D O O S R A

Are Indian Cricketers really tired?

2011-08-30T02:46:00.002+05:30

There seems to be a continued effort by many hacks, former players etc, to promote an idea that India's star players need more rest. Player fatigue is drummed up as the main reason for India's 0-4 whitewash in the recent Test series against England.

Are they really serious about making such claims?

Let us look at some batting numbers for the Year 2011, in Test Cricket that is. All of India's top batsmen claim that Test Cricket is the Real Cricket. So what they do with ODIs and T20s is their problem.

These numbers throw up some interesting data. Tendulkar and Sehwag cannot complain of fatigue. Nor can VVS Laxman. Screw this fatigue excuse; the truth is - our batsmen (with the exception of Rahul Dravid) have been mediocre through 2011. And that is simply not good enough.

Dravid has batted for close to 43 hours in test cricket this year. Doesn't look like he is tired. What about the others?

It is not a matter of form or fatigue anymore for some of the senior guys, most importantly the skipper Dhoni. The non-performing, highly paid superstars of the Indian team need a break from Test cricket; simply because they are not good enough. In other words, drop them - NOW!

If they wish to get back into the Test XI, let them decide whether they want to relax and rest - or play in Ranji trophy and score heavily.

Indian Cricket Fan and their Patriotic Farts

2011-07-18T21:36:00.004+05:30

I wonder as to who the writer of this report is! A journalist can say anything and get away with it! He is well within his right to criticise Dhoni for what he considers is improper, but the language used should be appropriate. He himself admits in the last but one para, that Dhoni & his boys have 'served' cricket well!

Poverty, Terrorism, Orchestrated devaluation of Indian currency - cannot bring such reaction from my countrymen. When the Indian cricket team and the 'players' who 'play' are questioned - the author's credibility and even the publication gets crucified.

I am not a big fan of Roebuck (because he pushed a certain IVA Richards and Joel Garner out of the Somerset team.) Some of the pseudo-cricket-patriots may not know who these west indian players are!

As pointed in some comments, Roebuck did write a sharp and decisive article - which for all you know triggered the collapse of the Aussie domination.

As for the comment about 1.3 billion people and their love for cricket; please give us a break from this nonsense. I have played cricket, and as a journalist written about the game too. Why can't our people just enjoy the game and not the "heroes". No wonder we seem to struggle to elect decent politicians in this country.

Mafia Cricket

2011-02-08T13:54:00.000+05:30

In the last one decade, the ICC has done nothing noteworthy to stop match fixing (even if it is spot fixing or result fixing). The ICC Anti Corruption Unit has failed the game spectacularly.

Three young Pakistani players have been found guilty of spot fixing; all three have been banned for five years each.

Haroon Lorgat, the ICC's chief executive, hoped that as a result of the ICC's investigation and the subsequent hearing, the game's image would improve.

Oh really, Lorgat? He is only concerned about the “image of the business he runs.”

Maybe it is best we don't ask: How do we save the game from corruption? The ICC is not least interested in it.

In 2000 the cricket establishment banned quite a few players: Hansie Cronje and Mohd Azharuddin being the big names. In Pakistan Justice Qayyum's findings were thrown aside by a corrupt cricket establishment. So many investigations and enquiries, ACU, Paul Condon and a decade later three young Pakistani players were busted in a sting operation by NOTW and it's Fake Sheik.

Banning a few players is not going to make any fundamental change to corruption and criminal activities in the entertainment industry, including cricket.

What has the ICC or even the Scotland Yard done to investigate the real criminal source of this evil corruption that grips cricket?

What have they done to nail the betting and fixing mafia? How many cricket administrators have links to this mafia? Too many questions need to be asked.

It is completely wrong to suggest that Pakistani players take to cricket with the one intention: cheat, fix, become millionaires. Pakistani players, over the years, have proved to be exceptionally talented cricketers.

Last year, it was very obvious that a Test match and a T20 game was tanked by the Pakistan cricket team – in Australia.

What did the PCB or ICC do? Nothing.

How come Pakistani police and secret service do not go after the Mafia that controls Pakistani cricket? How come there is no will on the part of Pakistani government to fix the real fixers?

The case of the Lord's Pakistani trio could have been handled in a much better fashion. They could have been made approvers, even forced to get information on the mafia connection – and got the real criminals banished behind bars for 20 or 30 years.

The sad thing is the ICC and cricket administrators are having a “moral orgasm” over the indictment of these three Pakistani players. They are happy to go back to “business as usual.” It is exactly that “business as usual” which involves criminal gangs and mafia that must be stopped NOW.

That leaves us with Juvenal's famous question: Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? (Who will guard the guards themselves?)

Paul Condon's Ten Years Of 'Put Up Or Shut Up!'

2010-05-21T02:22:00.000+05:30

Paul Condon is retiring as the head of ACSU (ICC's Anti-Corruption and Security Unit) after spending ten comfortable years in what must be a highly paid job.

What has Paul Condon and ACSU done in the last ten years?

We'll find the answer, if we were to read carefully into Condon's latest statement:

"IPL 3 from a clean cricket point of view seems to have been a very good event, but you are never more than a phonecall away from someone saying otherwise. There were rumours and vague allegations about IPL3, but no one has come forward either from the Indian board, or IPL, or franchises, or journalists, or players, or team managers, or anyone with specific allegations about match-fixing in IPL. All it's been is very generic rumour, and we're still waiting."

WTF is ACSU waiting for? Their job is not to wait for information, but to proactively nab fixers.

"In the serendipity of cricket, you often do get freak results, because it's a fabulous game and strange things can happen. We get phone calls from people saying that a match must have been fixed. But quite often I've said to people, at its crudest, 'put up or shut up'. Either defend the game you love, or give us some real evidence that a match has been fixed. The vast majority of players are honourable."

Condon must be held responsible. He cannot walk away from his job, having earned a pile of cash over the last ten years, condemning players for match-fixing. What Condon says is, "vast majority of players are honourable." Condon didn't say the game is 100% clean. Strictly speaking, Condon is admitting or suggesting that there are a few international players who are not honourable and are playing the Fixing Game.

If that is the case, how many players has he or the ACSU booked in the last ten years?

If not for the due diligence of Delhi & Kochi Police, no one would have admitted to match-fixing.

Don't we have a right to ask W T F?!

Make Junior the top Aussie selector

2010-05-17T12:41:00.003+05:30

It is time to ditch Hilditch and go for Mark Waugh.

In February this year, as reported in Fox Sports,

Mark Waugh said, “If he’s (Clarke) captain, he’s got to get going. You’re the main man and you probably have to bat at three or four.”

Clarke had struggled to adapt to the shortest form of the game, and Victoria skipper Cameron White was the man to lead Australia in Twenty20 cricket, Waugh said.

“I don’t think (Clarke’s) batting is suited all that well to Twenty20 cricket. With that back injury, I’m just thinking will it shorten his Test career. Cameron White could easily be captain, Waugh said on Inside Cricket.

Hilditch, on the other hand, was confident Clarke is the right man to lead Australia in April.

"It's going to be a very big tournament for Michael and he's really looking forward to it," Hilditch said.

"I am sure Michael is going to have an impact (in the next World Twenty20)."

Mark Waugh has been following Australian domestic cricket as a TV commentator for a few seasons and clearly has a better understanding of 'what form is'.

Thus spake Captain Pup

2010-05-17T12:32:00.001+05:30

"I certainly know they haven't been up to scratch through this whole tournament and probably in Twenty20 cricket in general."

"I'm sure the selectors will sit down and have a look and if I'm not the right guy for number three and the captaincy then they'll make that decision."

Selectors don't decide the batting order, do they?

Michael Clarke is a T20 Liability

2010-05-15T21:57:00.008+05:30

Malcolm Conn, the Aussie cricket journalist, writes: Michael Clarke is becoming the modern-day Mike Brearley.

Brearley was renowned for his tactical brain and man management skills.

When it comes to Clarke in T20, there are not many runs, no tactical skills to show, and instead of inspiring his team - he is destroying some of their best T20 players.

Leading up to the T20 WC final tomorrow, check out the batting record of Australian players.

Player	Mat	I	NO	Runs	HS	Ave	BF	SR	100	50	0	4s	6s
MEK Hussey	6	5	3	171	60*	85.5	97	176.28	0	1	0	12	9
CL White	6	6	3	150	85*	50	104	144.23	0	1	0	6	11
SR Watson	6	6	0	161	81	26.83	108	149.07	0	2	0	10	11
DA Warner	6	6	0	148	72	24.66	97	152.57	0	1	1	13	10
DJ Hussey	6	6	1	120	53	24	83	144.57	0	1	1	6	8
BJ Haddin	6	6	0	97	42	16.16	94	103.19	0	0	0	10	2
MJ Clarke	6	5	0	65	17	13	87	74.71	0	0	0	2	1
SPD Smith	6	4	1	33	27	11	24	137.5	0	0	1	2	2
MG Johnson	5	2	1	5	5*	5	4	125	0	0	1	1	0
SW Tait	6	1	0	0	0	0	2	0	0	0	1	0	0
RJ Harris	1	1	1	2	2*	-	1	200	0	0	0	0	0
DP Nannes	6	1	1	0	0*	-	1	0	0	0	0	0	0

Their best two players occupy the top two slots as well; Michael Hussey and Cameron White. By no mean any freak performance by the two. Both have been consistent whenever they've got a chance to bat. Shouldn't those two be batting maximum overs as possible to score as many runs in a 20-over game?

C A P T A I N C Y

In the semifinal, chasing 192 for a win, Clarke sent Brad Haddin in at #3. Perhaps as a pinch hitter to get on with it during the PowerPlay... instead Haddin went there and tried to bat like a frontline batsman - trying to get into some form. No one is questioning Haddin's ability as an international batsman - but clearly the Hussey brothers and White are in better form and touch.

Shouldn't White have gone in at #3? He did really well, batting up the order in limited over games in England, when Ponting was away from the team. Batting at #3, White would have got a chance to settle down and play some big shots.

Same is the case with both Hussey brothers. These three batsmen should be batting 3-4-5.

Haddin batted at #7 in the first game of the T20 WC against Pakistan. After that, he has been batting at 4, 4, 3, 4 and 3. Great captaincy by Pups.

Haddin has scored 97 runs off 94 balls, at a strike rate of 103. He made 42 off 46 balls against Sri Lanka. In the other five games, 55 runs off 48 balls. That's an average of 11 runs - clearly saying he is out of form. But Captain Pups can't be wrong.

This is what Cricket Australia had to say about Clarke's captaincy and role in the team. Definitely the employer, CA, is watching a different game.

"We're talking about a new-age sport that is writing its own rules about the concepts that count and Michael Clarke is a new-age all-rounder, T20 cricketer who understands the needs of the new game," a CA spokesman said.

"He can get through overs quickly, efficiently and effectively and take wickets and he's a batsman willing to sacrifice himself for the team going down the order.

"He's undefeated as a captain, which is exceptional."

Is he really willing to sacrifice and bat down the order?

Against Pakistan @3, Bangladesh @3, India DNB, Sri Lanka @4, West Indies @3 and Pakistan @4

As a captain he has been very willing to sacrifice Cameron White, David and Michael Hussey.

White poses a threat to his T20 Captaincy. Isn't that a good enough reason for sacrificing him? The record is in front of us.

There have been rumours that Clarke got Symonds out of the team, removing any T20 challenge from him. If one were to look at the White Sacrifice situation - it all looks too bad.

Why CA had to bat for Clarke regarding the batting position is beyond me.

By pushing Haddin and himself up the order, Clarke is definitely ruining the opportunities - that too very limited - David Hussey is getting - to make a big T20 score. When it comes to ability and form, David is a much much better T20 batsman than Haddin and Clarke.

Clarke's current strategy might very well ruin David Hussey's T20 career. Perhaps that's what the skipper really wants.

F O R M

On form Haddin should bat way down the order. Australia should get White, David and Michael to bat at 3 - 4 - 5.

What about the Captain's form?

The numbers just don't lie, skipper. 65 runs off 87 balls. TWO Fours and ONE Six in the whole tournament.

The best place for Clarke is outside the playing XI.

A few days earlier, CricInfo had published an article on how Ian Chappell rates captains.

Mike Brearley, the England captain famous for his tactical nous but not his cricketing talent, was not on Chappell's list. "I think I would say about Mike Brearley that I always thought it was hard enough to win a game when you are playing 11 v 11. Why are you going into the game with 10 v 11?"

BCCI must be worried. Very worried.

2010-02-25T01:33:00.004+05:30

Here are a few tweets posted today by the IPL Commissioner Lalit Modi.

IPL is for our Fans in india and globally people who love the game of cricket. We have set new standards and are proud of it.

@kirannarendran I agree. We can't see EPL being played outside england or NBA outside US. Or big bash outside australia. Its our tournament.

DLF IPL is for India and will remain for India. No one can dictate to us how we should conduct our tournaments and on there terms.

I have been sent messages thru various quarters to entertain Fica Preisdent Tim May. Unfortunately we do not recognise Fica or any agents.

We will not be dictated by players associations where to play. DLF IPL will be played in India.

So I asked the commissioner: #cricket @LalitKModi Do you think moving IPL2 to South Africa was a mistake?

He did not answer. He knows all this "India" talk is hot air.

Modi says, "DLF IPL is for India and will remain for India."

Oh really? So why did they really move it to South Africa last year? Did South Africa suddenly become a province of India last year?

What did Modi say then? "For us, South Africa was always suitable from a logistical and infrastructure point of view and it is our belief that we can build a brand and legacy of involvement that lasts for years to come."

Ranjit Borthakur, the vice-chairman of the Rajasthan Royals, said: "We are disappointed the tournament is not being held in India, but if the choice is between no tournament and a tournament in another country, then we clearly prefer the latter.

It was based on security issues - national elections were on; government of India was not in a position to provide security forces for the IPL.

Modi tweeted today: Australia tour to india in oct - will australian players association dictate them not coming then ? Doubt it.

Why would anyone target Australian players? The security issue is - any terror attack on an IPL game can create a bigger TV spectacle than a terrorist attack on Taj Hotel. And we know how bad we hurt when Mumbai was attacked.

It is a reality that Pakistan has a lot of terrorists to export. And on top of it, there is not a single Pakistani player in IPL...

If Australian government or any government has any clear information on a possible terror attack during IPL, they must share it with the government of India. Security of our country is much more important than Indian Private League with players auctioned as slaves.

From his tweets it is very clear that Modi has no idea about NBA or the English Premier League. NBA is played outside the US and EPA wanted an additional round of games to be played outside England - which was shot down by Fifa. There is even a Facebook Group campaigning for EPL Intl Round.

Modi is no genius; he is at best a copy/paste guy - he took the ICL model, threw in BCCI's money and clout - created the monstrous IPL. There are many Indians, especially affluent Indians - who have been singing praises of Modi.

One of the many idiots went on to plead with Modi - not to recognize any player associations. Why shouldn't players have an association? This feudal nature of the game must end.

When Modi says, "Unfortunately we do not recognise Fica or any agents." Who is this we? BCCI or IPL? In India, every employee has a right to form a union and be a member of one. Modi on a blackberry might forget India is still a democracy; it is another matter that the current national selector Srikkanth was one who tried to form a player association in the late 80s.

BCCI and IPL are private/corporate clubs/companies; no wonder they show anti-social tendencies.

BCCI must be worried that Modi has no sense of diplomacy at all. Cricket needs everyone; it is a sport for everyone. Sitting on the top of the IPL tree, if BCCI officials think they are invincible... no God, including Sachin, will be able to save them.

One can only hope that some loonies in Pakistan aren't planning an attack during the IPL. If it happens, it will mark the end of too many things in cricket.

He is Back!

2009-12-16T01:36:00.002+05:30

Played 33 Test matches. Took 81 wickets at an average of 51.37 (this is not batting average, this is bowling!) and a strike rate of a wicket every 86.2 balls (almost 15 overs!!)

Why would Pakistan want a bowler with such a record back in their Test team?

Who is the bowler?

Answer here: http://tr.im/msami

More than bat and ball

2009-09-13T10:49:00.001+05:30

Sachin Tendulkar wants T25x2 - as in the Fifty-over version of the game to played in four innings of 25 overs each. Anil Kumble wants the F50 (50:50) to be converted to F40 (40:40). Oh well.

Ian Chappell makes some good arguments in his latest cricinfo column "Down with formula"

The requirement should be that five bowlers have to deliver a minimum of five overs each. Apart from that the captain can utilise his bowlers how he sees fit. The more overs available to the better bowlers, the more likely a captain will attack rather than defend with stop-gap trundlers

Five bowlers at five overs each = 25.

If three bowl five overs each, 35 overs will then remain to be shared by two or more bowlers... which can then be broken down to 18+17 - between two bowlers. If the skipper really wants it, he can have one bowler - bowl through the innings: 25 overs! The problem with Chappelli's thinking is, captains would then look at employing very defensive bowlers to bowl the max number of overs. For LOI, no matter what the format is - it gets competitive when bowlers attack to take wickets; only then we'll have competitive Limited Over Internationals.

Doosra would like to propose some changes as well.

For every wicket a bowler takes - give him an additional over. For instance, if a bowler takes 3 wickets, he gets to bowl a max of 13 overs.
Encourage fielders to have a shy at the stumps: by disallowing over-throws if the ball hits the stumps. It is really silly to see batsmen steal runs after a fielder has managed to have a direct hit and the ball ricochets off to the outfield.

Doosra agrees with Chappelli:

The boundaries should be as large as possible, which places an emphasis on daring running between wickets and athletic fielding, two features that originally attracted fans to the limited-overs game. Short boundaries tend to emphasise defending the ropes, and make some fielding attributes redundant, whereas larger extremities make containment difficult because of the big gaps between the outfielders.
There should only be one stipulation about field placings: four men should compulsorily be inside the circle in the final five overs. If captains aren't told where their fieldsmen have to go then they've got to think where to put them, and the regulation is only there to stop teams having nine men on the boundary in a tight finish.

Tendulkar's T25x2 suggestion is going to create a a T20 Test Match in the long run, how is 25 overs any different from 20? Tendulkar is a great batsman... let's leave it at that. The real danger of T25x2 is soon it will become T20x2 and presents the biggest threat to the 5-day game.

Who the hell is FLR?

2009-09-08T01:00:00.005+05:30

He is a 37-year-old left-handed batsman. And he made this statement:

"We will do the six million people of the Caribbean proud at the ICC tournament."

Champions Trophy that is! LOL@FLR

Floyd Lamonte Reifer is the current West Indies captain. How does he plan to make the six-million people proud? Gayle did it by winning the Champions Trophy, can FLR do it?

Between 1997 and now - our champ has played five ODIs, scored 81 runs at an lightning-speed run rate of 55.86 - oops the average is 16.20!

Against Bangladesh this year, he scored 3 off 8 balls, 7 off 13 balls and.... 40 of 79 balls!

FLR has played Test cricket too, of course he is the captain!

So far he has played Six TEST matches and batted in all twelve innings. Poor guy, he managed to register double figures only four times - eight times he was dismissed in single digit score!

You don't believe me?

Here it is http://bit.ly/sHPPm

29, 1, 0, 18, 0, 9, 0, 6, 25, 19, 1, 3

A captain with a Test average of 9.25... what more needs to be said about the state of Windies cricket?

Think of legends like Greenidge, Haynes, Lloyd, Richards, Holding, Roberts... and then you think of what FLR said about his team going to make the Caribbean PROUD.

Punter's T20 Retirement Joke

2009-09-07T22:23:00.005+05:30

Ponting said in a statement:

"After much thought and careful consideration I have advised Cricket Australia of my decision to retire from international Twenty20 cricket. I have also spoken to [chairman of selectors] Andrew Hilditch, [coach] Tim Nielsen and [vice-captain] Michael Clarke and I feel this decision provides me the opportunity to prolong my Australian Test and one-day career, an opportunity I am extremely determined about.

"As I said after the fifth Test in London, I am hoping to continue playing Test cricket for as long as possible and retiring from the Twenty20 format gives me the best chance of doing this. I will now have set periods of rest throughout the Australian summer and while touring which I feel will be very beneficial."

This decision has nothing to do with prolonging his International career.

Ponting is not retiring from IPL. (Ka-ching!)

"Set periods of rest"

Australia has only played 24 T20s. In 2009, Aussies played ten T20s. Ponting played Six T20 games this year, scoring 86 runs - scores of 28, 31, 1, 1, 0, 25

What Ponting did not say is that he intends to prolong his Test captaincy; whether the selectors and CS think so is another matter.

If Ponting doesn't want to play T20 - why does he want to play and captain in the 50-over version?

If you watched Callum Ferguson pushing off the back foot - the dollies from Swann and Collingwood in the latest ODI at the Lord's - you'll know why Australia are going to find it difficult to beat India and Sri Lanka in T20 cricket.

In 50 overs and in Test cricket, if the batsmen are provided with the width to free their arms, more boundaries flow. Every bowler knows the importance of line. If you watch guys like Sehwag and Dilshan batting in T20s - you'll see them clearing the front foot - which allows them to have a free swing at straight deliveries.

This kind of batting, like the switch-hit - is the batsman's version of doosra.

If you are not playing T20 and if you are not learning these new skills, you'll be struggling to score runs even in the 50-over game.

Callum Ferguson and to a certain extent Cameron White missed out on more than 50 runs - playing with a straight bat to really useless balls from Swann and Collingwood. Sehwag and Dilshan would have hit them out of the park.

Ponting wants to go to England and lose one more Ashes; it is clearly up to the selectors to let him do that. But this T20 retirement is all nonsense.

If Ponting really wants to win an Ashes series in England, he should go there as a batsman. As a captain he has always been useless - four more years of not playing T20 is not going to make things any better.

Australia really need to rethink their batting when it comes to Limited Over cricket (50, 20 or whatever). If their batsmen, like Ferguson, keeps pushing the dot balls and singles - to the likes of Collingwood - Australia will soon be competing with the current* West Indies team.

Australian selector shows F1M1 symptoms

2009-08-29T11:37:00.003+05:30

Australian cricket continues to suffer from Foot in Mouth disease. And it is Jamie Cox's turn now:

"The decision to leave out Phil Hughes was the toughest thing I've had to do as a selector," Cox said. "But [Shane] Watson gave us real presence at the top of the order. Yeah, we made a mistake at the end (not playing Hauritz at The Oval) and no one's walking away from that. Our Ashes, up until that one very well-defined moment, went very well for us."

Read this again: "Yeah, we made a mistake at the end and no one's walking away from that. Our Ashes, up until that one very well-defined moment, went very well for us."

