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 ]

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 ]

"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 ]

Deja vu for Adam Gilchrist, this time with foot in mouth

Adam Gilchrist walked in yet another World Cup semi-final, this time at the World Twenty20 championship. In a totally unexpected move on Saturday, he earned a few more brownie points and supporters when he decided to take a decision out of the umpire's hands by opting to walk after Sreesanth had demolished his stumps.

Sources close to Gilchrist confirmed that he did so to protect his reputation for walking and that he'd have done so even if Sreesanth had blown away the other two stumps as well. Gilchrist was quoted by the sources as having walked despite the distinct possibility that the Durban's windy weather had uprooted his middle-stump.

5.1 Sreesanth to Gilchrist, OUT, bowled em! Sreesanth pitches full on the stumps, Gilchrist doesnt move his feet an inch, instead choosing to fatefully play from deep in the crease, misses out on the attempted on-drive, and loses his middle stump! Big wicket for India!

After Australia had lost the game, Gilchrist stuck his foot in his mouth. When asked about Australia's performance, he said

We came from four months off. India have been playing some cricket recently.

The four month vacation didn't seem to have come into the picture when Australia demolished England or Sri Lanka. The Indian team (well most of those at this tournament) have been playing cricket continuously since June. That is not a good thing either!

Labels: deja vu, gilchrist, twenty20 world cup, walking

Thus spake Jagadish @ 2:08 pm | Sledge/Read 0 sledge(s)
Did you like the post? [ Subscribe to the blog feed - | | Tweet ]

The 2007 Colin Cowdrey lecture

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Gilchrist gets away with it

Very early on in New Zealand's chase against Australia today, this happened:

2.2 Bracken to Astle, OUT, caught behind, it was bit wide outside the off stump, swings away, Astle cuts at it, gets the edge, Gilchrist takes the catch... loud appeal, Astle waits for some time, asking the umpire whether it carried. The umpire gives the nod, Astle has to go. The replays are not conclusive....

The square-leg umpire, Asad Rauf, gave a nod even though it wasn't absolutely clear first up that Gilchrist had caught it cleanly before the ball touched the ground. Was Asad Rauf influenced by the fact that Gilchrist keeps walking, even when it's bleedingly obvious that he is out, and thus plants a seed of doubt in umpires' minds that if he's been truthful earlier, he'd always be truthful? There was every case for the third umpire being asked to adjudicate on the issue, but Gilchrist's "righteousness" won the day.

Labels: Commonwealth Bank Series, gilchrist, walking

Thus spake Jagadish @ 10:58 am | Sledge/Read 3 sledge(s)
Did you like the post? [ Subscribe to the blog feed - | | Tweet ]

Nirmal Shekar: Should Tendulkar have set an example by 'walking'?

Nirmal Shekar, who never misses an opportunity to run down the Indian team, especially when it comes to philosophical and moral issues, struck yet again last week. He wrote wondering why Tendulkar did not walk after being wrongly given not-out by Rudi Koertzen on the third day at Mohali.

He compares Tendulkar's reluctance to walk with Adam Gilchrist's self-righteous stance on the the issue. I'd say he's far off the mark. Tendulkar's stand is as balanced as Gilchrist's is. Tendulkar will not question the judgement of the umpire. Gilchrist will not wait for the umpire, under most circumstances. Perhaps he realizes that being an Aussie is a big enough advantage with the umpires.

The umpire didnt rule Tendulkar out, so he didnt walk at Mohali. The umpire ruled him out, wrongly, at Brisbane in 2003. He trudged off with the greatest possible dignity. Yes, he did misread the delivery and padded up wrongly. But he didnt question the decision other than having a look of disbelief when Bucknor's finger went up. So I fail to see why Tendulkar should join the "walkers club". I still maintain that the decision to walk adopted by Gilchrist is one of convenience.

Labels: walking

Thus spake Jagadish @ 3:16 pm | Sledge/Read 0 sledge(s)
Did you like the post? [ Subscribe to the blog feed - | | Tweet ]

Comeback king Craig McMillan

McMillan's career has gone through so much in the last year. First he wasnt considered for New Zealand's test squad to England. Then the ultimate disgrace: not being considered good enough to play Bangladesh. Still no succour as Australia eluded him. Ultimately he made it to Australia, but had a torrid time with the bat and got into a slanging match with Gilchrist over 'walking', which culminated in Dion Nash calling for Hamish Marshall to replace him.

