibly one solution. Better umpires is usually a better solution. The third umpire, with the TV replays at his disposal, got Symonds' stumping wrong. So technology clearly wouldn't have helped.

Umpiring standards has been a pet theme in this blog. As pointed out earlier here, Steve Bucknor has been poor for a while now and Mark Benson didn't even know that a ball which hit the fielding team helmet placed on the ground was not a dead ball!

Bucknor isn't quite done with this series though! He's scheduled to follow both teams to Perth.

I can think of two extreme ways to register a protest against poor umpiring:

• Don't even appeal: For anything. Not for bloody obvious bowleds, catches, stumpings, run outs etc.
  
• Appeal for everything: For bowleds, skied catches, stumpings/run outs with the batsman half-way down the pitch, etc.

Labels: australia, benson, bucknor, chandra, clarke, ind v aus 2008, india, sydney 2008, umpires, walking

Thus spake Jagadish @ 1:56 am | Sledge/Read 6 sledge(s)
Did you like the post? [ Subscribe to the blog feed - | | Tweet ]

Will he do it again?

In April this year, Rudi Koertzen was part of the elite group of umpires who wanted Australia and Sri Lanka to come back the next day to complete the final of the 2007 World Cup.

At Bangalore, bad light has just stopped play on day five with Pakistan having 3 wickets in hand, needing to get 212 runs and win or bat out 11 overs and draw.

Will Koertzen ask the players to come back tomorrow?

Labels: bad light, bangalore, india, koertzen, pakistan, umpires

Thus spake Jagadish @ 4:26 pm | Sledge/Read 1 sledge(s)
Did you like the post? [ Subscribe to the blog feed - | | Tweet ]

Umpires can get away with a 'sorry', the players can't

There've been far too many instances of incompetent umpiring, especially in the last couple of years. Yet, the ICC holds the umpires accountable only during their annual review.

The officials who were in charge of the World Cup final in the West Indies were not on duty in the Twenty20 World Cup since the ICC had suspended them for their inept handling of the final when bad light stopped play.

Yet, the same officials have handled other assignments. It was just that they were suspended for an ICC event. Presumably the ICC thinks that it is ok for incompetence to be shown in Australia v Sri Lanka, South Africa v Pakistan or India v England test matches.

Yesterday, Koertzen apologized to Sangakkara for wrongly giving him out. Two years ago, during the first Ashes test at Lord's, Koertzen did his apology thingy, saying sorry to Kevin Pietersen for declaring him out lbw to a fulltoss from Lee.

During India's recent tour of England, Taufel said he was very upset at ruling Tendulkar out wrongly. Ian Howell was consistently poor in the same series.

In 2005, the West Indies Cricket Board complained to the ICC about the decisions that were handed out during the team's tour of Australia. Yet, the ICC responded saying that its umpires got 94.8% of their decisions right in 2004, a number that Dave Richardson keeps bleating about.

In 2004, Billy Bowden apologized to Sehwag.

In contrast, spare a thought for the players. Yuvraj Singh was given out wrongly, with the game poised to go either way, and he was fined for showing dissent. Salman Butt made some comments about the umpiring in the series against South Africa and he was pulled up. During the 2007 World Cup, McCullum was fined for 'dissent'. Graeme Smith and Kevin Pietersen suffered the same fate in 2006.

All these players apologized for their actions. Yet, they were penalized monetarily and immediately.

The umpires had erred too. They too apologized for their decisions. Yet, they continue to get away with it, and in all likelihood, given the scarcity of good umpires available, will continue to be contracted to the ICC. They can then make more poor decisions and apologize for their actions, completely oblivious to the fact that their poor decisions could have impacted the outcome of a match (or series) or even a player's career for that matter.

If the ICC is shielding their contracted umpires, then individual boards should be shielding their contracted players. Maybe the ICC should consider penalizing players only at the end of the year, not during/immediately after the game. Even then, the responsibility should perhaps lie with the board. After all, the players are responsible to the cricket board, not the ICC. If a cricket board has not handled the situation well, then this is something the ICC should take up with the board.

PS: Going back to the ICC's comments on the percentage of decisions the umpires got right, it's not too tough to get 95% of your decisions right. In a typical test match, you'd probably have an appeal every over. Assuming that the game lasts the distance, that'd mean 450 appeals. To get to the ICC's benchmark of 95%, the umpires would need to get 428 decisions right. But that means they get 22 decisions wrong, a lot of which could potentially be match impacting. Ok, so 450 appeals in a game could be an exaggeration, but the arithmetic doesn't work out.

Labels: icc, umpires

Thus spake Jagadish @ 2:03 pm | Sledge/Read 4 sledge(s)
Did you like the post? [ Subscribe to the blog feed - | | Tweet ]