Cardiff went well for Cox and fellow selectors when Australia helped England draw the first Test. Mitchell Johnson was in no shape to be playing in that Test. No Stuart Clark to apply the pressure. You got it right Cox!
It went exceedingly well for Cox and fellow selectors at the Lord's when England bounced back to a 115 runs victory. I don't know how losing a Test match to England can be termed as "it went very well." Mitchell Johnson showed up again - like a reluctant passenger. No Stuart Clark. Cox and co screwed it up.
No Stuart Clark at Edgbaston. Cox and co dropped Hughes, and gave Shane 'Paris' Watson the opening batsman slot; the truth is, Watto was in as a bowling cover for Mitchell. From 5-168, England went on to score 376 runs in the first innings. Watson failed spectacularly 3-0-23-0 -- it well went for Cox.
4th Test at Headingley: Clark in and makes a great impression. 10-4-18-3. Siddle cleans up the tail -- England bundled out for 102 in the first innings. Australia wins.
5th Test at The Oval. England under pressure. Calls for Ramprakash to be drafted in to save the middle order. They pick a debutant in Trott to bat at 5. Cox and co retain a 'winning combination' - which meant Hauritz was to carry drinks...

CA: Please quarantine Cox and fellow selectors and send them home.

After Punter & Co Lost The Ashes Again

2009-08-26T01:58:00.004+05:30

For the sake of Australian cricket, these men should either resign now or be fired.

Cricket Australia chief executive James Sutherland:

"Everyone will be looking for people to blame, but I don't think in any way we can hold the selectors accountable for us losing the Ashes. At the end of the day the players go out and do the business on the field."

Then who the hell is responsible?

"Whether that decision (not playing Hauritz) had any bearing on the result of the game, who will know? We've lost the game by 200 runs, it's a pretty significant defeat.

"Having a spinner in the side wouldn't have helped us in the first innings when we were bowled out for 160 and effectively lost the game."

Oh yes, The CA CE is holding the batsmen accountable for scoring only 160 runs. Had Australia gone in with the right bowlers, English batsmen would have also struggled. Team Selection was rotten - not just in the Oval Test - right through the series - when Australia should have played Clark - they didn't.

"The captain and the coach are always heavily consulted before matches but the structure that we prefer is for the selectors to be independent and making their own decisions and to be accountable for selection on that basis."

You said it Sutherland. Hold them responsible - now. Or take the responsibility and fire yourself out of CA.

You want accountability?

If it was Andrew Symonds who talked up his chances of sneaking in as an opening batsman, like how Paris Watson did - we know what CA and their schoolboy administration would have done. Hughes didn't do that bad in the series - got a bad umpiring decision as well - in the four innings he played.

"I bring a bowling option to the team, as well as batting in the top order," Watson said. "It's always helpful for the captain to have another option."

When you have players lobbying through media - to replace another in the team - then you have a BIG problem. And if the Captain, Coach and Selectors fall for such lobbying... oh well.

There is also a very good example of Stuart Clark, who should have been in the team through the series. He didn't talk about replacing Wayward Mitch.

RICKY PONTING, Captain

"Our seesawing between good and bad in this series was due to inexperience"

Oh really? Either Ponting is lying OR he has no idea of the team he is leading.

Name	Age	Tests	ODIs
Shane Watson	28	11	77
Simon Katich	34	43	45
Ricky Ponting	34	136	315
Michael Hussey	34	42	108
Michael Clarke	28	52	156
Marcus North	30	7	2
Brad Haddin	31	19	53
Mitchell Johnson	27	26	55
Peter Siddle	24	12	1
Stuart Clark	33	24	39
Ben Hilfenhaus	26	8	12
Total	329	380	863
Average	30	35	78

If this Aussie team is inexperienced; it can be true that Afridi is only seventeen.

Average age of 30 is inexperienced? Marcus North and Hilfenhaus are the only ones - who have played below TEN TEST MATCHES - and they were the real success of this Ashes series for Australia. So how can Ponting point towards lack of experience being a factor for the loss?

Trott, making his Test debut at the Oval, scored 160 runs - what the entire Australian team managed in the first innings. What experience did Trott have? It is all about having the right temperament to play at the highest level - and the ability to execute a plan. Australia didn't have a plan, England had one.

The last-wicket pair of James Anderson and Monty Panesar batted for 69 balls in the first Test at Cardiff. Australia should have won the match, Ponting threw it away.

Forget what Ian Chappell has to say about Ponting as a captain. Ponting has been parading his lack of cricket nous - in public - for many years now. Yes, he has won two World Cups and a Champions Trophy... so what, when it mattered most - he has failed to inspire his team.

Ponting was also guilty of allowing Strauss and Trott to settle down and score heavily in the second innings of the Oval Test. He set extremely defensive field and didn't have a wicket-taking plan, he was hoping for England to make a mistake. Katich was once again not used properly as a spinner - that too on a dusty pitch.

Why Australia didn't pick Hauritz? Here is Ponting's answer to it:

"We probably got that wrong. Not before the game, we thought we were picking the right attack for the conditions that we saw. But in hindsight, a specialist spinner would have been pretty handy out there."

Probably wrong? You lost the Ashes - dude.

Not long ago, in December 2008 -- in the space of less than two weeks, Australia lost two Tests matches at home to South Africa. Under any other captain, Australia wouldn't have lost those two matches; Ponting has no idea how to snare wickets.

Australia lost at Perth, allowing South Africa to score 414-4 in the fourth innings.

At Melbourne, with South Africa 184-7 and 210 runs behind the Australian first innings score - Ponting allowed Duminy (166) and the tail to score another 275 runs. Australia lost the match by nine wickets.

With McGrath and Warne, it really didn't matter who the captain was. They knew how to set a field and take wickets. They were men -- who knew what to do.

Under Ponting, Australia have developed a schoolboy culture -- men told what to do and what not to do. Players rely on dodgy dossiers and inputs from their leaders. People who don't believe in such approach -- like Symonds -- are booted out of the system.

Talking of dossiers, I am very sure Andy Flower stuck a print out of Langer's Dossier in the English dressing room at The Oval. The English team had a reason to motivated. How did the dossier leak in the first place?

Now the chief selector Andrew Hilditch:

"We read it as a wicket that was looking like a road, which was the assessment of everybody.

"We thought it was a wicket that would suit the four fast bowlers that played at Headingley and it was a reluctance to change a winning side from the fourth Test.

"It would be an over simplification to say that is the reason we lost the Test. We lost the Test because we got 160 in the first innings.

"Obviously the selector on duty has a big role in assessing wicket conditions, but in the end we all communicate and made the decision.

"Jamie Cox was the selector on duty but everybody misread the wicket - captain and coach included. That just happens from time to time."

If Sutherland is right about selectors being accountable, Hilditch should have quit by now.

What about Tim Nielsen?

Nielsen's confession through his blog - explains what the hell is wrong with Australian cricket.

Selection: There has been much talk about the selection of our team for the Test at the Oval. I think most important from my perspective is, as Andrew Hilditch said in Adelaide during his media conference, that we did misread the wicket, and certainly didn’t see it being as dry and inconsistent as early in the game as it was. Having said that, not having a spinner in our team was in no way the difference between winning and losing! Losing 10/87 in the second session of day two was the costly period and we couldn’t fight back from there.

Nielsen makes it abundantly clear that after the second session on day two, Australia GAVE UP. That's not the Aussie spirit. The Test got over in four days, which means, Australia were not giving their best for the remaining two days.

Here is another reason why Nielsen should quit:

The selection of Shane Watson at the top of the order worked well and has given us another option at the top of the order in all forms of the game.

According to a report in Cricinfo, Nielsen said:

"In the end that's what my role is, I'm not running away from that. I understand that my job is to support and set up the team as well as they can be so they play their best, and we didn't play our best. There's got to be something missing.

"That's what the last couple of days have been for me, searching for that answer or trying to find in my own mind what I could have done better or where we could have done things differently to ensure a different result."

Sutherland, Ponting, Hilditch and Nielsen should all be sacked.

Doosra's vote:
Mark Taylor: Chief Executive of CA.

Katich/ Clarke: Captain

Mark Waugh: Chief Selector

Tom Moody: Coach

Geoff Miller is the real pussy

2009-08-11T18:47:00.003+05:30

England national selector Geoff Miller, said: "What we have to do as selectors is measure the quality of what they are doing in domestic cricket and whether they can do it internationally. There's a lot more pressure in Test cricket, it's a different game altogether."

Geoff Miller said: "There are reasons why Mark Ramprakash hasn't been picked for England for as long as it's been.

"I've watched Surrey play and I've spoken to oppositions who have played against him and there's no doubt he's a fine player who can score plenty of runs at county level.

"But there are other factors to consider here such as age and also the reasons why he was left out in the first place. There are no guarantees anything would be different.

"The question is whether he can transfer that form in county cricket to Test cricket. It does not just boil down to technique, but also fitness, control and mental toughness."

There is a good enough reason why Vaughan agrees with Langer on English cricket.

Miller is questioning the fitness, control and mental toughness of Mark Ramprakash. What a f^cking joke. Is this loser even following the county scene? Seems he asked the opposition players... but doesn't give a damn about what the Surrey captain had to say.

Langer made a big mistake in his now famous dossier on English cricket. Anderson is not a pussy by any means. If there is a pussy - it is Geoff Miller.

Hilditch must be thrown out. Miller too is useless.

I hope England wins the Test. Let Broad and Swann score hundreds - and the utterly useless English middle order fail again.

Is 39 too old for English Test cricket?

2009-08-09T19:43:00.003+05:30

After being flogged by the 'Aura-less' Australians at Headingley (Leeds), English skipper Strauss said, "It's pretty hard to take. We didn't really turn up at this game and we've got to take it on the chin."

Bumble has tweeted, "a lot of talk about rob key at 3".

But why not Mark Ramprakash? In 9 county games this season, Ramps has scored 1209 runs at 100.75 per innings. In fact, in 14 innings, he has scored 5 hundreds - with 274 a few days back at The Oval being the top score.

Rob Key, this season, has scored 635 runs at 52.91.

Ramps this season has been phenomenal: In 14 innings he has gone past 50 - right times!

What I like about Ramprakash's efforts this season (as it has been in the last three or four seasons), is the amount of time he occupies the crease. This season he averages about 157 balls per innings. He should be an automatic choice to bat at #3.

Ramps is 39 years old. Is it too old for English cricket?

In 1981, Mike Brearley was called back into the England team (as a captain!) in the middle of an Ashes series - and his Test batting average was about 22 something. We all know about that series. Important point is, Brearley was 39 in 1981.

Schoolboys knocked out of T20 WC

2009-06-09T00:25:00.003+05:30

Australia had four player in top T20 form after the IPL: Adam Gilchrist, Mathew Hayden, Shane Warne and Andrew Symonds.

The first three have retired from international cricket. Andrew Symonds was sent back home for breaking a pact he had with Cricket Australia that he wouldn't drink in a public place.

There are also rumours that Symonds had a few drinks and dissed Michael Clarke; reasons why Symonds was sent home. Ponting, Clarke and the two useless CA officials (coach and manager?) agreed that Symonds' influence might cause a mutiny against the vice-prefect of the CA schoolboy team - Michael Clarke.

Australia were thrashed by Gayle (West Indies) in the first game. As I write this blog, Sri Lanka are in the process of teaching the schoolboys that T20 is a game for real champions - guys who can express themselves on a cricket ground.

After being blanked out of the T20 WC, I am sure quite a few CA supporters would blame it on Roy - for upsetting the preparation of the schoolboys. In reality, schoolboys would have done well to keep Roy at number four and ask Michael Clarke to have a few drinks and lighten up.

Symonds would have made a difference to this pathetic Australian team, which clearly lacks character. Ponting already has a look on his face that he is going to lose the Ashes for the second time in England.

If rumours are right - that Clarke asked the management to make a choice between himself and Roy (Symonds) - then one can only understand the kind of support he will have from his team mates. Not every player in the squad believes in this schoolboy crap.

I sincerely hope Clarke is not given a contract by any IPL team next year. He snubbed IPL twice...

Michael Clarke got the wicket of Dilshan a couple of minutes back; Australia re going to lose this.

I hope they also lose the TEST series against England, for which many of these schoolboys have been preparing at the expense of some T20 action.

---

Three days back, AFP reported:

Australia vice-captain Michael Clarke insisted on Friday the team's preparation for the ICC World Twenty20 had been "spot on" despite the enforced exit of Andrew Symonds.
The all-rounder, a potential match-winner in Twenty20 cricket, was sent home Thursday for a breach of team rules related to "an alcohol related incident".
Clarke added he hoped Symonds's exit would help bind the squad into an even tighter unit.

1. Clarke made it clear that Symonds being sent home is not going to have any influence on the results they are going to achieve (So, all you pup/punter lovers - don't blame it on Roy!)

2. How can Clarke say that Symonds' exit is going to help bind the team even tighter? Guys like Michael Hussey, Lee and Bracken spoke to the press that losing Symonds is a major thing.

Before the game against West Indies, Brett Lee said this:

"With Chris Gayle you have to try to get him out early, otherwise he is going to hurt you," said Lee.
"He's a bit like Andrew Symonds, he can actually turn a game on its head at any stage and win a match for his country. He's a great player so we have to make sure we knock him over early."

Lee is bit of a one-trick-pony with the ball these days, just pings the ball at 140+ kph speed without the ball doing anything in the air or off the pitch. But what he said about Gayle is so correct - Gayle, in fact, singled him out for some harsh treatment in the first game.

"He's a bit like Andrew Symonds, he can actually turn a game on its head at any stage and win a match for his country"

Andrew Symonds is a match-winner and was in top form for Deccan Chargers. Australia missed him badly in both the games. Their batting was pathetic against West Indies and also against Sri Lanka.

In the end a "fair result" - schoolboys have been taught a lesson: you have to enjoy the game to win it.

It's just a sport, stupid

2009-06-04T22:18:00.015+05:30

Cricket is a sport. Always is and always will be. Some adults make us believe that they can play the game better than kids playing their version of cricket in the backyard. Some retired cricketers who now enjoy life behind the microphone try to tell us that cricket is a sport that can only be understood and explained by experienced cricketers like them.

One such idiot is Boycott, who once asked a journo, ‘how many Tests have you played?’ Even if Boycs tries his best, he will never be an Arlott or Brian Johnston in the commentary box.

I have never played in Test cricket. But, I know how to bowl a googly and a flipper. The game is not complex; it is such a simple thing. During the recent IPL, some of the idiots (ex-cricketers) kept on talking about how stressful T20 is. F%^kin liars!

Stress is what a surgeon trying to save a child with brain tumour goes through. Stress is what a single mother with two or three children in the third world goes through; where she struggles all day along to make sure her kids are fed and she could also send them to school. That is stress.

Playing is stressful? WTF. Playing and getting paid in millions is stressful? What the F%^k!

Ask any kid – what is more stressful: Studying or Playing? You don’t even want to ask the question – because you know the obvious answer. Even psychiatrists tell kids to stop studying and worry about discipline and go play.

One of the things you play for fun is cricket.

Ask real Australian cricket legends like Lillee, Thommo, Marsh and Chappelli – about the game of cricket. It’s a game they enjoyed playing. It was a lot of fun. Were they good role models in the bigger picture of Australian cricket?

So when Symonds has a drink watching a game of rugby, Ponting and his mates in Circus Australia decide that Symonds is a liability. Cause he has no idea of Alcohol Morality!!

Even priests are allowed a few drinks. This Alcohol Morality of CA and some of the journalists from Australia make me sick.

CA didn't support Symonds when it mattered most. They didn't back him on the Bhajji-Monkey episode. CA was more than happy to suck up to BCCI.

I sincerely wish Symonds retires from international cricket and continues to play for Deccan in T20. CA wouldn’t even dare to talk to Modi about kicking Roy out of IPL.

Punter's statement is a big joke: "We've got some young guys who are just finding out what international cricket is all about. This is about the bigger picture and bringing on the next generation of Australian players."

How old were these neo-moralists when the Chappell brothers, Dennis Keith Lillee, Rodney Marsh and Thommo played cricket for Australia? What was the BIG picture then?

I hope the Aussie legends like Ian Chappell, Lillee, Tommo, Marsh, Benaud, Steve Waugh, Warne, McGrath, Gilchrist and my favourite cricketer Mark Waugh would tell the world that the Australian cricket team is more endearing to the public – if they play cricket in the right spirit. There is nothing wrong in having a few beers. If someone like McDonald becomes an alcoholic watching Symonds drink beer, then at least by watching Symonds play – he would be a better batsman and a fielder.

Guys like Punter are a disgrace to the game we all love. Punter is repaying CA for the support he received after the Ashes defeat in England. Any other captain would have lost his position. Warne should have been the Australian captain. But CA’s morals didn’t allow it. Warne’s sexual power made all of them feel so inferior that the entire CA directors were on prescription Viagra for six months.

Symonds has felt out of place for a while now. A team management that didn’t support him through the ‘Harbhajan incident’ now has threatened to tear up his contract.

As an Indian, Australia has always been my favourite cricket team. This team led by Ponting and a bunch of jokers called administrators and a mongrel pup – deserve to be kicked.

Even though I am not a big fan of Pietersen’s cricket, I wish he hits a triple hundred and England take 3-0 lead in the Ashes series. At least we would then see this shameless leadership of Cricket Australia thrown out.

***

Hussey, Lee and Bracken have spoken in support of Symonds.

Espn Cricinfo reports:

"It certainly is a big loss," Hussey said. "With Twenty20 cricket you've got to be really flexible with your batting order anyway, and probably with Andrew Symonds in the team we were a little bit more structured because he plays that role very very well. Now we're going to have to be even more flexible and try and go with the flow of the game.

"It's a real shame, really, because he is a great player and a great mate of mine. It's unfortunate and we've got to move on, we've got to concentrate on the cricket, our preparation and making sure we are 100% ready for West Indies on Saturday. We can't afford to let it affect our preparation. It is definitely a loss for us but we've got other very, very capable players to come in and fill the breach and hopefully we can put in a good performance."

Despite Symonds' repeated behavioural infractions, which have often left the Australians at a loose end in important series, Brett Lee insisted he still had the support of his national team-mates. Lee described Symonds as "the world's greatest guy" and felt he was losing "a great mate on tour".

"To lose a player of his calibre definitely is a big hole in the Australian cricket team so it is disappointing and we hope Andrew can be back shortly," Lee said. "We have to move on now, it's as simple as that. It's very disappointing that Andrew's going home but we'll try to find a way to try and fill that gap. He's a world-class player and to leave a gap like that is not great for the Australian cricket team but we always find a way, if someone gets injured or if someone goes out of the side, to fill that void.

"We are here to focus on cricket. What's happened with Andrew is a very personal blow for him and we'll be as mates sticking by him and making sure that we're giving our best advice and the help he needs."

Nathan Bracken was hopeful Symonds' latest alcohol-related controversy would not force him out of the game. "To say it's the end of his career is a big call," Bracken said. "We enjoy having him around and we hope he will be back shortly."

Dean Jones said Symonds was "too Australian". "He just had a beer and supported Queensland's big win over New South Wales ... He left the hotel without telling anyone," Jones told 3AW. "Can you imagine that in the old days with Dennis Lillee or Jeff Thomson having to tell the manager where they were going. It's a security reason for whatever reason. But they're in England aren't they?"

"Has he been nailed too hard on this one? If they are nailing him on the fact he has had a drink or turned up drunk or whatever well we've got a problem, but if you can't leave your hotel - I know there's security and I can understand in Pakistan and India, but do you have to tell management where you are going everywhere now?"

Jones said the standards that Australia cricketers were now held to were too high and that could act as a deterrent to younger players.

"I wouldn't like to be playing for Australia if I had those team rules. Are they going to school are they?" he said.

"I just find it's like big brother telling you what to do at the moment. Do many kids want to play for Australia now?"

FakeIPLPlayer has blogged on why Roy was sent back.

So, what is the real problem. The real problem is something called Slot No. 4. A few days ago, Pilla had a heated argument with Dickhead on the batting order. Dickhead didn't want Pilla in the middle order. He was clear that it's either the opening slot or the bench. His choices for No. 4 and 5 were TMK and Pussy. Pilla wasn't keen on opening and argued with his skipper on the issue. Eventually, it was agreed that Pilla will bat at No. 4 in the warm up game and his form will be assessed. During all this while, TMK kept quiet but wore a stupid smirk that annoyed Pilla no end. And as things turned out, Pilla did what he had to and earned his spot, while TMK sat around padded up watching his rightful place being snatched from him yet again. And true to his reputation, he went out drinking and during the binge he wasn't quite discreet about his opinion of Pilla and the Dicks' coach. Essentially, he put his Size 13 foot into his Size 1 mouth. And when you do that, it sure is gonna hurt.

TMK: Symonds
Pussy: Hussey
Pilla: Clarke
Dickhead: Ponting

IPL Day One: Bangalore's Day

2009-04-19T01:02:00.002+05:30

Dravid 66 (48); he walked in with Royal Challengers struggling at 17/3. The six he hit off Munaf Patel was a massive one.

Kumble (3.1-1-5-5) cleaned up Rajasthan Royals with an unforgettable sequence of batsmen getting out.

Shane Warne (4-0-18-2) and a brilliant diving catch to dismiss Dravid also showed what class is all about.

Against Chennai Super Kings, Mumbai's Sachind Tendulkar provided great value by scoring 59 runs off 49 balls and remained unbeaten - batting through the 20 overs.

Matthew Hayden top scored for CSK with 44 off 35 balls.

The average age of these oldies is about 38.

Mumbai Indians and Bangalore Royal Challengers (isn't it Bengaluru?) won on Day One.

Dimitry Mascarenhas (4-0-20-3) and Lasith Malinga (4-0-15-3) also provided brilliant bowling performances.

*Tail Piece

Mallya should never be allowed to own a cricket team or for that matter allowed to make cricketing decisions. He is an alcohol trader; he makes money by selling stuff that ruins lives and also provides a profitable business to gastroenterologists (guys who treat liver ailments).

True, RCB were clueless in the first edition of IPL.

I am happy for Kumble and Dravid.

Doosra's IPL Star of the Day is - Rahul Dravid.

Another chucker

2009-04-15T12:55:00.005+05:30

Another chucker.

Do you really think Botha needs help? I think he should be helped out of the game.

On a Bollywood Blunder

2009-04-15T11:45:00.002+05:30

Sriram Dayanand has written a wonderful piece - Sunny Side Up - in CricInfo Blog. Obviously Buchanan and Shah Rukh Khan are the targets. I wouldn't be surprised if Warnie sent Sriram a text - asking him whether he'll be interested in writing Warnie's next book.