He was excluded from the team to play a FICA World XI in New Zealand. Now, after Jacob Oram ricked his back, yet another twist in the tale as McMillan was recalled!

Labels: walking

Thus spake Jagadish @ 1:19 pm | Sledge/Read 0 sledge(s)
Did you like the post? [ Subscribe to the blog feed - | | Tweet ]

Walking controversies arent new

With "walking" grabbing the headlines during Australia's tour of India as well as during New Zealand's tour of Australia last year, it is now revealed that it isnt such a new thorny issue after all.

Labels: walking

Thus spake Jagadish @ 1:50 pm | Sledge/Read 0 sledge(s)
Did you like the post? [ Subscribe to the blog feed - | | Tweet ]

In order to avoid a reprise of what happened during the first Australia-New Zealand test between Gilchrist and McMillan as well as when Sinclair refused to take the fielder's word for granted, Australia and Pakistan seem set to bring about a code of conduct for the honourable gentlemen who play the sport.

Labels: walking

Thus spake Jagadish @ 6:13 pm | Sledge/Read 0 sledge(s)
Did you like the post? [ Subscribe to the blog feed - | | Tweet ]

'Walking' seems all set to replace chucking as cricket's new big controversy. After the ruckus over McMillan not walking at the Gabba, we now know what exactly transpired.

Labels: walking

Thus spake Jagadish @ 11:27 am | Sledge/Read 0 sledge(s)
Did you like the post? [ Subscribe to the blog feed - | | Tweet ]

Mukul Kesavan writes in Wisden Asia Cricket that Gilchrist, Yuvraj, Kasprowicz or Gillespie's walkathons in the recent series merely corroborated what was plainly obvious from the camera - that they nicked the ball and the catch was clean. As we've mentioned in these columns earlier, all the walking was done when it was blindingly obviously out. I didnt see a single instance of an Australian batsman who shall not be pointed out by name, (except for the hint that he has big ears and a second name starting with 'G'), walk when it was a borderline decision.

Labels: walking

Thus spake Jagadish @ 4:25 pm | Sledge/Read 0 sledge(s)
Did you like the post? [ Subscribe to the blog feed - | | Tweet ]

Controversies start to creep in with 'walking'.

Labels: walking

Thus spake Ganesh @ 8:45 am | Sledge/Read 0 sledge(s)
Did you like the post? [ Subscribe to the blog feed - | | Tweet ]

After last week's commotion over Gilchrist, Gillespie, Kasprowicz and Yuvraj Singh 'walking' rather than waiting for the umpires to rule them out [or in spite of being ruled not-out in Kasprowicz's case!], I was quite astonished that no one exclaimed about the fact that Gilchrist walked in the second innings at Madras after being bowled by a Kumble googly round his legs. If being bowled was bleedingly obviously out, so was the batpad catch he offered in the first innings. I can understand the brouhaha if it was a thin edge and he had walked. But it was a clear nick from the bat onto his pad and then to the short-leg fielder. Gilchrist made waves when he walked in the World Cup semi-final against Sri Lanka. At that time, it was certainly a thin edge. This time though a mountain has been made out of a molehill.

I in fact have a theory that more batsmen will begin to walk early on during a given series [Tests or one-dayers] in the hope that umpires will believe them to be angels. Subsequent nicks through to the keeper/close-in fielders will not elicit a voluntary trudge back to base camp since the umpires would now believe that if the player didnt walk, it was because he genuinely did not nick it. Call it a sinister theory, but I am fairly sure I will be proved right.

I dont believe in the notion that things even themselves out. Technology in cricket is a must and it will improve the game. Players careers [cricketing and financial] are on the line and umpires attempt to get away from it by saying "sorry" and blaming the crowds for it? That is ridiculous. So should home-crowds stay pin-drop silent when their team is batting? How about when the opposition is batting?

Greg Baum writes about a hypothetical conversation between Gilchrist and Steve Waugh about walking.

Labels: walking

Thus spake Jagadish @ 1:57 pm | Sledge/Read 0 sledge(s)
Did you like the post? [ Subscribe to the blog feed - | | Tweet ]