Warney thinks he is a goose in pixieland and I hate to be the one to break it to you, but this goose doesn’t always lay a golden egg. It is more prone to periodically deposit nuggets of dubious material around, material which you end up peering at, and then just get on with the job. Just like people do when they deal with deposits from their dogs on evening walks. You just need to lighten up and take them for what they are. Droppings.

It's a very good read. Probably the best piece on cricket this year.

Go North!

2009-02-27T18:01:00.007+05:30

Back in April 2002, I interviewed Marcus North.

CricInfo's India remaining editorial team, especially a couple of jokers - along with the then CI Australia editor - were reluctant to publish the interview. One of the reasons given to me was that I had no business interviewing 'unknowns'.

Cricket is a game I love to play, so I must surely know a thing or two about it.

The CI editorial team ganged up against me, and held back the interview for a few days. I didn't understand what the problem was... months later, I found out that the Australia CI editor had accused me of "badgering" the players. Cameron White and Marcus North were the two players I interviewed - and I am quite sure they didn't feel badgered.

A few minutes back, Marcus North scored a Test hundred on debut. A great achievement.

Photograph I took in 2002.

Guess what, I was reading CricInfo comms (I used to be a CI commentator for three years):

Well, its been a long journey for North from Bayswater-Morley to Johannesburg. Good for him. Here's what he had said to Cricinfo back in 2002, when he was 23, speaking about his career in Perth: "The junior set-ups and the club teams are organised very well - through the ACB (Australian Cricket Board) and local cricket associations. The quality of coaching is very good. It (cricket) is a great sport to be involved in within a country like Australia."

I think Mark Waugh too hit a hundred on his Test debut.

I remember, in Chennai, just before the interview, I heard Marcus North talking to his mates about the biggest six he has ever seen. He was completely in awe of the shot Mark Waugh played off Vettori at Waca, Perth.

Good going North. Great start to a Test career, though I believe you should have started your career many years back. I hope you go on to have a memorable career.

And yeah, thanks for the hundred. I enjoyed it. After all, I wasn't wrong about the talent you had back then. You were genuine material then, and so you are now.

As for the editorial idiots who tried to kill the interview - I don't know what those suckers do these days for a living. I run my own publishing company.

Spins, Fast Balls, Googlies

2009-02-22T14:57:00.004+05:30

'I've faced four generations of bowlers'

"Obstacles he faced, and overcame, just as he faces and conquers those spins, fast balls and googlies."

Nicole Dastur is clearly on a spin when it comes to the game of cricket. She has no clue at all.

"From Richard Hadlee to Ian Botham to Imran Khan to Wasim Akram to Allan Donald to Brett Lee to our very own Ishant Sharma (in the IPL), Tendulkar’s braved all their spins and fast ones."

None of the bowlers mentioned by Nicole Dastrue tried bowling spin like Manoj Prabhakar did in Kotla v SL in the WC Semi Final. Hadlee, Botham and Imran were masters of swing bowling, but never spin.

As for the Tendulkar's, WTF is the sub-editor?

Spins, Fast Balls, Googlies! Why not the short and curlies?

Aussies must go down 0-3

2009-01-01T21:49:00.003+05:30

Andrew Hilditch is useless. Aussie selectors are useless. Cricket Australia is useless.

No matter what the useless Indian offspinner Harbhajan Singh has to say about Aussie Cricket... those guys have helped raise the standard of the game in the last 20 years.

Allan Border, Dean Jones, Steve and Mark Waugh, McGrath, Warne, Healy, Gilchrist, and of course Ricky Ponting and Mathew Hayden, let me not forget Langer and Martyn - have all helped the game improve a great deal.

For most part of the last two decades the rest of the cricket nations have been trying to catch up with Australia.

After losing the first two Tests to South Africa, one can safely announce that the Champs claim to the number one position is almost over.

In Sydney, South Africa are favourites to deal the knock out punch and take the series 3-0.

What is wrong with Australian cricket?

I believe it starts with leadership. CA has not been able to provide the right leadership. The selectors are useless. The coach seems to have no idea on what the modern game is all about - he just expected a free ride on where Buchanan left the team. The sorry Aussie captain can't set a field or even get the right bowlers to bowl at the right time. The bowling coach, Trooley, can't help fast bowlers to learn how to reverse swing it. Freddie, Jones and other English blokes learned a lot from Trooley; so it must be a language barrier that stops the coach from communicating to the likes of Lee and others how to reverse swing it.

There is no way hayden should be playing in the Sydney Test. It is as bad as to expect your grandfather to climb a coconut tree. The man is well past it.

Ponting should have been kicked out of the captaincy after last year's Sydney Test or even much more before that. Ponting never got along well with Warne, proly the best cricket brain in Australia right now.

Look at what Warne achieved with the Jaipur team in IPL. As a player/coach and some imaginative field placing - Warne emerged the king of IPL.

The best cricket minds in Australia are all employed by TV channels and not by CA. Why so?

Ponting never had it in him to be a leader. Hayden wouldn't score 25 in grade cricket in his current form. Lee should go play guitar.

Marcus North should have been the replacement for Symonds. Michael Clarke the captain. Young Hughes should have opened with Katich.

Australia deserve to lose 0-3.

BBC's Aussie Faux Pas

2008-10-20T18:17:00.002+05:30

Lee Furlong is Shane Watson's girlfriend

Michael Clarke's girlfriend is Lara Bingle.

Angry Dada

2008-10-10T20:45:00.005+05:30

Sourav Ganguly has lashed out at his team mates:

"There are players who haven't scored in the last three series for India, even for the last one year. There are some who have changed their hairstyle more than they have scored for India."

SEASON 2007-08

Only Dravid and Dhoni have struggled in Test cricket - in that 2007-08 season. Dhoni being the one who changed his hair style... Good shot Dada!

White can be a winner

2008-10-09T10:43:00.001+05:30

Cameron White is no Shane Warne. Other than being Victorian leg-spinners with blonde hair, their bowling styles are quite different. Warne likes to mesmerize batsmen with flight, dip, and prodigious turn – White bowls it a lot quicker and doesn’t turn the ball a long way.

Terry Jenner, the Australian spin guru (who also helped Warne now and then, in spite of not knowing how to bowl a flipper till he was 47!), has been quoted in the press:

"Bryce McGain wasn't going to bowl medium-pace leggies," spin coach Terry Jenner said yesterday.

Jenner is one of many in Australian cricket who believe White is a strong, improving cricketer with a lot going for him - aggressive batting, cricket smarts and brilliant reflexes in the field.

But the capacity to be a frontline Test spinner, no matter how desperately Australia needs one, does not at this stage appear to be one of them.

"I am at a bit of a loss because I go back to what his mentor David Hookes always said, that Cameron was only ever going to play for Australia as a batsman who could bowl a few overs. I don't think much has changed since then, even though he tries his heart out," said Jenner.

Cameron White came to India (Chennai) in April 2002 as a member of the Commonwealth Bank Cricket Academy tour. At that time, he was more famous for leading the Australian U19s World Cup victory. We had a long chat about bowling leg spin in India, not that I played international cricket… still, even to this day, I can bowl a flipper and a googly. I remember telling White that it is not ‘how much you turn the ball that matters in India, it is how quick you turn the ball.’

By then, he had watched on TV, Sachin Tendulkar rocking back and cutting and driving Shane Warne’s big loopy leg breaks. I told him, if you want to be a successful leg spinner in India, all you have to do is look at the Indian leg spin greats like Chandrasekhar and Anil Kumble. Someone like Kumble is not a big turner of the ball, but bowls it in quick enough not to give the batsman a lot of time to adjust, yet turns the ball ‘enough’ to take the edge. Kumble’s method has been a huge success when you compare that of Shane Warne’s.

In India, Kumble has played 62 Test matches, taking 347 wickets at 24.27 and a strike rate of 58.2. Warne played nine Test matches in India, taking 34 wickets at 43.11 and a strike rate of 81.0.

Shane Warne did quite well in his last series in India, when he bowled a lot more quicker and a great deal of control on the turn he was getting.

In 1997-98 Warne played three Tests, took 10 wickets at an average of 54.00 and a strike rate of 100.2

In 2000-01 Warne played three Tests, took 10 wickets at an average of 50.50 and a strike rate of 91.30

In 2004-05 Warne played three Tests, took 14 wickets at an average of 30.70 and a strike rate of 60.00

Australia lost the series in 1997-98 and 2000-01, and won it in 2004-05. Says a lot.

I’ll be happy if White does well in this ongoing Test series. White can be a winner; he just needs to believe in himself and the method he employs.

BCCI.TV

2008-09-28T01:40:00.002+05:30

Ok that's the BCCI website!

The site also hits you for a six with this howler: Abutting the Arabic Sea!
http://www.bcci.tv/index.php?id=6005

Pups should have a beer

2008-09-06T10:48:00.006+05:30

Picture courtesy: www.roy63.com

Symonds missed a team meeting. The senior management thought he has pushed the line a bit too far - they couldn't tolerate 'indiscipline'.

Australian cricket team is not a kindergarten team. As Captain Clarke proudly put it,

"In my opinion, we are the greatest sporting team in the world, and we have standards. They may be higher than other teams, but if you don't fulfil those standards, unfortunately, you're not going to be a part of our squad."

Australian captains have set standards, Pups. You were hardly four when Allan Border took over as the Australian Captain. You must have seen him on TV and heard from other captains like Mark Taylor, Steve Waugh, Shane Warne (ODIs) and Ricky Ponting - what it is to be a leader.

There is a big difference from being a great mate and being a good leader. We all understand that you stood by Roy - twice before. That was as a mate.

Now, as a captain, you have an additional role of a mentor. There need not have been this drama of sending Roy home. The team needs him, us the paying spectators need him, and if you are that great a mate - you need him as well.

Man management is not like taking a pup out to pee. When it comes to handling top professional sportsmen, you need to have a better understanding of what leadership is all about - these guys operate at a high level of adrenalin and impulse. If you were the captain in the 70s, most of your senior players would have been sent home - the likes of Thommo, Lillee and Marsh.

Australian or any cricket team doesn't need faceless robots. The game needs characters. If you don't know how to manage a team full of such characters, you should take up a job as a kindergarten teacher.

If you aspire to be a good captain and a great leader of men - go drink a beer with Ian Chappell. Chappelli earned his respect - ask Lillee, Thommo or Marsh.

WANTED: Cricketers with balls

2008-06-23T00:17:00.002+05:30

IPL/ BCCI feudal chief Lalit Modi says, "India will not host or participate in any event featuring players from the ICL."

"England Cricket Board's officials told us that laws in Britain do not permit them to restrict participation of players.

"That be the case, England's teams will not be able to play in the Champions League staged in India. It'll be very sad, but we have our own rule."

Seems like the keepers of India's democracy - Government, elected politicians, aspiring politicians, Judiciary, and the rest are busy fondling balls.

So much so, there isn't even a single cricketer with balls to fight the BCCI's tyranny.

Who the f&$k is Modi to decide whether "India" will host or participate in this or that? India is a democratic country and we just should not let the likes of Modi dictate and decide what the state should do.

Where are the cow belt losers who are still having orgasms over Munnabhai's Gandhigiri? Where is the left or the right?

If the labour laws in England do not permit restricting players... how on earth can the laws in India be anti-labour?

Bindra claims Match Fixing is still on

2008-04-11T13:48:00.006+05:30

A senior BCCI official and ICC's Principal Advisor, Inderjit Bindra, has made a shocking claim that even today match fixing is going on in Indian cricket.

"Senior Indian cricket board official Inderjit Bindra has called for the government to legalise betting in the country to help rid match-fixing and corruption in the sport."

You don't get rid of something that doesn't exist.

If Bindra knows there is Match Fixing, he must be quizzed by the Indian Police. The ACU and other ICC Scare-crow bodies are a bunch of wankers. How come the cricket establishment haven't kicked Bindra out of ICC & BCCI for shaming cricket, especially Indian cricket.

Why stop with legalising betting? Legalise Match Fixing, Corruption, Money Laundering, Racism - every single vice we have ever known.

Why is it cricket attracts so many wankers?

+++
Senior Indian cricket board official Inderjit Bindra has called for the government to legalise betting in the country to help rid match-fixing and corruption in the sport.

"When you regulate betting and the government controls it, you have better control and supervision over match-fixing," Bindra told Reuters on Thursday. "Have everything above the surface, that's better."

India, which is the financial powerhouse of the sport, has been at the centre of several match-fixing and illegal gambling scandals after several prominent players were named in an Indian federal police investigation into match-fixing in 2000.

In 2007, West Indies batsman Marlon Samuels faced an investigation from his national board over alleged links with a bookmaker during a one-day tour of India.

Bindra's statement came a week before the multi-million dollar Twenty20 Indian Premier League (IPL) begins on April 18.

The IPL will feature a majority of the game's leading players but made global news in February when an unprecedented $40 million (20 million pounds) auction of players by the eight franchises took place.

Bindra said there would be sufficient measures in place during the staging of the IPL to counter corruption, with the event coming under the watch of the ICC's Anti-Corruption and Security Unit (ACSU).

+++

Kumble has to go

2008-04-04T15:44:00.002+05:30

Kumble has to go - as a spinner he is useless these days. As a captain he is a disaster. At Ahmedabad he won the toss and elected to bat on a grassy pitch against the likes of Steyn and Ntini. Mind you, those two were more than a handful even on a flat Chennai track.

India were bowled out for 76.

As I write this blog, South Africa are closing towards a 400-run first innings lead.

S Sreesanth 23 4 87 2 3.78 (1w)
RP Singh 21 2 81 0 3.85
IK Pathan 20 3 79 0 3.95 (3w)
Harbhajan Singh 39 5 126 4 3.23
A Kumble 30.5 2 68 1 2.20
SC Ganguly 3 0 12 0 4.00

Almost 137 overs has been bowled. How come Sehwag hasn't been given a bowl?

At Chennai, Sehwag bowled 11 overs in the first innings and 22 in the second, claiming two wickets. Not that Sehwag is injured, it is Kumble's brain that is retired hurt.

Why not you Symmo?

2008-02-02T11:23:00.000+05:30

ICC let itself down by not providing Justice Hansen with Harbhajan Singh's previous record... Bhajji was plain lucky.

How come Hansen or anyone hasn't asked for Symmo to be punished. I have very strong objection to what Symmo thinks of himself as a Test player. When Flintoff put his arms around Brett Lee... didn't it provide one of the finest moments in Ashes history?

Justice Hansen clearly notes that Symonds instigated the entire issue, which was blatant sledging at Bhajji - using abusive language.

Bhajji gets a fine of 50% of his match fee for returning Symonds's compliment. Symonds, who started it all, hasn't been fined at all.

Strange are the ways of cricket governance.

(14) Mr Symonds appears to be saying that he finds it unacceptable that an opponent makes a gesture that recognises the skill of one of his own team mates. In the transcript he stated:

“MR MANOHAR: You had any objection to that patting on the back?

MR SYMONDS: Did I have an objection to it – my objection was that a test match is no place to be friendly with an opposition player, is my objection.”

If that is his view I hope it is not one shared by all international cricketers. It would be a sad day for cricket if it is.

(57) Given that is the view of the complainant it is hard to see how the requisite elements of 3.3 could be satisfied. However, given it is an objective interpretation that is not the end of the matter. I must consider if the “ordinary person” would have been offended in a 3.3 sense. That again requires a look at context. Mr Singh had innocently, and in the tradition, of the game acknowledged the quality of Mr Lee’s bowling. That interchange had nothing to do with Mr Symonds but he determined to get involved and as a result was abusive towards Mr Singh. Mr Singh was, not surprisingly, abusive back. He accepts that his language was such as to be offensive under 2.8. But in my view even if he had used the words “alleged” an “ordinary person” standing in the shoes of Mr Symonds who had launched an unprovoked and unnecessary invective laden attack would not be offended or insulted or humiliated in terms of 3.3.

x--------------------------------------------------------x

THE full text of Justice John Hansen's decision in Harbhajan Singh's appeal.

BEFORE THE INTERNATIONAL CRICKET COUNCIL APPOINTED APPEALS COMMISSIONER

IN THE MATTER OF an Appointment of an Appeals Commissioner to determine an appeal against the findings of ICC match referee Michael Procter Esq (“The Adjudicator”), dated 7 January 2008

AND

IN THE MATTER OF an adjudicated breach of the ICC Code of Conduct during the second test match between India and Australia on 4 January 2008 at the Sydney Cricket Ground, Sydney, Australia

AND

IN THE MATTER OF an appeal by Mr Singh

Before: Appeals Commissioner The Hon. Justice John Hansen

Appearances: Mr John Jordan SC, counsel assisting

Advocate Mr Vasha Manohar for Mr Harbhajan Singh and the BCCI

Mr Brian Ward for Cricket Australia

Hearing Date: 29 January 2008

Decision: 29 January 2008 – Full written reasons 30 January 2008

DECISION

(1) Mr Singh appeals against the decision of the match referee, Mr Michael Procter, who found him guilty of a charge against the ICC Code of Conduct for Players and Team Officials, Clause CC Rules of Conduct Level 3, sub-clause 3.3. On being found guilty he was banned from three test matches.

Background

(2) The second cricket test between India and Australia commenced at the Sydney Cricket Ground on 2 January 2008. On 4 January 2008, at the conclusion of the 116th over, one of the Indian batsmen, Mr Harbhajan Singh, patted the Australian bowler, Mr Brett Lee on his backside. Another Australian player, Mr Andrew Symonds, considered it appropriate to intervene on behalf of his team mate. There then followed a heated exchange between Mr Singh and Mr Symonds. Mr Symonds alleged that Mr Singh called him either a “monkey” or a “big monkey”. This was reported to the Australian Captain, who considered it his duty to refer it to the umpires. The umpires considered it their duty to report it as a breach of paragraph 3.3 of the Code of Conduct. The matter was referred to the match referee who carried out a hearing which was, by agreement, delayed until the end of the match. Mr Procter after hearing from various witnesses was satisfied beyond reasonable doubt “that Harbhajan Singh did say these words” being “monkey” or “big monkey”. Mr Procter went on to say he was satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the use of the words insulted or offended Mr Symonds on “the basis of his race, colour or ethnic origin”.

(3) Pursuant to Clause 11(b) of the Code of Conduct the Indian team manager, Mr Chethan Chauhan, on behalf of Mr Singh, lodged a written Notice of Appeal on January 7, 2008. In accordance with Clause 11(c) the ICC’s legal counsel, Ms Urvasi Naidoo, appointed me to hear Mr Singh’s appeal. By this time two of the witnesses, the umpires Messrs Bucknor and Benson, had left Australia. Because of the logistical difficulties associated with assembling all witnesses, and because of the intervention of the third and fourth tests, both the BCCI and Cricket Australia requested that I delay the hearing date until after the fourth test. In any event I was satisfied the matter could not be disposed of within the seven days of appointment. This was not simply because of the difficulties associated with assembling the necessary witnesses.

(4) In order to ensure a fair hearing for Mr Singh, I determined in this case that a hearing with the participants present should be organised. This necessitated the appointment of legal counsel, the finding of a suitable venue for such a hearing and obtaining suitable secretarial assistance. Self-evidently, such matters take some time. For those reasons I was content to accede to the request to adjourn the matter to 29 January.

(5) Clause 11(f) of the Code of Conduct reads:

The process for conducting the hearing shall be left to the discretion of the Appeals Commissioner. Oral representations (either in person or by telephone conference as determined in the discretion of the Appeals Commissioner) should be permitted unless there are good reasons for relying on written submissions only. Where it is available, he shall view video tape of the incident which is the subject matter of the appeal.

(6) In this case I conducted a telephone conference with counsel representing all interested parties. I issued a Minute setting down the procedure to be adopted at the hearing. This involved conducting a hearing De Novo and evidence being adduced from those witnesses who gave evidence before Mr Procter. However, to some extent this was overtaken by events at the commencement of the hearing. The appellant, Mr Singh and the witnesses Messrs Ponting, Symonds, Clarke, Gilchrist, Hayden and Tedulkar had signed an agreed statement of facts that was tendered to the court. I reproduce the statement of facts in the exact form in it which it was tendered.

Statement of Agreed Facts

During the 116th over on Day 3 of the Sydney Test, Harbhajan Singh made friendly contact with Brett Lee. At the end of the over while the umpires were changing ends and the fields was crossing over to their new positions, Andrew Symonds approached Harbhajan Singh and told him that he had no friends amongst the Australians (he admits he used the word ‘fuck’ or a derivation thereof). Singh used similar language to Symonds and neither took offence at that stage.

However the exchange caused Singh to become angry and he motioned to Symonds to come towards him. Singh then said something to Symonds. There is a dispute as to what was said. However all of the players who gave evidence to the hearing before Match Referee Procter of what was said between Harbhajan Singh and Andrew Symonds namely, Harbhajan Singh, Andrew Symonds, Mathew Hayden and Michael Clarke, are all clearly of the view that in the circumstances, Harbhajan Singh used language that was (and intended by Singh to be), offensive to Andrew Symonds. Symonds took immediate offence at the language and behaviour of Singh.

After the exchange between Singh and Symonds, Michael Clare spoke to umpire Mark Benson and complained about Singh’s behaviour, Clarke then told his captain Ricky Ponting what he had heard. Ponting went to Umpire Benson and told him that he had been informed by Clarke of the use by Harbhajan Singh of offensive language towards Andrew Symonds. On his way back to the slips position Ricky Ponting spoke with Harbhajan Singh, Sachin Tendulkar then approached Ponting and Singh and asked Ponting to allow him to manage the situation.

Ricky Ponting then went into the slips. During over 117 Mathew Hayden informed Ponting that he had heard Harbhajan Singh use offensive language towards Symonds at the conclusion of the preceding over. At the end of Over 117 Ponting went of the field and told the Australian Team Manager (Steve Bernard) about the incident.

Harbhajan Singh (Signature), Ricky Ponting (Signature), Andrew Symonds (Signature), Adam Gilchrist (Signature), Sachin Tendulkar (Signature), Michael Clarke (Signature) and Mathew Hayden (Signature).

(7) It is apparent that while there was acceptance that the exchange between the appellant and Mr Symonds was initiated by Mr Symonds and was heated in that the word “fuck” was used no other details of the language used was given. However it was accepted by all parties that it was and intended to be offensive to Mr Symonds.

(8) I was not prepared to only accept the agreed statement of facts. I required the witnesses to be called.

(9) As a consequence Mr Jordan called those witness who signed the agreed statement other than Mr Gilchrist who was unwell, to give evidence of their recollection of what occurred. It was accepted by all counsel that Mr Gilchrist’s evidence was to the effect that he did not hear anything and there was no prejudice to Mr Singh by his absence.

(10) Before the witnesses gave their evidence they all viewed the video. This was an analysis of all available camera angles and included audio from the stump microphone.

(11) It was also accepted by counsel that neither umpire heard anything of relevance and their evidence was not required. Finally it was agreed that there should be no evidence from Mr Anil Kumble who although present in front of Procter was not a witness to the events. Rather he was there in his capacity of captain of the Indian team.

(12) It is apparent that the heated exchange arose because Mr Symonds took exception to the appellant patting the bowler Mr Lee on the backside. I have reviewed the television evidence of what occurred. It is clear that Mr Lee bowled an excellent yorker to Mr Singh who was fortunate to play the ball to fine leg. As he passed Mr Lee while completing a single Mr Singh patted Mr Lee on the backside. Anyone observing this incident would take it to be a clear acknowledgement of “well bowled”.

(13) However Mr Symonds took objection to this and at the end of the 116th over he approached Mr Singh telling him he had no friends among the Australians in foul and abusive language. Mr Singh became angry and responded in kind. It was accepted by Mr Symonds that some of Mr Singh’s response was in his native language

“MR MANOHAR: I put it to you that apart from the other Indian abuses he said to you the words “teri maki”?

MY SYMONDS: Possibly, I don’t recall, I don’t speak that language.

MR MANOHAR: Thank you.

HIS HONOUR: But you accept that as a possibility, My Symonds?

MR SYMONDS: As a possibility I accept that, yes.”

Mr Symonds also gave evidence that in the course of this angry exchange that he initiated and provoked Mr Singh called him “you big monkey”.

(14) Mr Symonds appears to be saying that he finds it unacceptable that an opponent makes a gesture that recognises the skill of one of his own team mates. In the transcript he stated:

“MR MANOHAR: You had any objection to that patting on the back?

MR SYMONDS: Did I have an objection to it – my objection was that a test match is no place to be friendly with an opposition player, is my objection.”

If that is his view I hope it is not one shared by all international cricketers. It would be a sad day for cricket if it is.

(15) Mr Hayden gave evidence that he was changing his position at slip at the end of the over. While not hearing any other words in the exchange or being able to recall them he also stated he heard Mr Singh call Mr Symonds a big monkey. He was adamant those were the words he heard although he could recall no others.

(16) At about this time Mr Michael Clarke was slowly crossing the pitch from cover to cover. His evidence was that he heard Mr Singh call Mr Clarke a big monkey. He was cross examined by Mr Manohar, counsel for the appellant, as to what he stated in the hearing before Mr Procter. There it was recorded that he stated he heard “something like big monkey”. However, his evidence to me was not that this was the use of something similar to “big monkey”. Rather he maintained that what he told Mr Procter was that he heard things being said that he did not hear or comprehend which he referred to as “something something something” but then he heard the words “big monkey”.

(17) Mr Symonds accepted that Mr Tendulkar of all the participants was closest to Mr Singh. A viewing of the video shows that people were moving around but certainly Mr Tendulkar appears to have been closest to Mr Singh in the course of the heated exchange we are concerned with. Contrary to reports that Mr Tendulkar heard nothing he told me he heard a heated exchange and wished to calm Mr Singh down. His evidence was that there was swearing between the two. It was initiated by Mr Symonds. That he did not hear the word “monkey” or “big monkey” but he did say he heard Mr Singh use a term in his native tongue “teri maki” which appears to be pronounced with a “n”. He said this is a term that sounds like “monkey” and could be misinterpreted for it.

(18) Mr Singh himself gave evidence and he denied using the words “monkey” or “big monkey”. He said that after he patted Mr Lee acknowledging his good bowling there followed the exchange above initiated by Mr Symonds and that he responded angrily. He accepted he used offensive words including the “teri maki” in his native tongue but he did not use the word “monkey”.

(19) When reviewing the evidence it is apparent that following incidents in India there was a little of ill feeling between Mr Singh and Mr Symonds. Mr Symonds felt he had been called a “monkey” which was a racial insult by Mr Singh. Mr Singh for his part said that he never called him such thing. Whatever was actually said it is apparent that they shook hands and there was an agreement. Mr Symonds maintained this was an agreement by Mr Singh not to use this word again. Mr Singh said it was a two way agreement whereby neither of them would speak to each other on the field in such a way. Mr Symonds was not cross examined by counsel for Mr Singh as to the extent of this agreement and whether it was two sided matter. But equally Mr Singh was not challenged as to his version that it was a two way agreement. He said:

“MR JORDAN: Just one matter, your Honour. Mr Singh, so you felt provoked by Mr Symonds using the work “fuck”?

MR SINGH: Yes.

MR JORDAN: And you felt provoked by Mr Symonds after shaking hands with you in India using that word on the foot – on the ---?

MR SINGH: Yes.

MR JORDAN: ---cricket field? And you were angry?”

…MR SINGH: Yes, I was angry.

It makes sense to me and it would be more likely that it was a two way agreement that they would not speak on the field and this was initially breached by Mr Symonds’ provocative abuse.

(20) Furthermore the note kept of the four hour hearing in front of Mr Procter is a mixture of précis and direct speech of parts of the proceedings, testimony and submissions that were noted down. The first page records appearances and the rest of a four hour hearing occupies less than five and a half pages. Given the informal nature of the hearing and the circumstances pertaining to it this is not surprising and is not a criticism. However, it seems to me in future that particularly for more serious offences under Level 3 and Level 4, it would be better if the referees were able to record a full transcript of the hearing in front of them. But what it meant was that the record was inadequate for the purposes of this hearing which is why I heard evidence from all parties.

Discussion

(21) Under Code of Conduct clause L, sub-clause 2, the Code of Conduct Rules are governed by, and are to be construed in accordance with, the laws of England and Wales. The circumstances of the present case have led to a full re-hearing with the evidence being viva-voce to ensure a fair hearing. That means that I have to reach my own conclusions on the evidence independent of Mr Procter’s findings.

(22) Mr Singh was charged with a Level 3 offence. Where relevant the Code of Conduct reads:

Level 3

The Offences set out at 3.1 to 3.3 below are Level 3 Offences. The penalty for a Level 3 Offence shall be a ban for the Player or Team Official concerned of between 2 and 4 Test Matches or between 4 and 8 ODI Matches

…

3.3 Using language or gestures that offends, insults, humiliates, intimidates, threatens, disparages or vilifies another person on the basis of that person’s race, religion, gender, colour, descent or national or ethnic origin

(23) It can be seen that this requires the adjudicator, or the Code of Conduct Commissioner appointed to hear an appeal, to be satisfied of two things. The first is that the alleged words were used. The second is that the words “offend, insult, humiliate, intimidate, threaten, disparage or vilify another” on the basis of “race, religion, gender, colour, descent or national or ethnic origin”.

(24) Before turning to my evidential findings I consider it appropriate to comment on two other matters.

(25) The appeal document filed on behalf of Mr Singh states that there is no evidence to support the allegations against Mr Singh. This is mainly on the basis that it is contended the evidence of Messrs Symonds, Clarke and Hayden, in particular, should have been rejected. In a sense, because I am conducting a re hearing this is irrelevant, but I think it is appropriate to comment.

(26) This misunderstands the process required of a fact finder, be it in a jury or a Judge in a Court of law, or someone involved in disciplinary hearings such as we are concerned with here. Finders of fact daily face a situation where there is a conflict of evidence between witnesses on an opposing side of a dispute. In serious criminal matters juries are routinely instructed by the presiding Judge that they can accept everything that is said by a particular witness, or reject it. They are told they may accept some of the evidence, and not other parts. They are also told, in making this assessment, that they can have regard as they think fit to the manner and demeanour of the witnesses as they gave that evidence.

(27) The mere fact of such disputes does not excuse the fact finder from reaching a conclusion. It is a requirement of the finder of fact to consider all of the evidence and then determine which evidence, or which part of such evidence, he, she or they will accept. It is often an invidious exercise, but one that, by necessity, must be taken. In this case it was the obligation of Mr Procter as the match referee, to make findings of fact. In the same way, invidious as it may be, I am confronted by the same obligation in this hearing.

(28) Further, I see nothing in the provisions dealing with the hearing in front of the adjudicator or on appeal that there be independent corroboration of allegations made. Nor would it form part of the compliance with natural justice. The need for corroboration, independent or otherwise, is no longer a feature of the criminal law in many jurisdictions, including for criminal offences. In particular it does not form part of the criminal law of England and Wales, except for perjury. It is the law of that jurisdiction that governs the interpretation of the Code of Conduct provisions. It would be strange if such a requirement is no longer necessary in the criminal law but it applied to sporting disciplinary hearings. I have not been persuaded, nor has it been suggested, that it is a requirement in hearings of this sort.

(29) Put shortly, a decider of fact is required to determine what evidence he or she accepts, regardless of the fact that the evidence is disputed.

(30) The other matter to address is the question of the standard of proof. The Code of Conduct does not provide for a standard of proof. However, assistance can be found in the ICC Anti-Doping Code. That provides as follows:

4. PROOF OF DOPING

4.1 Burdens and Standards of Proof

ICC shall have the burden of establishing that an Anti Doping Code violation has occurred. The standard of proof shall be whether ICC has established an Anti Doping Code violation to the comfortable satisfaction of the hearing body bearing in mind the seriousness of the allegation which is made. This standard of proof in all cases shall be greater than a mere balance of probabilities but less than a standard of proof of beyond a reasonable doubt. Where this Code places the burden of proof upon the Cricketer alleged to have committed an Anti Doping Code violation to rebut a presumption or establish specified facts or circumstances, the standard of proof shall be on the balance of probabilities.

(31) The use of drugs is the scourge of modern sport. The ICC Anti-Doping Code is a regulation put in place to discipline those participating in cricket who use drugs. Such offending is properly considered extremely serious. In my view it is at least as serious, and carries more opprobrium, than the offences set out in Levels 1, 2 and 3 of the Code of Conduct Section CC. As a matter of practicality it also seems to me that it would be wrong to import into the Code of Conduct a different standard of proof than that which applies under the ICC’s anti-doping regulations. Consistency of approach is important to players, officials, and those required to deal with allegation of breaches. As Justice Sachs noted in the Ganguly decision referred to earlier, “There is inevitably a patchwork quality to the quilt of conglomerate norms. The Code of Conduct itself has this piebald character.”

(32) All this, highlights the need for consistency between the various parts of the rules that deal with matters of discipline. It is trite that there is a disciplinary aspect to the Anti-Doping Code. As well Ebrahim J in the only anti corruption hearing pursuant to the Code of Conduct C4 applied such a standard. It would be an anomalous situation if different standards of proof applied to different ICC disciplinary regulations.

(33) Accordingly, I propose to adopt the standard of proof set out in 4.1 of the Anti-Doping Code as applicable to offences alleged to have occurred under the Code of Conduct. That means it is a standard between the civil standard of the balance of probabilities and the criminal standard of beyond reasonable doubt.

(34) Both these standards of proof resonate with lawyers and may be meaningful for lay people. Indeed juries in both criminal and civil jurisdictions have to grapple with those standards on a daily basis in various legal systems, but with the assistance of instructions from a Judge.

(35) The balance of probabilities standard simply means that a finder of fact is satisfied an event occurred if that finder of fact on the evidence considers the occurrence of the event was more likely than not. That is an easier concept than beyond reasonable doubt. This latter criminal standard has troubled juries for some time. Reasonable doubt can be said to be:

The starting point is the presumption of innocence. You must treat the accused as innocent until the Crown has proved his or her guilt. The presumption of innocence means that the accused does not have to give or call any evidence and does not have to establish his or her innocence.

The Crown must prove that the accused is guilty beyond reasonable doubt. Proof beyond reasonable doubt is a very high standard of proof which the Crown will have met only if, at the end of the case, you are sure that the accused is guilty.

It is not enough for the Crown to persuade you that the accused is probably guilty or even that he or she is very likely guilty. On the other hand, it is virtually impossible to prove anything to an absolute certainty when dealing with the reconstruction of past events and the Crown does not have to do so.

What then is reasonable doubt? A reasonable doubt is an honest and reasonable uncertainty left in your mind about the guilt of the accused after you have given careful and impartial consideration to all of the evidence.

In summary, if, after careful and impartial consideration of the evidence, you are sure that the accused is guilty you must find him or her guilty. On the other hand, if you are not sure that the accused is guilty, you must find him or her not guilty.

(36) It can be seen that there is a significant divide between the civil and criminal standards. Exactly where on the continuum between the two one should fix in applying the applicable standard here is unclear.

(37) However, I consider assistance can be gained from concepts that are well understood by those versed in civil litigation. This generally occurs with allegations of criminal matters in a civil court proceeding. It has sometimes been referred to as providing a sliding scale standard. That is not the case.

(38) In the case cited at footnote 1, Lord Nicholls described this as follows:

When assessing the probabilities the court will have in mind as a factor, to whatever extent is appropriate in the particular case, that the more serious the allegation the less likely it is that the event occurred and, hence, the stronger should be the evidence before the court concludes that the allegation is established on the balance of probability. Fraud is usually less likely than negligence. Deliberate physical injury is usually less likely than accidental physical injury… Built into the preponderance of probability standard is a generous degree of flexibility in respect of the seriousness of the allegation. Although the result is much the same, this does not mean that where a serious allegation is in issue the standard of proof required is higher. It means only that the inherent probability or improbability of an event is itself a matter to be taken into account when weighing the probabilities and deciding whether, on balance, the event occurred. The more improbable the event, the stronger must be the evidence that it did occur before, on the balance of probability, its occurrence will be established… This approach also provides a means by which the balance of probability standard can accommodate one’s instinctive feeling that even in civil proceedings a court should be more sure before finding serious allegations proved than when deciding less serious or trivial matters.

(39) This concept from English civil law is in fact reflected in the Anti-Doping Code set out above. Its essence is contained in the last part of the second sentence: “bearing in mind the seriousness of the allegation which is made”.

(40) This of course does not assist as to exactly where on the continuum between the balance of probabilities and beyond reasonable doubt the applicable standard lies. I take it to be that the finder of fact does not need to be sure or satisfied beyond reasonable doubt but it is not sufficient if his mind is swayed only to the extent of the balance of probability, in other words, to the comfortable satisfaction of the person hearing the matter. I am also satisfied that the more serious the allegation made against a player or official, the more improbable the event so the evidence must be stronger to establish it. In this case, with a Level 3.3 offence alleging a racist comment, the allegation is clearly of a very serious nature. In such a case it requires strong evidence to establish it. For the reasons that follow it is tantamount to the criminal standard.

(41) An instructive decision on the English law is that of The Queen on the application of Dr Harish Doshi v the Southend-On-Sea Primary Care Trust .

(42) There Holman J was concerned with the appropriate standard of proof to be applied by the Family Health Service Appeal Authority. He usefully reviewed a modern authority and summarised the present state of the law in England as follows:

From this review of the authorities I conclude as follows:

(1) The proceedings before the tribunal were civil in character and the starting point is “in principle” (Lord Steyn in McCann) the civil standard. However,

(2) There is no rule that in civil proceedings the standard must be the civil standard (Lord Hope in McCann) and there is clear authority that in certain circumstances (described by the Court of Appeal in N as “exceptions to the general rule”) the criminal standard should, or in some cases must, be applied.

(3) In disciplinary proceedings concerning the legal profession it is the law that the criminal standard must be applied: Campbell v Hamlet. However, this is not necessarily a rule of wider and more general application.

(4) In cases against doctors the approach is more discretionary (McAllister at page 399B “…where the events giving rise to the charges would also found serious criminal charges it may be appropriate that the…standards of proof should be those applicable to a criminal trial…”) It is relevant that the rules are silent (McAllister at page 399D and E) and what is of prime importance is that the proceedings should be fair (McAllister at 399C).

(5) Although there are only two standards (viz the civil and the criminal standard), the practical application of the “flexible approach” to the civil standard means that they are likely, in certain contexts, to produce the same or similar results: N at 699H echoing Lord Bingham of Cornhill in B v Chief Constable of Avon and Somerset Constabulary; Lord Steyn in McCann at 812F; Lord Hope in McCann at 826E; and the Privy Council in Campbell v Hamlet at paragraph 25.

(43) What this means is that the more serious the allegation the more certain the fact finder must be of the evidence which is relied on. As the allegations approach those equating to criminal behaviour so the standard of proof will equate with the criminal standard. While this is a civil proceeding and while the offences under 3.3 are not criminal offences they are to some extent mirrored in various racial vilification and anti hate legislation now common in many jurisdictions.

(44) In effect I need to “be sure” in relation to the allegations and if I am left with an honest and reasonable uncertainty then I must make a finding favouring Mr Singh.

(45) In this case there is a direct conflict as to whether or not the words were said. Mr Symonds accepted that in at least part of the heated exchange Mr Singh used his native tongue. Both Mr Singh and Mr Tendulkar gave evidence that he used words in his own language that were similar to monkey. On the other hand the three Australian players consider they heard the words “big monkey”.

(46) Mr Procter also noted in his decision that he did not consider the umpires or Mr Tendulkar were in a position to hear the words. I have of course had the advantage of seeing extensive video footage which in fact establishes that Mr Tendulkar was within earshot and could have heard the words. Indeed it is now clear Mr Tendulkar did hear the exchange but not the words alleged.

(47) I accept that Messrs Hayden, Clarke and Symonds are satisfied themselves that they thought they heard the words “big monkey”. Indeed it is clear from the audio material they immediately confronted Mr Singh in this regard. I am satisfied that Mr Singh denied this to Umpire Benson. But we are in a situation where there are cultural, accent and language differences and where it is accepted that some of Mr Singh’s remarks were in his own language. Mr Hayden and Mr Tendulkar in particular were impressive witnesses. But their evidence as to what was said by Mr Singh is completely at odds. Mr Tendulkar said there was offensive words in Mr Singh’s native tongue and he also heard abusive language in English between the two. Mr Hayden says he heard the words “big monkey” but could not recall for the court any other words that were said by either party. I remind myself that an honest witness remains a witness who may be mistaken. In my view there remains the possibility of a misunderstanding in this heated situation. As well it is not without significance that the Australian players maintain other than Mr Symonds that they did not hear any other words spoken only the ones that are said to be of significance to this hearing. This is a little surprising in the context where there was a reasonably prolonged heated exchange. Indeed Mr Clarke went so far as to say that he did not hear Mr Symonds say anything. Given Mr Symonds’ own acceptance that he initiated the exchange and was abusive towards Mr Singh, that is surprising. This failure to identify any other words could be because some of what they were hearing was not in English.

(48) As I say the standard to be applied by me is a high one I have to be sure that the words were said. That they were probably said is insufficient. I have not been persuaded to the necessary level required that the words were said. I am not sure they were. I am left with an honest uncertainty as to whether or not they were said given the possibility of misunderstanding through different languages, accents and cultures, and the fact that none of the Australian players appeared to hear any other words said by Mr Singh. It is quite apparent on any view of the evidence that more than the alleged words were said in the course of the exchange.

(49) The video evidence and the stump microphone do not take the matter much further. They certainly pick up some words and appear to include, although this is not conclusive, Mr Symonds saying “are you calling me a monkey”. There are also words from Mr Hayden to the effect that “it doesn’t matter mate it’s racial vilification mate it’s a shit word and you know it”. But they do not assist in any way in determining what Mr Singh himself said. Nor can his response to Mr Symonds or Mr Hayden be gauged. What is apparent when umpire Benson put the issues to him he immediately denied them.

(50) Accordingly, I am not satisfied that it has been established to the requisite very high standard that the words were said and on that basis a charge under 3.3 is not made out.

(51) There is another reason why I consider a charge under 3.3 fails. Counsel made submissions on the interpretation of 3.3. Mr Manohar suggested it was similar to a criminal offence and it was necessary to prove intent. I do not think that is the case. I am in agreement with counsel assisting me and with Mr Ward for Cricket Australia. That is that the clause requires an objective interpretation and an objective assessment of what occurred. To that extent it may be usefully likened to public disorder offences that are familiar in most jurisdictions (ie offensive language is to be gauged by its effect on a reasonable or ordinary person).

(52) I am fortified in this view by the Guidelines for Offences in their latest edition attached to the Code of Conduct. In the notes to 2.8 it is stated that “this offence is not intended to penalise trivial behaviour. The extent to which such behaviour is likely to give offence shall be taken into account when assessing the seriousness of the breach.” In the notes to 3.3 it states again that “in assessing the seriousness of a breach the degree to which the behaviour was likely to give offence (to the ordinary person) and whether it was directed specifically towards any person or persons shall be taken into account.”

(53) In my view it is therefore necessary to determine under 3.3 whether the “ordinary person” would be “offended, insulted, humiliated, intimidated, threatened, disparaged or vilified” on the basis of “their race, religion, gender, colour, descent, or national or ethnic origin” by the words that were said.

(54) Furthermore, the behaviour must be looked at in context. Such events are always contextual and the language or gestures referred to in 3.3 cannot be looked at in isolation and need to be considered in the context of the overall behaviour.

(55) I have set out above the agreed statement of facts. There it was accepted by Mr Singh that he intended to be offensive towards Mr Symonds and Messrs Symonds, Hayden and Clarke were of the view that in the circumstances that language was offensive.

(56) In the course of submissions I raised directly with counsel for Cricket Australia Mr Ward what was the level of offence that Mr Symonds took from what was said to him. He confirmed that Mr Symonds took the language to be offensive and seriously insulting but did not consider it fell under the requirements of 3.3.

(57) Given that is the view of the complainant it is hard to see how the requisite elements of 3.3 could be satisfied. However, given it is an objective interpretation that is not the end of the matter. I must consider if the “ordinary person” would have been offended in a 3.3 sense. That again requires a look at context. Mr Singh had innocently, and in the tradition, of the game acknowledged the quality of Mr Lee’s bowling. That interchange had nothing to do with Mr Symonds but he determined to get involved and as a result was abusive towards Mr Singh. Mr Singh was, not surprisingly, abusive back. He accepts that his language was such as to be offensive under 2.8. But in my view even if he had used the words “alleged” an “ordinary person” standing in the shoes of Mr Symonds who had launched an unprovoked and unnecessary invective laden attack would not be offended or insulted or humiliated in terms of 3.3.

(58) So on that alternative basis I would also have been satisfied that the requirements of 3.3 were not met. So as to summarise that ground. Firstly, Mr Symonds through counsel accepts he was not offended in a 3.3 sense. Secondly on an objective basis I do not consider the response transgressed against 3.3.

(59) As a consequence of my findings that a charge pursuant to 3.3 is not made out I consider that the evidence does warrant a charge under 2.8. I have put that charge to Mr Singh and he has pleaded guilty to it. I received submissions on penalty from counsel assisting Mr Jordan and submissions in mitigation from Mr Manohar. I accepted Mr Jordan’s submission that while there was one previous offence there was significant mitigation in this case through provocation making the offence at the lower end. I concurred in that and imposed the minimum fine.

Concluding Remarks

(60) Clause C1 of the ICC Code of Conduct for Players and Team Officials requires that:

“1. Players and/or team officials shall at all times conduct play within the spirit of the game as well as within the laws of cricket…”

(61) It can be seen that spirit of the game is an overriding consideration in the context of the Code of Conduct. Sensibly the Code of Conduct does not attempt to define the spirit of cricket. Frankly it is an amorphous term that would take a more elegant pen than mine to define. But it is not without coincidence that the game gave rise to the term “that’s not cricket” to refer to behaviour, that while not necessary illegal, falls below reasonable accepted standards. Of course the game has changed considerably since that term was coined. It has become professional and in each match much is at stake individually and collectively for players and teams. The game has become more widespread invoking, in some countries, a much higher degree of passion than in others. There are also cultural differences between players from countries with different ethnic and cultural backgrounds. But it seems to me that all players, officials and spectators instinctively understand what is meant by the term “the spirit of cricket”. It needs to be said that the greater good of the game is more important than the outcome of any particular match, no matter how important that particular game is to the participants. I have no doubt that the participants in this game have reflected long and hard since its conclusion. Their actions do not reflect well on them or the game.

(62) There has been considerable publicity relating to the allegations against Mr Singh and this appeal. Many reports have suggested that if the appeal is unsuccessful the balance of the tour would be called off or would at least be in jeopardy. Mr Manohar has assured me that that is not the position of the BCCI and it is no more than media speculation and exaggeration. I accept Mr Manohar’s assurance.

(63) Many people reading such media reports could well have thought that they were designed to pressure the Code of Conduct Commissioner into a predetermined result. In the event the result has been favourable to Mr Singh. But that is as a result of my consideration of the evidence and the law applicable to this case. This is a civil case and while in normal circumstances an adjudicator would not go beyond facts agreed between the parties in this case I required all the witnesses as to the exchange to give evidence and be cross examined.

(64) On a personal level I can say that I have not felt under any pressure because of such media reports. In any event as a Judge who has taken the required judicial oath I would never be influenced or succumb to any such pressure, real or imagined.

(65) Obviously the media have not invented these statements. They must be sourced from someone. To my mind such statements do a serious disservice to the game. The Code of Conduct for Players and Team Officials is a set of regulations put in place after input from and with the agreement of all ICC members. It is a robust Code designed to ensure a fair hearing for players. Code of Conduct Commissioners are independent of the ICC and carry out their appellant functions independently. It is incumbent on members of the ICC to abide by this process and allow it to run its full judicial course before making comments or taking actions. It is after all, as I have noted, a consensual code that those members have agreed to and should abide by.

(66) I need to add something about the penalty I imposed. In imposing that penalty I took into account Mr Singh’s previous transgressions as advised to me by counsel assisting Mr Jordan. I was told that Mr Singh had one infraction in April 2003 for what was the equivalent to a 2.8 offence under the present Code. That was for an abusive comment made to the umpire when he was fined 50% of his match fee. That was the only infraction that Mr Jordan had been advised of by the ICC. After the penalty was announced I was made aware that in fact there were three further matters I had not been informed of. One was under the old Code of Conduct in 1998. It was the equivalent of a Level 1 offence under the present Code and involved ordering a batsman to the pavilion. He was fined half of his match fee. There was a similar offence in November of 2005 when he was fined 25% of his match fee. Of more moment was a conviction, along with other players, in November of 2001. In the course of a test match Mr Singh was found guilty of showing dissent at the umpire’s decision and attempting to intimidate the umpire. He was fined 75% of his match fee and given a suspended ban for one test match.

(67) The 1998 matter was overlooked because apparently offences under the old Code of Conduct are not included in the ICC database. The November 2001 offence was overlooked because more than one player was convicted and the entry in the database was under another player’s name. It was simply human error that led to the Level 1 offence in November 2005 not being made available. None of these three offences were advised to Mr Jordan and because of that he was not in a position to advise me of them. Other counsel did not alert me to this information during the sentencing process. These matters should have been placed before me. None of them of course involve racist allegations. Leaving aside for the moment the offending in November of 2001, if I had been fully informed of all the other offences, given the level of provocation in this case, my penalty would have remained the same. However, if I had been aware of the serious transgression in November 2001 I would have required more extensive submissions as to the offence in mitigation which could have led to a different penalty. Overnight I have given earnest consideration to the Code of Conduct to see if it empowers me to reopen the sentencing process. Regrettably I have concluded that I cannot do so and the penalty imposed by me must stand. At the end of the day Mr Singh can feel himself fortunate that he has reaped the benefit of these database and human errors. But judicial experience shows that these are problems that arise from time to time.

(68) It is apparent from the contents of my decision that this hearing was vastly different from that that occurred in front of Mr Procter. I have had a full hearing with the assistance of counsel with cross examination from counsel representing Mr Singh and Cricket Australia. I also had the advantage of additional video and audio material. I have had considerable assistance from counsel by way of legal submissions. The fact that I have reached a different conclusion from Mr Procter does not reflect on his decision or the process he adopted. The reality is it was a quite different hearing from the one that occurred in front of him.

(69) I wish to express my thanks to counsel for their assistance. I also wish to thank the Federal Court of Australia, and in particular the Judges and staff of the South Australian Court, who so generously made their fully equipped No 1 court available to us. Without that assistance this hearing would have been much more difficult.

(70) I should add this. I have read some of this morning’s media reports of the outcome of the hearing. I trust now that the full facts are known and my reasons are available there will be a greater degree of proportionality and rationality. I wish to make it quite plain that as a Code of Conduct Commissioner appointed by the ICC I am independent of that body. I have brought that independence to this hearing. It was not the ICC that reduced the charge against Mr Singh from a level 3.3 offence to a 2.8. That was my decision and my decision alone. I made that decision on the basis of my factual findings and my legal interpretation of the Code of Conduct. An interpretation I may add that counsel were by in large in agreement with. I also wish to disabuse the media of any notion that there was some “sort of deal”. While I was tendered an agreed statement of facts at the commencement of the hearing, I still insisted on counsel assisting me to call the players that could give relevant evidence and to hear that evidence viva-voce and to have them cross examined. The decision that I have reached is based on my findings on that evidence. It is incorrect to suggest that there was some sort of an agreement reached between Australian and Indian cricket authorities that I simply rubber stamped. I also wish to add that while I was aware of the media furore surrounding this matter no-one has attempted to apply direct pressure to obtain an outcome. In any event as I said earlier it would be a breach of my judicial oath, and a dereliction of duty as an independent Code of Conduct Commissioner, to succumb in any way to such pressure. I repeat I have independently reached my decision based on the evidence as I have found it to be and in accordance with the applicable standard of proof and interpretation of the Code of Conduct Regulations.

Blame it on Cricket Australia

2008-01-30T12:16:00.000+05:30

The racism charge against Harbhajan Singh was always going to be 'difficult to prove.' Only one man really knows the truth - Bhajji himself.

The only piece of evidence before us, as reported by cricinfo

In audio evidence supplied by Channel Nine - and played before the appeals commissioner, Justice John Hansen - Matthew Hayden is heard remonstrating with Harbhajan. "You've got a witness now, champ," says Hayden. "It's racial vilification, mate. It's a shit word and you know it."

Harbhajan can be heard protesting that Symonds started the verbals, but the actual word is inaudible on the tapes.

Procter so utterly useless. If he is not qualified to be a match referee, why can't he go back to some community service in South Africa? Once again, the ICC (a collective of all cricket boards) has proven themselves to be such idiots.

This entire monkey drama could have been avoided.

The two on field umpires - should have stopped play immediately - called in the Indian captain to have a word with him. Ponting and his players could have had a chat with Kumble and let the Indian team act on it.

Cricket Australia, which clearly gave Ponting the advice to lodge a complaint - has let its players down.

The charge had no legal legs to stand on. We all knew it. Something that you cannot prove without any reasonable doubt - makes you look like liars.

Why blame it on the BCCI? Cricket Australia should be blamed for this. They shouldn't have taken the legal route on a sensitive issue such as racism - and that too when they knew they cannot prove it in a court of law.

Once Procter pronounced Harbhajan as a racist, there was no way Harbhajan's employer (BCCI) could have avoided what followed.

CA should have had the common sense to tackle the issue. Now that we know from Hayden's response - that there was a serious issue.

If CA had approached the BCCI - they way they negotiate all the commercial deals... heart-to-heart, without involving the ICC match referee and the world media, Harbhajan Singh would have been chucked out of the team by his own captain!

How difficult is it to deal with the truth?

Aussie players' behaviour during the Sydney match also didn't help the situation. I hope lessons have been learned from all this.

Rahul Dravid said it the best on TV, after the Sydney game. He was of the opinion that the real thing is the game of cricket, whatever happens out of it is just drama.

Obviously there is more money in the drama than in a contest between ball and bat.

Harbhajan Singh must have had his last dance in Test cricket. Once again he proved to be a worthless off-spinner in Test matches. About time India got that monkey off its back.

Much Ado About a Monkey

2008-01-08T15:57:00.000+05:30

The Sydney Test proved one thing; this Australian team lacks grace, lacks decency, lacks good manners, and more so need to be taught how to be a good host.

The back-benchers of the Newspaper industry (back-pagers, even) are having a great time; throwing abuses at anything and everything they deemed to be killing the spirit of the game.

Indian journalists and sportsmanship? There are only a few Indian cricket journalists who would call a spade - a spade - all the time. Most of the newspapers want its editors and journalists to be narrow-minded partisan hacks - simply because of their commercial interests. They need more advertisement revenue - a controversy, if that too a Monkey Controversy serves those best - they will take it.

Opportunistic? Of course.

OK, the Australian cricket captain has behaved without any sense of civility or even a sense of respecting the guests. He has made it look like a pub brawl (Punter has had his publicised brawls). Ponting's lack of class is way too obvious; Cricket Australia shouldn't have made him the captain at all. The man is not cheeky, he is cheap as it can get.

You must realise, Ponting's failure with the bat was one of the main reasons why Australia lost the series. He was a sitting duck to Indian bowlers on Indian tracks. In fact, Ponting has scored 172 Test runs in 14 outings at a royal average of 12.28 on Indian tracks, in 12 years. His highest score is 60 in those 14 innings; if you were to remove that Ponting has scored 112 runs at an average of a shade above 8 per innings. To put things in some sort of perspective, Courtney Walsh has scored at 6.7 runs on Indian soil in Test cricket.

Anyway, I remember asking him a question in a press conference in Vizag after the ODI, Ponting made a decent score for the first time on tour in 2001. That Ponting doesn't deserve to be picked to play in India is beyond a shadow of doubt. So, I asked him, how does it feel to have your captain (Steve Waugh) backing - in spite of being in such wretched form.

Ponting didn't thank Steve in his reply; he went on to say (much to my dismay) that he always knew he had it in him to score heavily on Indian tracks. It is another matter that he hasn't done the scoring in Test cricket where Indian spinners have a plan for the cheap Punter.

A little while before the Ponting press conference, I had asked Steve Waugh about Ponting's performance and his faith in him as a batsman. Waugh backed Ponting all the way, and that he is glad to see Ponting make some runs.

That is the difference between the 16-Test-match-in-a-row-winning captains.

Racism is not monkey games. Racism is a very serious thing.

I don't know whether Harbhajan did call Symonds a Monkey or a Donkey. Had I been playing, I would have told Symmo to get a haircut.

ICC, which is just a private club, has no right to create anti-racism laws. They just do not have the jurisdiction, even in Dubai, to set their on laws and then pass judgment without a trial. There are civil laws in every country, even in Israel and in Saudi Arabia. Racism is something that has to be dealt with within the laws set by the state, not by a private club.

OK, cricket is big; BCCI and ICC are so big that they have created a Cricket economy. Does it mean ICC or BCCI can start printing their own currencies? Can they have their own police force? How come they can say who is eligible to play and not eligible to play - as in the case of ICL contracted players.

The general assumption is that these teams represent their countries, the state itself.

ICC has no business in naming or shaming a person. Who the hell is this Procter? That there has been an accusation levelled by Australian captain Ricky Dirty Ponting, what the hell was the Sydney Police chief doing? How come the cops haven't arrested Harbhajan Singh?

When the young Man Utd player was accused of a rape in one of those Xmas parties, the cops picked him up. Racism is not kindergarten stuff; it is a serious crime against humanity. The ICC, Umpires, Match Referees or any dumb-wit ex-player, including the Super Referee Ranjan Madugalle has no jurisdiction over criminal cases.

Remember, when Woolmer was killed/died - ICC was the first to come out with a statement that there were no match-fixing. It is not for the ICC to say so; there are investigating agencies, which should have come out with such a statement.

Racism is a crime; and there should be no tolerance at all. Even if there is a murder case, it is the evidence the prosecution lays out, a proof that is beyond reasonable doubt - which nails the criminal. To allege a person to be a murderer without any evidence to back the claim is a crime by itself. To name and punish a person in an ad-hoc, illegal court, when there is a legal system and courts in Australia is a direct challenge to the Australian State.

In Harbhajan Singh's case, there has been no evidences to substantiate the allegation, neither has there been an admission of guilt by the accused. Mike Procter and ICC have challenged common sense and legal structures of a civilised state. It is not something the Australian parliament should ignore; the Sydney Police chief must be held answerable.

Levelling a false accusation against an individual is punishable too. Call it slander, defamation etc... The onus is never on Harbhajan to prove that he is innocent; the law sees him as an innocent till proven guilty. The onus is on a bunch of Australian cricketers to back what they say.

We all know that Sydney police wouldn't have pressed charges against the Indian player, simply because of the lack of proof. It is quite absurd that the ICC or its Match Referee should try to hijack the legal system of Sydney, NSW or even Australia. I repeat, this is not a simple thing - the lawmakers in Australia MUST take this case very seriously.

Here is a classic case of an institution, a cricket club and its officials, trying to act like a state. Something akin to mutiny.

Now the BCCI and CA have put the matter behind them for the time being, and have decided to get on with the game. The Racism case becomes a sideshow. There is much to lose for CA and the BCCI, given the fact their monopoly cricket - IPL - is not too far away.

This is not a time for any negotiations. There was a time for discussions; Ponting lost it - as he lacked civility and decency. A man, presumably innocent, has been named a racist - and has to live the rest of his life carrying a heavy cross.

Matt Hayden drawing a cross is a big marketing stunt. If he has a faith that guides him in the right direction, he would also know about justice. If the Australian players lied to damage Harbhajan Singh's reputation (as it stands now), those players have lost all respect.

The only person who knows the truth is Harbhajan Singh; no one else. Not even Symonds. As long as Harbhajan Singh doesn't confess that he is a racist; he should be allowed to live as a decent man.

Ricky Ponting has no decency whatsoever. In Mumbai, he wished Murali Kartik walked after getting a thick edge, even named Kartik in the post match comments. In Sydney, when the Aussies stood their ground, when they got out, it has been explained as a case of being 'competitive'.

Let us not be forced to believe only Australians know to play cricket tough and competitive. Australian cricket has contributed a lot to the game; it is time for them to reflect on the damage they are causing by having some fools at the top.

ICC must have playing rules, no laws to fight criminals and civil rights violations. Let the courts earn their livelihood. Cricket cannot be everything, because it just ain't.

The BCCI Mon(k)ey Show

2008-01-08T02:57:00.000+05:30

Just before the Kangaroo court of 'I-know-what-racism-is-Procter' got into action, the BCCI decided that Harbhajan Singh can be sacrificed for the sake of a few sweet rupees.

The Indian board president, Sharad Pawar has said he was determined to preserve strong ties between the India and Australia. "There is an extremely good relationship between the countries," he told the Melbourne-based Age. "There has been a conflict on the field and an issue has been reported by some players, but I don't want to react. It is important it should not spoil the relationship between the countries or the teams. That is not our desire."

Source: CricInfo

BIG FAT CLUE: IPL

An Indian player was accused of being a racist, not just name calling.

This is what Procter knew:

Monkey is a race?

If I call my dog, Howard. Am I racist?

This is what happened:

Anyway, wasn't Pawar pushed away by Ponting not too long ago?

India shouldn't play the series till ICC hears the appeal. Harbhajan has been painted a racist by an idiot, who admits there is no evidence in front of him. It is the same idiot, who hasn't told the world about the tampered ball, which caused the Test match to be forfeited in England.

As long as the BCCI is in for the money and not for the game; cricket will remain a monkey game.

Fair Play & ICC Match Referees

2008-01-08T02:32:00.000+05:30

Ridley Jacobs suspended for three ODIs

http://content-www.cricinfo.com/ci/content/story/101227.html

July 5, 2001

West Indian wicketkeeper Ridley Jacobs has been suspended for three One Day Internationals against Kenya, on August 15, 16 and 19 as a result of an incident during the Coca Cola Cup ODI against India at Harare on Wednesday. The incident involved a stumping of an Indian batsman by Jacobs. The television reply showed that Jacobs had stumped Sehwag whilst the ball was clearly in Jacobs' left hand which was nowhere near the broken wicket.

Latif banned for five matches over disputed catch
http://content-usa.cricinfo.com/pakistan/content/story/133468.html

Wisden CricInfo staff

September 7, 2003

Rashid Latif, Pakistan's captain, has been banned for five one-day internationals after being found guilty of violating the International Cricket Council's Code of Conduct during the third Test against Bangladesh at Multan.

This means that Latif will miss the entire one-day series against Bangladesh. Inzamam-ul-Haq has been named captain in Latif's enforced absence. Kamran Akmal will keep wicket.

Mike Procter, the match referee, upheld a complaint made by the Bangladesh team. Speaking at a press conference after the meeting, Procter said ""I have listened to both parties at length and feel there is good evidence against Latif."

Bangladesh lodged an official protest on Saturday, claiming that Latif knowingly claimed a dropped catch during the day's play. It is alleged that Latif failed to tell the umpire that he had grounded the ball which dismissed Alok Kapali.

Latif appeared to pull off a spectacular take flying in front of first slip, but television replays showed the ball popping out of his gloves as he got up from the floor after rolling over twice.

Now watch this video:

Mike Procter was the Match Referee for this game as well. Ponting claimed, CLAIMED the catch.

What did Procter do? Nothing.

Asked why he had appealed (against Dhoni) despite grounding the ball running from silly-point, Ponting said, “Are you questioning my integrity? There’s no way I grounded that ball.

And what was Procter doing in this Test match?

Roebuck's best innings

2008-01-08T01:51:00.001+05:30

I have never been a big fan of Peter Roebuck. In the last few days, he has written two good articles in the Sydney Morning Herald.

The latest piece is probably the best contribution Roebuck has given to the game of cricket.

Arrogant Ponting must be fired

January 8, 2008

The Australian captain's disrespect for his opponents has embarrassed his country, writes Peter Roebuck.

RICKY PONTING must be sacked as captain of the Australian cricket team. If Cricket Australia cares a fig for the tattered reputation of our national team in our national sport, it will not for a moment longer tolerate the sort of arrogant and abrasive conduct seen from the captain and his senior players over the past few days. Beyond comparison it was the ugliest performance put up by an Australian side for 20 years. The only surprising part of it is that the Indians have not packed their bags and gone home. There is no justice for them in this country, nor any manners.

That the senior players in the Australian team are oblivious to the fury they raised among many followers of the game in this country and beyond merely confirms their own narrow and self-obsessed viewpoint. Doubtless they were not exposed to the messages that poured in from distressed enthusiasts aghast to see the scenes of bad sportsmanship and triumphalism presented at the SCG during and after the Test. Pained past players rang to express their disgust. It was a wretched and ill-mannered display and not to be endured from any side, let alone an international outfit representing a proud sporting nation.

Make no mistake, it is not only the reputation of these cricketers that has suffered. Australia itself has been embarrassed. The notion that Ponting can hereafter take the Australian team to India is preposterous. He has shown not the slightest interest in the well-being of the game, not the slightest sign of diplomatic skills, not a single mark of respect for his accomplished and widely admired opponents.

Harbhajan Singh can be an irritating young man but he is head of a family and responsible for raising nine people. And all the Australian elders want to do is to hunt him from the game. Australian fieldsmen fire insults from the corners of their mouths, an intemperate Sikh warrior overreacts and his rudeness is seized upon. It might impress barrack room lawyers.

In the past few days Ponting has presided over a performance that dragged the game into the pits. He turned a group of professional cricketers into a pack of wild dogs. As much can be told from the conduct of his closest allies in the team. As usual, Matthew Hayden crossed himself upon reaching three figures in his commanding second innings, a gesture he does not perform while wearing the colours of his state. Exactly how he combines his faith with throwing his weight around on the field has long bemused opposing sides, whose fondness for him ran out a long time ago. Hayden has much better in him.

Michael Clarke also had a dreadful match but he is a young man and has time to rethink his outlook. That his mind was in disarray could be told from his batting. In the first innings he offered no shot to a straight ball and in the second he remained at the crease after giving an easy catch to slip. On this evidence Clarke cannot be promoted to the vice-captaincy of his country. It is a captain's primary task to rear his younger players and to prepare his successor for the ordeals of office. Nothing need be said about the catch Clarke took in the second innings except that in the prevailing circumstances the umpires were ill-advised to take anyone's word for anything.

The Indians were convinced Ponting grounded a catch he claimed on the final afternoon at the SCG. Throughout those heated hours, the Australian remained hostile, kicking the ground, demanding decisions, pressuring the umpires. So much for the corporate smile that has been produced these last few years.

Probably the worst aspect of the Australians' performance was their conduct at the end. When the last catch was taken they formed into a huddle and started jumping up and down like teenagers at a rave. It was not euphoria. It was ecstasy. They had swallowed a dangerous pill called vengeance. Not one player so much as thought about shaking hands with the defeated and departing. So much for Andrew Flintoff consoling a stricken opponent in his hour of defeat.

Nor could Ponting and Gilchrist stop themselves publicly chiding Tony Greig for daring to criticise the timing of the declaration. They should have been thanking their lucky stars that three wickets had fallen in five balls, one of them in dubious circumstances. Australia had 150 runs and five minutes to spare. It was unfitting conduct from an Australian captain or vice-captain. By all accounts Ponting was later rude towards Indian reporters at his news conference.

Ponting has not provided the leadership expected from an Australian cricket captain and so must be sacked. On this evidence the time has also come to thank Hayden and Gilchrist for their services. None of them are bad fellows. All will look back on this match not as their finest hour but their worst. Obviously a new captain and side is required. But that is a task for another day. It is possible to love a country and not its cricket team.

----------------------------------------------------------------
********************************************************
----------------------------------------------------------------

An irksome child must be ignored, not confronted

Ricky Ponting has had a fractious match at the SCG. From a distance it is hard to avoid thinking that he has allowed a petty squabble with an immature opponent to affect his judgment.

His confrontation with Harbhajan Singh has taken a toll of his form as a batsman and tactician. He has seemed jerky and distracted. Always it is a mistake to play the man and not the ball. His captaincy has suffered. Far from fulfilling his role as a peacemaker, he fanned the flames of hostility. It is to be hoped that soon normal service is resumed. Apart from anything else it has been a cracking match.

By letting Harbhajan get under his skin, the Australian captain has played into his hands. To make matters worse he has neither recognised nor contained his irritation so that it has turned into something easily mistaken for rage. No other explanation can be found for the sequence of events that has unfolded in Sydney, events that have shown all concerned in a poor light.

Doubtless Ponting's hackles were raised before the match had started by his rival's provocative but off-the-cuff remark about his form. To rub salt into the wound, the Tasmanian promptly lost his wicket to the turbanned tweaker in the worst possible circumstances, a rotten leg before decision from an umpire unable to detect a thick inside edge. The sight of Harbhajan celebrating by charging around the field like Courtney Walsh after taking the 10th Australian wicket in Adelaide did not help.

Usually Ponting manages to contain his disappointment at bad decisions until he has reached the supposed privacy of the rooms. Not this time. Instead, he thumped an advertising board on his way up the steps into the pavilion and then hurled his bat in full view of members sitting outside. Here was a man whose emotions were overheating. Team officials should have read the signs and offered discreet counsel.

The rest had an air of inevitability about it. Harbhajan's partnership with Sachin Tendulkar began as a nuisance and rapidly became a threat. As the partnership gathered momentum so local hopes of securing a lead faded. Meanwhile, Brett Lee and Mitchell Johnson were worked to the bone, but Australia looked weary and vulnerable. Ponting's grip was slipping.

Next came the outbreak of hostilities that has become such a talking point. Out of the blue, Harbhajan and Andrew Symonds were to be seen deep in aggravated conversation, the local firing remarks from the corner of his mouth, the visitor responding with something unpleasant. Before long Matthew Hayden was adding his point of view. No one will be surprised by the identity of the combatants - the usual suspects, the muscular Queenslanders and the intemperate Sikh.

Just for a moment it seemed that tempers might cool. Just for a moment it seemed that cricket might prevail. Tendulkar tried to restore diplomatic relations. He is a class act. The umpires indicated that they had not heard anything. It's about the only thing they have got right in the match. Although the umpiring lobby will argue the case, two more dreadful decisions were made yesterday. Meanwhile, Harbhajan tried to withdraw a presumably insulting remark. Hereabouts it seemed that the storm might have passed. But the Queenslanders were having none of it. Ponting and his vice-captain were no more amenable to an apology. In their view, Harbhajan had crossed the line. And so cricket took a back seat and the matter was sent to the beaks.

Doubtless Ponting felt obliged to stand by his men. He might have considered telling them to watch their tongues beforehand. He must have known how it would look to outsiders, an Australian team throwing its weight around in a time of trouble. Not that Harbhajan is an innocent bystander. Kumble needs to take him in hand. It is not possible to be involved in so many stoushes and always to be innocent. Of course the same applies to the powerful Australians.

But Ponting could have graciously accepted the withdrawal and advised his players to retain their dignity.

Afterwards Ponting could have informed his respected counterpart that his team had taken exception to certain remarks addressed to them by one of his young players. The Indian captain could then have raised his objections. Instead the noisy Australians sought their version of justice. Now the usual array of lawyers will be summoned and it will be one man's word against another.

The aftermath was inevitable. Ponting groped at his first ball from Harbhajan and lamely lobbed to slip. His best moment came later as he emerged a runner for a stricken colleague. Until then he had been responding to events, not dictating them. It is not his usual practice, and it is not going to work.

ICC and Procter has to be sued

2008-01-07T19:19:00.000+05:30

Remember the infamous Hair incident? When Pakistan forfeited a Test match in England. There was a mute, impotent and incompetent match referee - Mike Procter. He did nothing, he did nothing to save the game, save the umpires or the players. He let things happen...

Hair, the ICC umpire was punished for his role. Billy Doctrove didn't get hurt, Mike Procter was never questioned.

Procter should have answered the media in England, with the doctored ball - and explained in clear terms why Pakistan were penalised by the umpire. No - he did nothing. Enjoyed his free holidays at ICC's expense.

Harbhajan Singh has pleaded not guilty - on the charges of calling Symonds a monkey.

The ICC's Kangaroo court held in Sydney, where the Judge and Jury was Mike Procter... gave a verdict based on zero evidence. Zilch.

The onus was on Ricky Ponting, the one who complained like a Kindergarten kid, to prove beyond all doubts that Harbhajan Singh did in fact call him a monkey with an intention to racially abuse Symmo.

Even in a court in Guantanao, this case would have been thrown out for the lack of any evidence.

You need evidence to nail a guy.

What has Procter done? He has caused Harbhajan Singh personal injury by naming and shaming him as a racist. Which, by all means, is as grave as a racial insult itself.

Announcing his verdict, Procter said: "I am satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that Harbhajan Singh directed that word at Andrew Symonds and also that he meant it to offend on the basis of Symonds' race or ethnic origin."

Beyond reasonable doubt? Where the hell is the evidence?

Harbhajan Singh should sue Procter and ICC and clear his name in a proper court.

These Kangaroo courts shouldn't be allowed to name and shame any person.

Good Bye Bucknor

2008-01-06T10:30:00.000+05:30

ICC must act now - as in now. Bucknor is gone well past his use-by-date. This Sydney Test has to be his last.

Bucknor gave Dravid out caught behind when the bat was nowhere near the ball!

The super-slow-mo replays showed a few truths. Adam Gilchrist is a very good keeper, he kept his eyes on the ball, right from the bowler's hand, on to the batsman's pad, and into his gloves. It was a sharp catch. What followed was not too good though, he was jumping up and down appealing for a caught behind.

Gilly, what was that? Fair play?

Has Harbhajan Monkeyed himself?

2008-01-06T09:43:00.000+05:30

Mike Procter, the man who couldn't decide a thing, when it came to stopping a Test match from being forfeited, has been asked to make another decision -- Did Harbhajan Singh racially abuse Symonds?

If Symonds has been sledging and chatting to the batsman for no reason; Harbhajan is justified in asking Symonds to stop being a monkey.

As the only black player on Cricket Australia's contract; somehow Symonds finds himself in a very difficult position - CA's morality poster child.

Colonial Brits were 'endearingly' called Lal Bandhar by the Indians. Lal Bandhar means Red Monkey. The point to be noted is that the Indians did not enslave the red monkeys. On the other hand, 'black' Africans, who were enslaved by the Whites, have a history of being victims of racial abuse.

ICC is in a major problem now. If they don't punish Harby, then they have to take action against Ponting for false accusations to cause personal damage to Harbhajan Singh. If they decide to suspend Harbhajan Singh, it could very well divide the cricket world for good or bad.

In cricket administration, it is not a good idea to sledge the BCCI.

New Zealand has what?

2008-01-04T02:36:00.000+05:30

No Parliament? No Politicians? No Courts? No Law? No Justice? No National Pride? No Self-respect?

Look at this report:

New Zealand Cricket has instructed team selectors to consider other players ahead of those who have joined the (ICL) rebel league.

Isn't that an easy case to win in any court? How come no one, not even a five-year-old kid or even a sheep has gone to court to protect the basic right of a citizen to represent his country?

That NZC has given such an instruction and that it has been reported in the papers is good enough reason for the government or the courts to intervene.

It seems though New Zealanders have no respect for fair play.

India must hire Steve Waugh

2008-01-02T09:55:00.000+05:30

Team India deserves the misery. What a bunch of jokers the Indian cricket administration is!

Sehwag is not picked, Yuvi gets to play - cause he scored a 100 against Pakistan (who cares about his attitude anyway). If scoring a Test hundred means you can't be dropped, ask Irfan Pathan how he feels.

He scored a 100 in the same Test match where Yuvraj hit one.

India could have used Irfan Pathan as an opening batsman by dropping Yuvraj Singh. Nope, no can do.

With the ball swinging around, even Ganguly took a wicket - almost! (only to be denied by the umpire)

If Irfan was in, Australia wouldn't have scored more than 160. They were 130 something for SIX!

OK, umpiring was pathetic today. Even the third umpire played his part in one of the biggest ICC farces of all time. Why do they pay ex-players for being mute match referees? Why can't the ICC make the third umpire the match referee too - also make sure that the three umpires rotate through the game.

We really don't need to pay ex cricketers for doing nothing (What was Proctor doing when Hair awarded the match to England - when Inzi refused to play?)

Back to Indian cricket. Anil Kumble picked up six wickets in Melbourne, so what? The man was never a leg spinner; he could bowl top spinners and has proved very effective in the past.

Now, the old man of Indian cricket has lost the zip as well, he now relies on change of pace (reminds me of Venky Prasad) to get wickets. That Kumble is the skipper means, he can't be dropped. And that Harbhajan Singh takes Ponting's wicket means we have to sacrifice a quality bowler to get Punter's wicket.

Cricinfo has been reporting on "quality off spin of Harbhajan." I wonder when was the last time anyone seen Harbhajan turn a bloody red ball. His feeble attempt at Doosra means he is bowling chest on - and risking being called a chucker. Bhajji's left shoulder does absolutely nothing, and it is so easy even for a fourth division batsman to figure out what crap he is dishing out.

Symonds rode his luck, not once but twice to hit a nice 100. Once given in by the third umpire after being stumped for certain. And again, while on 30 or so, clearly caught behind - and Bucknor had a deaf moment.

Symonds did not walk. Sunil legendary Gavaskar was in the commentator's box, and he said, "the only time an Australian walks is when the bus has left the car park."

Sunil is a hypocrite and a nasty one that too. How many international players walk these days? How many Indian players walk? What was Yuvraj's reaction in Melbourne?
Sunny is being a bad loser. The only international cricket who has gone public about walking, and does it like a gentleman is Adam Gilchrist.

Sunny being the legend he is, should mention Gilchrist as an example the game needs - and must speak to the Indian players as well.

In general, the umpiring standard has been very poor in the series.

It was a joy to watch Hogg blast the Indian bowlers. The Indian players never looked like they were on top, even when Australia was begging to be finished off at 134-6.

India was a bowler short. Their best spinner, a left-armer, Murali Kartik is in India, not even in Australia. The last time he played against Australia, he picked up five wickets and won the game for India.

I checked Daniel Vettori's record; he has impressive stats against Aussies. I always believed Australia were suspect against attacking spinner, ones who are not scared to flight it - and turn it.

Symonds has a good chance to hit his double hundred in a few hours from now.

For the sake of Indian cricket, I hope India gets thrashed by an innings. The BCCI wouldn't learn, I hope the rabid Indian fans will at least understand that to win games you have to play well consistently over a period of time.

How come the two legends, Ganguly and Tendulkar, expects to get the opening slot in ODIs, and when it comes to Test cricket doesn't put their hand up for that job? What more are they trying to achieve as personal glories? If Tendulkar or Ganguly, with their opening experience in ODIs, volunteer to open, India wouldn't be sacrificing their best middle order batsman.

Everything is taken for granted by these 'legends' and wannabe legends.

* India needs a strong coach/ almost a non-playing captain who has earned his respect. Since BCCI has the money, they should hire Steve Waugh to teach these useless guys what it means to keep on winning.

Winning is a habit in cricket, as much as walking is.

All them truth slayers

2007-12-11T21:01:00.000+05:30

Nicky Boje has been questioned by the Delhi Police, in connection with the infamous Match Fixing scandal of 2000.

A BBC report says:

This is the first time Boje has been questioned over the affair after he missed two subsequent tours to India but he was defended by former South Africa cricket chief Dr Ali Bacher last year.

"Nicky Boje was innocent. I know that for a fact. I can read people," said Bacher.

Ali Bacher knows the facts, you know why? Cause he can read people. Why the hell didn't he read Hansie Cronje?

The King Commission did not question Bob Woolmer, who was the 'efficient' coach at the time. His assistant being the super-effecient Graham Ford.

Are we fools to believe that Woolmer and Ford didn't know what Hansie and some of his boys were up to. It is ridiculous to believe only Hansie was involved in the fixing game.

Hansie Cronje, sat in the dressing room - looking absolutely gutted - as Donald ran himself out in the 1999 World Cup semi-final. Mind you, Gibbs famously 'dropped the world cup as well.'

I am not saying that Donald or Gibbs was directly involved in the fixing thing... cause we don't have any other evidence. The only evidence we have is that they behaved like idiots during a World Cup semi final, which doesn't hold water in a court of law.

My worry is, Ali Bacher was running South African cricket in the 90s - and that too during the Match Fixing period. Bacher did defend Cronje initially. If not for the Delhi police and Kochi police - and the mobile phone recordings... they would have all blamed it on the "third world policemen." and gotten away with it.

Why the BCCI went for Graham Ford, who was pretty much a part of the South African set up as an Assistant Coach during the Fixing era, is beyond me. That too a committee - and that too such illustrious men like Sunil Gavaskar, Ravi Shastri and Venkatraghavan picked Ford - says a lot about the cricketing morality.

That Ford mysteriously pulled out at the last moment is another story. Why did he? Did someone alert him that he could come under scrutiny in India? If he knew of the fixing and did nothing about it - he is as maligned as Cronje.

As an Assistant coach, if he didn't know anything about what was going on inside the team - then he is totally inefficient.

The same rule applies to Woolmer as well.

I heard this from a very reliable South African journalist, who has been very close to the players... towards the end of the 90s, RSA cricket team was under the influence of evangelists. Of course, loud religion is a perfect cover for crime. Mind you, Bob Woolmer was at the helm when the evangelism took over.

Next stop for Woolmer after RSA was Pakistan. A team that clearly enjoyed partying and getting into trouble in the late hours. Once Woolmer was made the national coach, the long-bearded religionists took over Pakistani cricket. Again, religion was used as an Alibi (On, I might be speculating on this...) but hey, isn't there a strong coincidence?

Woolmer in RSA, Woolmer in Pakistan. May be Woolmer was innocent, we just don't know. Now that Cronje and Woolmer are gone from this world, the truths have also been slayed with them.

How many of Doosra's readers or cricket lovers from around the world know about something called a Bob Woolmer Trust Fund?

This bit completely stunned me:

To provide financial security for his immediate family – wife Gill, and sons Dale and Russell – their breadwinner has died and they need to be looked after in the future.

After more than a decade in International cricket as a leading Coach... how could have Woolmer died a poor man?

I just cannot comprehend the idea that Woolmer's grown up sons lost their breadwinner - and so we all need to donate funds for their daily bread!

Isn't something so terribly wrong with that? I do get a bad feeling about it... Maybe I love conspiracy theories.

Lets move on to our new national coach - the India team coach that is: Gary Kirsten. Again, the BCCI seems to have some sort of a nostalgic sympathy towards South African cricketers from the fixing period.

What proof do we have to suspect Gary Kirsten? None.
BUT, Wait a minute!

In his latest Autobiography GAZZA Kirsten reveals quite a few truths.

Look at this Cricinfo report on Gazza

Kirsten also provided a detailed account of the famous incident in Mumbai in 1996-97, when Cronje asked the whole team deliberately to underperform in a one-day match against India. Kirsten said that Cronje addressed the entire squad, with only Bob Woolmer, the coach, not around.

"We have been offered a lot of money to throw a game, he [Cronje] said. I swear you could have heard a pin drop at that moment," writes Kirsten. "Nobody moved a muscle. In retrospect I think I had gone into instant shock. Even if I had wanted to speak I would have been unable to. Hansie carried on talking slowly but clearly.

"I listened but it was out of respect for the captain and a strange fascination with what he was saying rather than any intention to carry out instructions. I knew within a few seconds I could not be involved ... but I listened. He had been asked to create the perfect fix. He spelt out the details of how the match had to pan out, with a spread of scores we needed to be within every five overs.

"I started sweating. It was a bad dream. I kept thinking, 'How do batsmen get out deliberately?' It was ridiculous. After eight overs we needed to be one wicket down - me - and we needed to have under 25 runs on the board. The idea was absurd. I have never got out deliberately in my life. He mentioned a couple of times it would be worth 60 or 70 thousand rand [about $15,000] each.

"The whole talk lasted about ten minutes but it felt a lot longer. Eventually Daryll Cullinan and Andrew Hudson spoke out. They both spoke along similar lines and they represented all our views. Hudders said we were ridiculous to even think about it, let alone talk about it. The same feeling filtered through the room and the meeting was clearly over. There were no waverers or doubters."

Kirsten also says that he increasingly became uncomfortable with the repeated references to match-fixing that Cronje kept making. "There was just a bit too much banter about the subject around the team. The captain of six years' standing was talking about match-fixing a lot and joking to his players about being involved. It wasn't really possible to know whether he was being serious or not.

"In retrospect he appeared to be handing out invitations all the time in the form of silly little comments like, 'If you make nought today someone will get very rich.' The power of wealth and the greed for money were his weaknesses, and he was more heavily addicted than any of us knew. Perhaps as a senior player I should have acted but hindsight is a perfect science and life isn't."

Perhaps??? Yeah, perhaps. There is the answer. Gary Kirsten shouldn't be the India coach.

Kirsten does admit that "There was just a bit too much banter about the subject (Fixing) around the team."

And guess what Woolmer, Graham Ford, and Gary Kirsten did?

They never dared to expose a crime. Now Gary tries to wash off his guilt by calling hindsight a perfect science.

Does it mean, everyone who loves this wonderful game of cricket - is a fool? Are you one? I am not. I don't buy these lies.

The Indian team needs a coach, a man or a woman of high integrity. Kirsten admits he let himself down. Maybe, he was sold to the idea that praying to god would keep the ugly truth in the dark.

The government of India too has no balls to pull up the BCCI.

Gary Kirsten, get ready to face some really tough questions. If you go to the city of Kochi, you might as well take a lawyer with you. You have a case to answer. You knew what Cronje was up to, you knew about match fixing, and what did you do? You kept quiet and covered up a crime. A silent supporter of a BIG crime.

There is another man in the ICC these days, Dave Richardson. He was behind the stumps when Cronje was into fixing. Wasn't he there during the "famous incident in Mumbai in 1996-97?"

A Lawyer by profession, Dave Richardson has been ICC's General Manager since 2002. What did he do about the information on match fixing in 1996-97? We all know the answer.

It is my belief that it takes more than one player to fix a cricket match.

If I was the BCCI President, I wouldn't have anyone from that infamous RSA team anywhere near the Indian team.

Arun Lal, Languid Grace and Expletives

2007-11-30T16:26:00.000+05:30

Eden Gardens in Kolkata is a wonderful cricket ground; remember India pulled off one of the most spectacular wins in Test match history over there.

Today, 30th November 2007, was the first day of the second Test between India and Pakistan. India, at the end of the day, are in a commanding position - 352/3.

Karthik failed again as an opening batsman; the man just doesn't have the technique to bat as an opener in Test matches.

Dravid was unlucky to be given out - caught behind - after making a sedate 50. It was that man, Billy Doctrove (the silent gun in the Test forfeit) who gave him out.

Wasim Jaffer has played a brilliant hand so far, remaining unbeaten on 192. One makes you wonder, why on earth Sehwag was not picked to open with Jaffer!

At the end of the day's play, Arun "I-know-it-all" Lal was giving his expert comments on NEO TV. Talking about Jaffer's knock, Lal went on to say all the good things in the world about Jaffer's batting. He said, "It was Languid grace...," and in search of the word 'adjective', Lal got carried away - and said something like this, "all the expletives to describe Jaffer's batting."

I am certain, Arun Lal used the word "EXPLETIVE" in his post match comments.

Arun Lal is one of those former-player-turned-commentator, who thinks the TV viewers are born blind - and that he needs to keep talking about everything. It was just a matter of time the 'motor-mouthing' would let him down. Today he put his foot in his mouth by saying "Expletive."

Pathetic stuff from Lal at the end of a great day's game for Indian cricket.

Clark talks crap

2007-11-27T11:45:00.000+05:30

Stuart Clark said if MacGill was out it would leave a "massive hole". "He's arguably the second greatest legspinner of all time," Clark told the ABC.

McGrath would never say something like that.

Isn't it a pity that Stuart Clark hasn't heard of Richie Benaud?

ICC fails Cricket, again.

2007-11-09T16:55:00.000+05:30

I checked the "ICC Playing Handbook"

No overs penalties are imposed for slow over rates and hence slow over rates
have no effect on revised target calculations.

Wow!

TV wants full 50 overs, as one ICC Match Referee told me once.

Captains reminded of obligation of sides to complete overs in time allocated

The India and Pakistan teams have been fined for maintaining a slow over-rate during the second ODI at Mohali on Thursday.

ICC match referee Roshan Mahanama of the Emirates Elite Panel imposed the fines after both the teams were ruled to be one over short of their targets when time allowances were taken into consideration.

In accordance with the ICC Code of Conduct regulations governing over-rate penalties, players are fined five per cent of their match fees for every over their side fails to bowl in the allotted time, with the captain fined double that amount.

As such, rival captains Mahendra Singh Dhoni and Shoaib Malik have been fined 10 per cent of their match fee while their players have each received five per cent fines.

Mr Mahanama spoke to both captains after the match and reminded them of their sides' obligations to complete their overs in the time allocated in the future.

Sreesanth has lost it

2007-10-27T19:34:00.000+05:30

The India medium pacer has completely lost it.

"I don't care who the hell is batting against me. The only thing that matters is to run at him, bowl as fast as I can and to try and get him out.

"I don't care whether it is (Andrew) Symonds, (Matthew) Hayden or (Adam) Gilchirst or anybody else, I do not respect them on the field. I only respect my teammates."

A. He is not a F A S T bowler
B. Trying to get the batsman out is what every bowler wants
C. Only someone with no self respect would say something like "I do not respect the opposition"

"Every match was an experience. I am lucky to be playing with some great cricketers but I still consider myself a child of the game."

It is one thing to be a child of the game; it is completely different being childish.

The beginning of the end

2007-10-27T11:17:00.000+05:30

All other teams would now know one thing for sure: they have a better chance of breaking Australia’s strangle-hold in Test cricket. The Aussie domination in Test cricket, specifically in matches played in Australia, is about to come to an end.

Not because other teams have caught up with Australia, simply because Australian bowling has lost its edge. No McGrath to pick wickets in the first innings and no Warne to exploit the conditions in the second innings.

Australia’s weakness is not in their batting line up; it is clearly in the bowling department. In spite of it, there has been considerable media speculation on who should partner Matt Hayden in the Gabba Test against Sri Lanka.

The answer to that unimportant question is quite simple: Phil Jaques. The NSW opener has done consistently well in the last few seasons; his record is too good to ignore.

Brad Hodge is the other option; Ponting likes him a lot. Hodge opened in the current game against West Australia only to be knocked over, after scoring just two runs. But, then, Test match cricket is not about the first ten overs. Hodge reminds me of Greg Blewett, who was all at sea against spin. Picking Hodge in the XI will be as good as gifting Muralitharan a wicket he should otherwise earn. Hodge clearly had difficulty in picking the variations of flight and turn during the recent tour of India.

If Australia want to resist the temptation of playing Jaques, then the other option is to ask Hussey to partner Hayden.

Hayden, Hussey, Ponting, Clarke, Symonds and Glichrist pick themselves purely based on form and track record. Australia have three recognised openers in that list – Hayden, Hussey and Glichrist.

Given the fact that Australia’s bowling is considerably weak without McGrath and Warne, my vote will go for an allrounder, preferably someone who can spin the ball. There is only one player in Australia who fits into that role ¬– Cameron White.

McGill hasn’t bowled all that well against Queensland; going for a lot of runs. Between Symonds, Clarke and White – Australia has enough tweakers to exploit any ‘spin conditions.’ Having said that, there is nothing wrong in giving Hogg a couple of Test matches to prove his worth.

Australian selectors have to do the right thing and drop Brett Lee. He hasn’t taken a 5-for in his last eight Test matches. His strike-rate in all forms of the game has waned; even in domestic cricket he has struggled to pick up wickets. All that talk about Lee wanting to lead the Aussie pace attack is all gas – the man has played 59 Test matches and is yet to pick up a 10-for in a Test match. Even his ODI record in the last 15 games is very poor, every wicket costing him a shade above 32 runs – compared to his overall record of a wicket for 23 runs. It should be good bye Lee very soon.

Clark and Mitchell Johnson must be there in the playing XI. Noffke and Bollinger must be front-runners. Shaun Tait, if fit, should be back in the side as soon as possible. So much has been said about Troy Cooley doing a good job with the Aussie bowlers – it must be noted that in recent times Australian bowling has looked very ordinary when faced with high pressure. The issue with the Australian bowling has to be the lack of intensity that McGrath and Warne provided for more than 15 years.

Given the duo’s strength and ability to carry the work-load, someone like Lee had the luxury to under-perform. Over the last couple of years, Lee has become a one dimensional fast bowler, who bowls full and fast when put under pressure. Someone like Robin Uthappa exposed Lee’s lack of intensity by walking down the track and attacking him. Don’t expect Sri Lankans to be any less; the Lankans are fearless – and they will counter-attack.

This Australian summer – we have Sri Lankans playing two Tests and India playing four. It is not going to be easy for Australia to win all six matches. How are they going to take 120 wickets? As long as Clark, Tait and Johnson don’t play together, the opposition has a very good chance to gather runs and put Aussie batsmen under pressure.

Racism is not monkey business

2007-10-20T12:42:00.000+05:30

Monkeys are revered in India. Hanuman, the monkey god, is a very powerful spiritual figure respected across India. Hanuman is the symbol of strength, respect, and above all courage and a sense of duty.

What exactly is a monkey chant? If Symonds was, in fact, being ridiculed as a monkey by a section of the crowd - he should have bowed his head and done a namaste. No Indian, even the most rabid communist in India, dares to insult Hanuman.

Here is one of the first reports on the monkey chants in CricInfo.

The local police had another explanation, though. "The crowd was chanting 'Ganapatibappa Moriya' [a chant to Lord Ganesha] after Indian wickets kept falling. They did not expect their team to lose and did not spare some of the Indian players either. But none uttered a single word against any Australian player," Vadodara Police Commissioner PC Thakur told PTI. The secretary of the Baroda Cricket Association repeated that line, saying, "The crowd chanted hoping for some divine intervention and none of them passed any racial remark against any Australian."

It was not monkey chants, in fact it was Elephant Chants (Lord Ganesha being the Elephant God).

Why did the Australian team lodge a complaint? How come the team managements (at least the two captains) did not have a beer/ coffee after the game, discuss this issue, and find out 'what really happened'? Is there really a management of the game? International cricket, these days, is organised chaos.

Not everyone was buying the racism bull crap. Former Australian cricketer, Mark Waugh believes making monkey noises does not amount to racism.

"What is Andrew Symonds complaining about -- monkey noises?" Waugh said on Fox Sports' 'Inside Cricket'. "Does that come down to racism, without actually saying any words. I don't know." Waugh, who made several tours of India during his career, said such taunts were part of the game. "It didn't worry me. I don't know if we are getting a bit precious here, really," he said.

Thanks, Junior.

If at all, if anyone was behaving like a wild monkey during the one-day series, it was the Indian medium pacer - Sreesanth.

In the meanwhile, the ICC Chief Executive Officer Malcolm Speed has urged Members to be true to the zero tolerance approach to racism contained in the ICC's Anti-Racism Code.

Speaking in the wake of reports of racist behaviour by sections of the crowd during Wednesday's ODI between India and Australia in Mumbai, Mr Speed said: "Traditionally racism has not been a significant issue for cricket.

"It is a sport that we are proud to say is well-known for respect, tolerance, diversity and fair play and we are keen to ensure it stays that way.

"To make sure that happens I would urge our members to enact the terms of the ICC Anti-Racism Code as firmly as possible.

"If people are seen or heard behaving in a racist way then our message to the ground authorities and host boards is clear: find the culprits, throw them out and keep them out because racism has no place in our sport.

"It is pleasing to hear that some offenders in Mumbai were ejected and that is the type of zero tolerance we want in relation to this despicable behaviour," he added.

What has any tradition got to do with racism? I am glad Speed agrees that racism is an issue in cricket - not significant enough to jump up and down like monkeys.

Here is the anti-racism code

Monkeys in Mumbai

Can you see racism in this? It is ridiculous that Speed, the ICC etc thinks taunts and pranks are being racist. Even though I don't like Sreesanth's exaggerated aggression - I wouldn't say Sreesanth making monkey faces at Symonds was a racist gesture.

Sorry ICC, this is not wimbledon. People are allowed to come in and have some fun as they watch a game of cricket.

I clearly remember the Challenger Trophy final in Chennai (2001). Current India team bowling coach Venkatesh Prasad was playing in that game. A section of the crowd starting chanting "Venky is a Donkey - Venky is a Donkey." Poor prasad was shifted from one part of the ground to the other, yet the chanting continued - the crowd was really needling Venky. The pressure got to Prasad and he went for 78 runs off his ten overs!

Was the Chennai crowd being racist for shouting Venky is a donkey?

By appropriating any taunt/ sledge as a racist remark - the ICC is perpetrating a bigger crime - of diluting the real meaning of racism. Many english words like 'liberalise,' 'reform,' have been perverted to portray a different meaning than what it really means. And in doing so, that is to bastardise the language, to create confusion in the minds of people, the original meaning slowly erodes and gets replaced with a very vague explanation.

Andrew Symonds has finally given his version of this sad tale.

"Over the past couple of weeks, I have felt as though I have been put in a situation that is not of my making," Symonds said in the Sydney Morning Herald. "I never made a complaint at any venue, but I did answer media questions asking whether I had heard the chants aimed at me in Vadodara."

"I tried to defuse the original situation by interacting with the crowd."

"I feel that the print and TV media have badly misrepresented my views at times over the past three matches."

"I would much prefer the focus be on the cricket and for the cricket to be played in an atmosphere where players and spectators can enjoy a good day out, full of excitement and go home having had a great day of sport."

If Symonds didn't complain, who did? If this was just a media creation, why did Malcolm Speed and the ICC start giving statements?

It is true that Darrell Hair accused the ICC big boys as being racist. That doesn't mean the ICC has a right to start a witch-hunt when Symonds didn't even make a complaint.

The ICC (international cricket circus) based in Dubai is fast losing its 'control' over the game. It took a racism case, filed by Darrell Hair, in the London Central Employment Tribunal to expose the incompetence of the ICC management.

The ICC's three-man panel who looked into Hair's future included Pakistan board chairman Nasim Ashraf - who had earlier called for sanctions against Hair, Sir John Anderson, the New Zealand board chairman who supported action against Hair, and Zimbabwe Cricket president Peter Chingoka.

Lawrence 'The Spin' Booth, writing in the Guardian, explains what the real issue is:

Worse was to come. It emerged that the proposal, hurriedly agreed over a sandwich by Anderson, Peter Chingoka of Zimbabwe and Pakistan's Nasim Ashraf, needed only five minutes to be approved by the executive board. Griffiths said that Ashraf, who had been at The Oval that day, was "effectively prosecutor, judge and jury". Ashraf was, he said, "the very last person who should have been directed to take part in the decision". When it was revealed that the five-minute-long session had not been properly taped or minuted, Griffiths wondered whether this was "cricket's Watergate".

Robert Griffiths QC's cross examination of one of the ICC directors, Sir John Anderson from New Zealand, revealed what a brainless body the ICC is. Former England skipper Michael Atherton was a witness to the proceedings in the employment tribunal; he reports:

Anderson admitted Hair was an excellent umpire; that he had not been given due process over his individual rights, and that the code of conduct and the principle of natural justice had been ignored, and that the reputation of the ICC and the game was paramount. Then came the coup de grace.

"Did you attend the final of the World Cup, Sir John?"

"I did not."

"Is it important that an umpire knows the laws of the game?"

"It is."

"You are aware, of course, that the umpires who officiated in the final made a complete bodge of it?" (Griffiths spat out the word 'bodge' with great emphasis, to the amusement of the gallery.) "Did they bring embarrassment beyond belief to the ICC?"

"They did."

"And are they still umpiring?" Anderson mumbled something inaudible in reply after which Griffiths extended his mercy.

Almost five years back, I wrote this: Darren Lehmann deserves no sympathy

The long hand of justice sometimes gets a bit too short, letting the guilty escape punishment. After Darren Lehmann's racial attitude came to light, the onus was clearly on the Australian Cricket Board to send out a strong message - zero tolerance to racism.

Racism is not merely a mistake. It is a crime that should not go unpunished. A few weeks ago Matthew Hayden was fined 20% of his match fees for breaking the dressing room door. It remains to be seen what happens to Lehmann after the ICC's code of conduct charge.

The ACB's chief executive, James Sutherland, said that to emphasise the importance of players and officials complying with the code of conduct, the ACB has arranged for Lehmann to undergo counselling on this matter.

"I have expressed to Darren the ACB's disappointment in the incident and organised immediate counselling for him," Sutherland said.

The question that begs an answer from both the ICC and ACB is whether Lehmann brought the game into disrepute. There is a lot of difference between an erratic character and one who commits a crime. The latter do not deserve counselling - `if you do the crime - do the time'.

Cricket Australia was trying to protect Lehmann...

Ten days later, Malcolm Knox wrote a brilliant article in The Age:

Lehmann's misfortune is that he is the man who got caught revealing the unwitting racism that infuses not only Australian cricketing culture but mainstream Australia.

I went through the ICC's Anti-Racism code...
“Spectators shall not engage in any conduct, act towards or speak to any player, umpire, referee or other official or other spectators in a manner which offends, insults, humiliates, intimidates, threatens, disparages or vilifies that other person on the basis of that other person’s race, religion, colour, national or ethnic origin.”
It was the allegation that there was racial abuse of Symonds in Baroda that brought out the reaction we saw in Mumbai. The four spectators who taunted Symonds with monkey gestures can't be racist. They were fined 1200 by the Mumbai cops; I hope they go to court and get a verdict against the cops, BCCI, Cricket Australia and the ICC.

I don't know how it is in Speed's Australia... the last time I checked India remains to be a democracy. The crowd has a right to react - to show their pleasure and displeasure. Of course, as long as we stick to the real definition of racism! Chanting 'Ganapatibappa Moriya' is not racism.

Ladies and gentlemen, quiet please. Thank you. Welcome to the new cricket - where you better be careful to express yourself as a spectator. You could be 'ejected', video-taped and photographed - and never let into a cricket ground again.

Don't you get it? Cricket will survive without the nuisance of spectators - all they need is the TV audience. Suckers! That's what the establishment thinks about the game.

The Barmy Army's trumpeter, Bill Cooper, was thrown out of the Gabba ground in Brisbane on 23rd November 2006 for playing his instrument. Get that?

This is a new trend, a trend to suppress the spectators. The same as in many countries and in the new world order - where people are told not to make any noise, not express themselves, not to participate in anything social - as the establishment would love to keep the people as mute, impotent, useless consumers. Big business hates people having an opinion and expressing it - because it is dangerous. The ICC is also a big business; in fact cricket administration is a big business.

I have seen quite a lot of people in fancy dress - as Arabs, nuns etc at English/Australian cricket grounds... Are they racists too? If I were to turn up in monkey attire for the Twenty20 game in Mumbai today, wouldn't I be called a racist?

I hope and wish hundreds of people dressed as Hanumans turn up at cricket grounds in India. Let us see who dares to arrest them for being racists!

Pathetic Aussie Pacers

2007-10-19T23:32:00.000+05:30

Uthappa once again top scored (47 off 59 balls) for India as they chased down a modest target.

Aussie pacers bowled merely five short deliveries at Uthappa and gave him 41 full/ length deliveries to score easy runs.

About time the Aussie selectors drop Blond Lee; he failed to bowl at least one short ball - as he fired in 11 deliveries on a good length or full at Uthappa. Talk about being a smart bowler. Did someone say Troy Cooley is a smart bowling coach?

It is way too obvious that Aussie bowlers don't have a plan for front-foot Uthappa.

Aussies v Uthappa

2007-10-16T15:17:00.000+05:30

Even though Doosra (and now Barry Richards) have been talking about Uthappa's obvious technical flaw, the Australian think tank seems to believe they know it best.

Take a look at what the fast bowlers bowled at Uthappa. Not a single short-pitched ball to a man who keeps walking down the track.

What could be the reason?

1. Rank idiots rule the game
2. Cronje's ghost is whispering to them too often.

43.4
Lee to Uthappa, 1 run, Uthappa tries his trademark walk down the pitch against Lee but mis-times the drive to long-on
43.6
Lee to Uthappa, FOUR, full and wide outside off stump, Uthappa uses the room on offer to free his arms and places the cover drive to perfection
45.2
Bracken to Uthappa, SIX, what a shot! Uthappa strolls down the pitch and lofts Bracken with a straight bat over his head, he didn't hit that with power but the timing was awesome, you won't see a straighter six than that
45.3
Bracken to Uthappa, 1 run, defended on teh front foot towards the off side
45.6
Bracken to Uthappa, 1 run, Uthappa steps down the pitch once more but drives along the ground through cover this time
46.1
Johnson to Uthappa, no run, Uthappa steps down the track again and swings at a wide ball outside off stump, this time he doesn't make contact
46.2
Johnson to Uthappa, no run, and again, Johnson bowls it full and wide outside off stump and beats the advancing Uthappa on the drive
46.3
Johnson to Uthappa, FOUR, bludgeoned through the covers, Uthappa stays in his crease this time and drills the cover drive powerfully for four, he loves the arc between long-off and point
46.4
Johnson to Uthappa, no run, slower ball outside off stump, Uthappa tries to drive but gets beaten, the ball bounces off Gilchrist's pads and hits the stumps
46.5
Johnson to Uthappa, 1 run, dropped, would you believe it, Lee has dropped what is arguably the easiest catch one can hope to get, Uthappa moved across his stumps to play a Misbahesque scoop over short fine leg, he lobbed a slow looping catch to Lee who hardly had to move, it popped in and popped out
47.1
Bracken to Uthappa, 1 run, Uthappa drives a low full toss to long-on for a single
47.3
Bracken to Uthappa, 1 run, another low full toss, Uthappa can't get under it and drives to long on for one more
47.5
Bracken to Uthappa, 1 run, excellent stuff from Bracken, Uthappa charges him and Bracken fires one into the block hole, driven to long on for another single
48.1
Johnson to Uthappa, OUT, caught! Uthappa walks down the pitch one too many times and tries to loft Johnson down the ground, the outside edge flies high in the air in the direction of point where Hopes moves to his right and takes a well-judged catch, Australia have taken a crucial wicket

RV Uthappa c Hopes b Johnson 44 (33m 28b 5x4 2x6) SR: 157.14

Had Uthappa batted for another three overs, India would have won the game.

Almost 90 percent

2007-10-16T15:09:00.000+05:30

Sreesanth: "I'm grown up enough to realise how to play cricket"

Sreesanth has been flicking through a book on temperament during the series and said the game was "almost 90% mind". "How you manage yourself on the field is important and even if they are playing mind games on it or off it, cricket is very funny, it always wins," he said in the Australian.

Almost 90% mind, could very well be a game of poker. Clearly the book and the almost 90% is not helping Sreesanth; though he thinks "it always wins," Australia won the series.

If it is 90% mind, Sreesanth better see a Shrink.

Farewell to Inzi

2007-10-12T17:34:00.000+05:30

Inzamam ul-Haq has retired from International cricket (ICC cricket). In what was his final appearance, and needing only a couple of shots to go past Javed Miandad as the highest Test run getter, Inzi fell short of the record.

International Media is full of tributes to a 'fine batsman,' who played international cricket for more than 15 years. CricInfo has carried some of the tributes.

Anil Kumble:

I always felt that he was more vulnerable if he first faced spin when he came in than the fast bowlers, because against fast bowlers he could move his feet easily. I trapped him quite a few times in front of the stumps - not just because of his late foot movement, but also because I tended to bowl quicker since he was a bit suspect in front of the wicket.

If Inzi was more vulnerable to spinners than the fast bowlers, how come Kumble was successful by bowling quicker? These so-called players/specialists should quit talking about the game.

Allan Donald:

Inzi was very resilient and put a very high price on his wicket.

Oh really, Allan? If he put such a high prize on his wicket, how come Inzi was such a lousy runner between the wickets?

Donald goes on...

Mentally you couldn't upset him. It didn't matter what you said. In that respect he is like Jacques Kallis.

Allan, having played with Kallis, definitely knows the famous 'Blond Jokes'. The legend has it that Kallis almost fainted at some beach... and had difficulty in breathing. Cronje, the then RSA skipper, asked Kallis what went wrong. Kallis' reply was, "it must be the altitude."

Matthew Hoggard:

Inzamam is one of the greatest batsmen that has ever lived.

That has ever lived? Sure, how would Hoggard know about the greatest batsmen who didn't get a chance to see the light of life?

Inzi was a very good batsman (great?). As far as I am concerned, ICC didn't do enough to investigate on one incident, in which Inzi was involved.

On August 18, 2002, playing in an ODI in Tangiers, Morocco - against South Africa - to a long hop from Justin Ontong, Inzi waited and pulled it over mid-wicket for a SIX. And then as an after-thought, he slowly walked back onto the stumps to be dismissed hit wicket.

Pakistan lost the match in a hurry; ending international cricket in Morocco as well.

I'll remember Inzi for this incident:

Ponting lost the plot

2007-10-08T23:59:00.000+05:30

Ponting handed over Dhoni his first ODI win as an Indian captain. Thanks punter.

I was reading this in CricInfo:

Ponting said that Australian had a lot to improve on from this game. They conceded 31 runs in wides, didn't take early wickets, allowed India to score 91 runs off the final ten overs and struggled to keep the momentum going against spinners on a wearing pitch.

Australia bowled 16 extra balls. Crazy.

Ponting so completely fucked up the maths that Lee, the blond speedster, ended up bowling only seven overs. Crazy.

So much so that Bracken went for a lot of runs, which cost the Aussies the game. Crazy.
Why didn't Michael Clarke bowl even a single over? Crazy.

Punter, don't please sing the Warnie song - Buchanan is useless. The man was a good coach, except for the reverse swing goof up during the Ashes you lost.

Back to the Blond Speedster. Isn't there a soul in Australia who can advice that idiot - that when he goes for runs, he should STOP and think. Have you guys noticed, when Lee gets hit for a four, he steams in and bowls full and fast. Lee becomes so predictable; easy prey.

Never would Holding, Garner, Roberts, Marshall, OR a Lillee or Thommo or Pascoe - keep bowling good length or full ball at someone who keeps walking down the track.

As for Uthappa, his first and only movement is to go forward. As a fast bowler, I would like to bowl slightly short of a length, and get the ball to bounce - aim his ribs - give him sweet chin music. Any good fast bowler would expose the technical flaw in Uthappa's batting.

With all those Video analysts and high paid coaches and all that, how come Uthappa is allowed to walk forward and play those outrageous strokes? Guys, I am a bowler first, it hurts me when average batsmen are made to look good by a champion team.

My good mate, Anand Vasu, is back to ball-by-ball duties in CricInfo. He is a very good commentator - and given the freedom to express himself - he can be very sharp.

45.6 Bracken to Uthappa, 1 run, fullish, on the middle stump line, driven to long-on for a single

India 245/4 RV Uthappa 1* (1b)
46.1 Hogg to Uthappa, FOUR, Floated in on the middle stump line and Uthappa biffed it to wide long-on. Clean hit.

46.2 Hogg to Uthappa, 1 run, googly on the middle stump line, Uthappa picks it, leans forward and places it with the turn to cover point

46.4 Hogg to Uthappa, 1 run, around the off stump, guided to short third man

46.6 Hogg to Uthappa, 1 leg bye, Now Uthappa goes for a reverse sweep, misses and it runs off the pad

India 254/4 RV Uthappa 7* (5b 1x4)
47.1 Bracken to Uthappa, no run, from round the stumps, yorker length on the off and middle, pushed to midwicket

47.2 Bracken to Uthappa, 1 run, walks down the track, the ball dips on him and the intended drive to long-off goes awry and it runs to the on side

47.4 Bracken to Uthappa, FOUR, again walks imperiously down the track, takes the ball on the full and smokes it over the bowler's head

47.5 Bracken to Uthappa, no run, Short of length, Uthappa backs away to the leg side and tries to flat-bat it through the off side. The ball bounces over the blade and Gilchrist gathers, removes the bails and then appeals for a catch. The umpire is unmoved.

47.6 Bracken to Uthappa, 1 run, yorker length, outside off stump, stabbed away to backward point

India 261/4 RV Uthappa 13* (10b 2x4)
48.1 Lee to Uthappa, FOUR, Another walk down the track - he doesn't charge out, prefers to walk like Hayden- and scooped a full delivery inside-out over extra cover

48.2 Lee to Uthappa, no run, full and on the off and middle, driven back to Lee who makes a fine stop on his followthrough

48.3 Lee to Uthappa, FOUR, It's becoming his signature stroke. Another walk down the track and he knifes it through the line over the bowler's head.

48.4 Lee to Uthappa, no run, He tries to repeat the stroke, was late in walking out this time and misses to connect with his drive. The good thing is he likes to drive straight down the ground

48.5 Lee to Uthappa, 1 leg bye, full-pitched, drifting on to the pads, Uthappa misses to connect with his intended swing shot and will pick a leg bye

India 270/4 RV Uthappa 21* (15b 4x4)
49.2 Bracken to Uthappa, FOUR, It's an Uthappa shot. He walks down the track, converts an intended yorker into a full toss and lofts it to wide long-on region

49.3 Bracken to Uthappa, FOUR, length delivery on the middle stump line and that disappears into the deep midwicket boundary. Another walk and a swing across the line, one bounce over the ropes.

49.4 Bracken to Uthappa, 1 run, walks across this time, going for a paddle sweep but ends up getting a leading edge to cover

India 281/4 RV Uthappa 30* (18b 6x4)

Bracken and Lee just can't see what the problem is. Neither can Punter Ponting. They bowled too full, off the 14 balls bowled to him, 13 were full in length. He scored 24 runs off it. Makes a difference?

The secret is here:

47.5 Bracken to Uthappa, no run, Short of length, Uthappa backs away to the leg side and tries to flat-bat it through the off side. The ball bounces over the blade and Gilchrist gathers, removes the bails and then appeals for a catch. The umpire is unmoved.

The threat of employment ban...

2007-10-03T16:46:00.000+05:30

The chief executive of CSA, Gerald Majola, told Afrikaans-language newspaper Beeld at the weekend that South Africans who played in the planned 20-over competition, which has not been sanctioned by the International Cricket Council, will be banned from the game in their country.

"... once they have played even one game in the ICL tournament, it's over and they will never be allowed to play in South Africa again," the paper quoted Majola as saying.

"We view them as rebels. They have joined a breakaway organisation."

There has been similar threats from the boards in India, Pakistan, New Zealand etc... Now that they have threatened, and even gone on record - all it takes is for one player to file a case.

All the countries mentioned, including Pakistan, are democracies - and has a judicial system.

When it comes to cricket, no board can claim intellectual property rights to further their monopoly. Whether it is ICL or IPL, a cricketer - as a citizen of the state - has a right to earn. A professional cricketer cannot be banned from making a living.

By the threat of a life ban, what these boards are doing is to strengthen their feudal grip over the game of cricket.

ICL and IPL are competitors in the same business. Any contract, which forbids a player from joining the competitor will not be found legal by any court. It is a human rights violation to deny a person a better job.

Loots Bosman should file a case against Gerald Majola and CSA for contempt of human rights. The grand Patriarch of South Africa, Nelson Mandela, will be ashamed of what Majola said. Mandela and ANC did not necessarily fight to grab power from the white apartheid regime; their struggle was to ensure every South African citizen - black, white or coloured - lives as a free man in the Rainbow Nation.

----

The ICC could very well be looking down the barrel of the Employment Tribunal gun. Darrell Hair has taken his employers, the ICC, to the employment tribunal.

Doosra did ask, where the hell is the ball? [Cricket's Big Cover Up Act] [Cricket's Hair Controversy]

The Telegraph reveals,

The adjudicator, Ranjan Madugalle, favoured the opinion of Pakistan's expert witnesses: Geoff Boycott, Simon Hughes and former international umpire John Hampshire.
Hair claimed the ball's deterioration was not due to natural wear and tear, but his request to the ICC to have video evidence of the four-over passage of play was refused.

That the ICC tried to cover up the matter is not a secret. Let us see what the tribunal comes up with.

Sree-Ashanth is walking a thin line

2007-10-03T16:23:00.000+05:30

The Hindu reports, Sreesanth needs to cool down

There is a thin line between aggression and antics.

The talent in Santhakumaran Sreesanth is beyond question, but the paceman continues to indulge in theatrics on the cricket field.

Sreesanth did himself little credit before his home crowd towards the end of the Australian innings here on Tuesday.

First, he got into a verbal duel with Brad Haddin.

Then, as non-striker Andrew Symonds walked down the pitch to have a word with his partner, Sreesanth picked the ball up, dislodged the bails, and appealed for a run-out verdict.

Despite the umpire ruling it as a dead ball, Sreesanth continued pleading and skipper M.S. Dhoni had to move swiftly to the bowler to coax him to bowl again.

Sreesanth’s on field behaviour made little sense.

Dhoni’s advice

“He (Sreesanth) has to realise that this is international cricket and there are people watching him,” said Dhoni the other night in Bangalore. He added that at this level, he was not a school teacher and Sreesanth his pupil.

When Sreesanth came out to bat, Brad Hogg was seen mimicking Sreesanth - ridiculing the Ashanthan.

And then the skipper dealt this blow. Hopefully this is the shock-treatment a loony like him deserves. It is better than a three-match suspension. His Suresh Gopi antics will land him in major trouble - soon.

Pollock dropped!

2007-09-28T19:03:00.000+05:30

South Africa's leading wicket-taker, Shaun Pollock, has been dropped for the first time in his Test career - that has seen him play in 107 Test matches, claiming 416 wickets and scoring 3781 runs.

Some of the decisions of the South African cricket board makes you wonder, whether it is Robert Mugabe who is running the sport in RSA.

Pollock put together a brilliant spell in the Twenty20 game v India. Polly was under a lot of pressure, and I thought he was bowling at his best; the old fox has a lot of tricks up his sleeve.

Why should Pollock be punished for the Twenty20 failure? If at all anyone has to be dropped, it has to be their coach Mickey Arthur. South Africa failed to qualify ahead of New Zealand... largely because of the lack of planning in their batting department.

Pollock says:

"Coach Mickey Arthur told me on Thursday that they wanted to go into the first Test with a different side and I won't be part of it.

"Mickey still feels I have a right to play especially in South Africa where pitches are more conducive. Personally I don't think my job on the flat subcontinent pitches is over.

If Pollock wasn't needed as a frontline bowler in Pakistan, why did the selectors pick him for the tour?

South Africa should kick out Mickey Arthur (Listen, listen - Big hitting Loots Bosman has joined ICL!) and give the coaching job to their Fielding Coach, Jonty Rhodes.

The best South African batsman has turned his back on national duties and is playing for Yorkshire as a Kolpak player. His name is Jacques Rudolph. Rudolph has always looked a better captaincy material than Graeme Smith.

Go Ramps!

2007-09-28T18:50:00.000+05:30

It no longer makes any sense to leave the peerless Ramprakash out of the Test team

- Christopher Martin Jenkins

Cricket's religiousity

2007-09-25T14:10:00.000+05:30

Some people say Cricket is like a religion in India. What most people understand about religion is not something doosra wants to discuss at this point. Many wars (most of it) have been fought for the cause of organised religion - many more are to be fought in this world of different herds.

There is hardly any faith in cricket in India, though media likes to hype it up as a religion.

Oh well, India won the Twenty20 World Cup. They almost pulled off an exciting defeat from the jaws of victory... but, then, it also makes you wonder about the 'divine script' of this religious game.

After winning the T20 world cup, India's new captain - Mahendar Singh Dhoni said:

“It (Twenty20) will catch up in India because they love fours and sixes and excitement,” said Dhoni. “There hasn’t been that much of Twenty20 cricket in India so far.

“We’ve had a domestic circuit but not many people come to watch the domestic matches. I’m sure it will catch up and be huge in India after this.”

Game, set, match - BCCI. Millions of dollars will now be pumped into this Twenty20 Indian Premier League.

Talking about religion, it was quite amusing what Pakistan captain Shoaib Malik had to say:

“First of all I want to say something over here. I want to thank you back home Pakistan and where the muslim lives all over the world. We gave our 100%, India have a strong batting line-up. We did well to restrict them to less than 160 but our batting didn’t come through. The Indians bowled really well and we played some bad shots. That’s why we ended up on the losing side in this game.”

Hey dude, doosra is not a muslim. And doosra is not ashamed to say Pakistan came across as the most improved cricket team during the Twenty20 WC. Pity they lost to India.

We live in such times of rapid religious polarisation - and it was quite a diplomatic goof up on the part of the Pakistani captain to thank all "muslims". India was playing Pakistan in the final of the T20 World Cup; it wasn't a battle of religions.

It's just a game of cricket, you dumbo!

The Pakistani cricket establishment would have thought they got rid of the Beardies; the current captain better grow a beard or get dropped from the team.

Mukul Kesavan has blogged about Malik's religiousity:

It is one thing to be publicly religious—Shahid Afridi thanked Allah and Matt Hayden and Shaun Pollock are proud, believing Christians—quite another to declare that your country's cricket eleven bats for international Islam.
...

Shoaib Malik chose to make it our business by saying it in team colours at the end of the ICC World Twenty20 final. He said something that goes to the heart of cricket's loyalties, its culture, its plurality of race and faith and language. If Shoaib took in nothing else about the final, he must have noticed that the bowler who took his wicket was called Irfan Khan Pathan, that the Indian team's most visible cheerleader, the guy who was hugging Indian players in turn at the end of the game, was one Shah Rukh Khan. I feel a residual distaste in even mentioning their names because both Shah Rukh and Irfan are admired in India for what they've achieved, not who they are.

My man of the tournament was Misbah -ul-Haq. I wouldn't be surprised if he is made the captain - soon.

RP Singh was easily the best bowler of the tournament. Umar Gul too showed glimpses of his ability. What I really liked about RP Singh is his ability to keep a cool head - even when he looks to attack the batsman.

Sreesanth's TV heroics - pumping fist, staring at the batsmen, telling the batsman to "fuck off" after getting a wicket - can be attributed to a subculture of 'Suresh Gopi Films'. I still believe Sreesanth has a tendency to chuck the effort ball. Call it optical illusion, and prove me wrong by sending him to the university in Perth. Malcolm Marshall - one of the best fast bowlers I have ever seen - never intimidated the batsmen with cheap stunts like that of Sreesanth; he let the ball to create fear in the batsman's mind. Sreesanth will disappear from the scene - if he keeps going with his stunts.

Andre Nel and Sreesanth have a lot in common on that count. Both are idiots.

That boy Rohit Sharma should be in the Indian XI from now on. He has a very good approach to the game and really good hands to play almost all the cricket shots. Why the hell India played Karthik ahead of Sharma is a big mystery.

Another interesting story that came out of the Twenty20 WC was Sunil Gavaskar's remarks at the end of it. Sunny, who has been a master at rowing two boats at the same time (his son is in the rebel league - and Sunny is in the board of the official league!) - heaped praises (indirectly) on the ICL initiative to unearth new talents from rural parts of India.

Sunil Gasvakar specifically mentioned Kapil Dev as the greatest Indian cricketer, and emphasised the fact that Kapil was from Haryana.

India is ready to welcome the Twenty20 cult. It is not a religion yet.

Dravid had to go

2007-09-24T14:38:00.000+05:30

I have now found the evidence to prove that it was time for Rahul Dravid to resign as the India team captain.

Nasser Hussain, in one of his columns, wrote this;

During India’s recent tour of England, Rahul Dravid approached me to ask whether I would be interested in coaching India. I was immensely tempted to say yes, I have to admit, but then decided that I didn’t want to give up my fantastic job with Sky Sports. Had I agreed to the assignment, a precondition would have been that we needed a young side to work with.

Rahul had played enough cricket to know what sort of a captain Nasser Hussain was. There is no way Nasser would ever make a good coach; he is a captain who couldn't get the best out of his top players. Graeme Thorpe's career is one of the too many examples of Hussain's poor man management skills.

By approaching Hussain, Dravid exposed his lack of understanding of management as well. It is good that Dravid resigned. It was time for him to go.

Twenty20 Thriller

2007-09-23T00:51:00.000+05:30

Yuvraj Singh did it again - smashing Australia to all parts of the field, scoring 70 off just 30 balls. ICL, IPL, you name it - they are all going to make a lot of money; Twenty20 is now got the mileage in the sub-continent.

What more could these Cricket Merchants ask? India - Pakistan Twenty20 world cup final. Yes, they got it.

Australia are very good at executing a master plan; when it comes to quick improvisation (what is required in this abridged HIT game), Aussies are a bit behind.

Robin Uthappa walks forward, puts himself in a place from where he cannot play the rising delivery. All Aussie bowlers tried to bowl too straight and full at him. What that did was, Uthappa got going - giving Yuvi the required partnership.

Over the last decade and a half, only Warne and McGrath came across as thinking Aussie bowlers.

I think India won the game when they batted.

The mallu dude bowled well, RP Singh was excellent. Irfan Pathan took the valuable wicket of Symonds. Harbhajan Singh bowled a fantastic 18th over - taking a wicket and tightening the screws on Aussies.

As Ian Chappell would say, it was a wrong move to have taken the 'most pampered cricketer - Shane Watson' in the team. He broke down again, which meant poor Brad Haddin was forced to play as a batsman.

Aussie selectors should be kicked on the rear side too. How come they didn't pick Cameron White? He is a big hitter and bowls Twenty20 stuff - quick leg-breaks.

India are riding the Yuvi Tsunami - I am hoping they'll do well in the final against Pakistan.

Pakistan has been playing very well as a team; Geof Lawson is doing a great job.

I am backing India (BCCI XI) to win the tournament.

Yuvraj's 666666

2007-09-22T17:51:00.000+05:30

Willis should quit talking

2007-09-22T02:31:00.000+05:30

Willis who? Bob Willis it is... the former England cricket captain.

CricInfo reports:

Former England captain Bob Willis says that ex-international players like Mark Ramprakash, Dominic Cork and Graeme Hick are 'clogging up' county cricket to the detriment of the national side.

Writing in the October issue of The Wisden Cricketer magazine, Willis is also scathing of 'so-called' English players like Stuart Law and Nic Pothas, who he says are never likely to play for their adopted country.

"That underlines the shortcomings in county cricket, which is clogged up with old England players like Dominic Cork, Mark Ramprakash and Graeme Hick, so-called English players like Nic Pothas and Stuart Law - who are not going to get picked for England - then Kolpaks and overseas players. The England team generates all the money for these wages and the counties spend it on players who will never play for England. This is counter-productive," says Willis, who advocates that domestic cricket should embrace a premier league of just six top teams.

"My vision for first-class cricket is a premier league of six teams - the same as Australia in the Pura Cup - with all the best English qualified players playing; 18 counties spreads the talent too thinly. The standard of cricket in the bottom seven of Division Two is not high enough to produce England cricketers. Nottinghamshire and Somerset are way better than the rest."

It is Willis who has been clogging up the SKY TV Cricket Comms. That Willis is a rank idiot is beyond doubt; if he thinks his experience counts - how come Mark Ramprakash or Graeme Hick's experience is not of any use to their county teams?

If English selectors were to pick a team, purely on the basis of merit - they have to pick Mark Ramprakash. Ramps, even at the age of 38, has the stats to show that he is in a league of his own.

BBC Reports:

Surrey batsman Mark Ramprakash re-wrote the history books on Friday at the same time as severely denting Lancashire's chances of becoming county champions.

The former England batsman, 38, scored an unbeaten 130 at the Oval as he reached 2026 runs for the season at an average of 101.30.

By achieving those feats for a second year in a row he became the first cricketer in history to do so.

Ramprakash has now scored 19 centuries this season and 97 in his career.

It is amazing that Ramprakash and Hick haven't been approached by ICL... I am sure Ramps will get an offer from one of the Twenty20 teams in India. The man is in top form and deserves to be playing at the highest level. The management team of Duncan Fletcher and Nasser Hussain have gone; Nasser is in fact 'Talkin' n Crappin' as a TV Comms these days.

The man has hit 19 centuries this season - and he is "clogging up" county cricket? Bob Willis should start smoking some decent grass than the third rate crap he is smokin these days. What a wanker!

Willis' patriotic farts can be attributed to the exit of his beloved Engurland, after a dismal show in the Twenty20 (Hit and Giggle) World Cup.

Mark Ramprakash would have done a great deal better than any of the English batsmen who were in the Twenty20 WC in South Africa.

Is he the luckiest?

2007-09-16T11:43:00.000+05:30

Robin Chatterjee, Deputy Managing Editor, Gulf News thinks Ajit Agarkar is the luckiest Indian cricketer alive (dead?)

Cricket, to some, is a game of numbers. And to those number idiots, it is the number of wickets in the 'wicket-column' in the scoresheet that really counts when analysing the performance of a bowler.

To suggest that Agarkar has been playing for India only due to the fact he is from Mumbai is such a load of crap. I have been following International cricket for more than three decades.

Chatterjee writes:

Much of Agarkar's stint in international cricket can be attributed to a generous dose of providence. Conceivably somewhere in the alcoves of the BCCI, or maybe even in the hallowed portals of the Mumbai Cricket Association, our protagonist has always enjoyed the patronage of powerful godfathers. If that be true, then his largely unfulfilled career is yet another sad testimony to the zonal politics that constantly rears its head and affects the selection of able Indian cricketers.

It is true, much of Agarkar's ODI career has been under Ganguly's captaincy. Was Ganguly too under the influence of the 'Mumbai Cricket Mafia?'

Chatterjee has only looked at some stats, which doesn't tell the whole story.

Let's take a look at Agarkar's last 30 ODIs.

Agarkar is an unlucky bowler; he beats the bat too often and too many catches have been dropped off his bowling. Having said that, Agarkar is also extremely inconsistent - gives too many 'four' balls to the batsmen.

I have never been a fan of the Mumbai mafia in Indian cricket; have always objected to it. A senior editor resorting to a personal attack on Agarkar is bad journalism.

Agarkar has been playing for India for the last ten years - if he was so bad as Chatterjee thinks he is, it is not Aggy's fault that he gets selected.

Bowl-out farce

2007-09-15T01:22:00.000+05:30

India - Pakistan thriller! Pakistan pulls off a tie from the jaws of victory. And then loses it in the bowl-out. Three bowlers missing to hit the stumps from 22 Yards.

The bowl-out is really an idiotic idea; completely stupid. If it as supposed to make the game more exciting... Aussies have been wearing some swimsuit giving us a hint on what to expect in the future.

What next? Strip Cricket?

Twenty20 offers really a big opportunity for betting and fixing. I wouldn't be surprised if the Pakistani team gets accused of fixing the result. How could Afridi bowl a mile down the leg side - in the bowl-out?

This just ain't cricket.

Dravid resigns, Pawar wins Award

2007-09-14T17:13:00.001+05:30

International cricket drama is getting very interesting. The ICC Twenty20 World Cup is going on in South Africa; West Indies were knocked out by Bangladesh.

Shane Warne and Glenn McGrath - toyed with the idea of joining ICL - and then sold their soul to Indian Premier League. Damien Martyn had expected to play with Warne in the ICL.

In a shocking development, the Indian skipper Rahul Dravid has resigned with immediate effect. What prompted him to resign? The coming days will give the answer.

In the meanwhile, the man who has been leading the efforts to dismantle the ICC's grip over the game, Sharad Pawar has been winning awards for things he doesn't deserve.

The Hindu reports, " Set an example, President tells MPs"

NEW DELHI: President Pratibha Devisingh Patil on Thursday joined the presiding officers of both Houses of Parliament and the Prime Minister in urging parliamentarians to “uphold the highest traditions of democracy and the highest standards of parliamentary functioning.”

Ms. Patil was addressing a gathering at Parliament House after presenting the Outstanding Parliamentarian Awards to Union Ministers Sharad Pawar, P. Chidambaram and Mani Shankar Aiyar and Bharatiya Janata Party leader Sushma Swaraj.

Pawar won the award for the year 2003. What was his achievement in 2003?

The one who should resign from being a minister is Pawar. He is the Union Minister for Agriculture, and spends more time trying to develop a private cricket league - wasting his valuable time as a public servant.

Pawar draws a salary from the Indian parliament, and he is accountable to the nation. His role as the president of the BCCI and also as the "founding father' of the Indian Premier League - is a very dodgy one - when considering his position as a Cabinet Minister.

In his tenure as the Agriculture Minister, more farmers have committed suicide across the nation. Without any shame, Pawar goes around conducting his main business of presiding over the BCCI.

It could very well be the reality of coalition politics that has forced Manmohan Singh to retain Pawar as a minister. Not that Manmohan Singh has any integrity that is worth mentioning.

Manmohan has been in a hurry to sign the 1-2-3 agreement with the US on Nuclear and Military cooperation. Assuming Manmohan is allowed to sign the deal... what happens when the US arbitrarily decides to launch an attack on another country in the near future? Wouldn't India have to send troops to support the Americans, as per the 1-2-3 nonsense?

The Indian president too deserves special mention here... for felicitating a minister like Pawar who has spent more time away from the ministry than any other minister.

These are the people who have helped institutionalise corruption in India. These are the people who undermined democracy and the state itself. These are the so called political leaders who are a disgrace to a nation of one billion people.

Did Madam President say, "Set an example?"

You know what madam president, the one man who has set an example of leadership is Rahul Dravid. The one man who has not is Sharad Pawar.

Welcome to Indian Premier League

2007-09-13T22:55:00.000+05:30

BCCI's answer to ICL is here, it is called IPL (Indian Premier League).

CricInfo reports:

The league is scheduled to start in April 2008 and will last for 44 days, involving 59 matches. The prize money for the league will be around Rs 13 crore (US $3million).

None of that is really new; what's new is the franchise concept, under which teams would be owned not by the board but by separate corporate entities on the lines of the major sports leagues the world over.

Look at this:

Deputy chief executive Hugh Morris represented the ECB at the launch in Delhi, which was also attended by ICC president Ray Mali, Cricket South Africa CEO Gerald Majola and Cricket Australia's chief executive James Sutherland as well as representatives from the BCCI.

BCCI, ECB, Cricket Australia, Cricket South Africa and ICC- were represented at the launch of the new league.

What is more interesting is this bit:

"I'm seeing the fruition of something very close to my heart," International Cricket Council (ICC) president Ray Mali said at the launch, adding the governing body supported the idea.

Why didn't Mali or the ICC take the initiative - why did they keep it close to their heart?

For now, everyone is talking about these leagues being restricted to Twenty20 games... what happens when ICL starts playing 50-over games and Test matches?

Former Indian skippers Mansur Ali Khan Pataudi, Sunil Gavaskar and Ravi Shastri are part of a seven-member governing body for the Indian Premier League. Rohan Gavaskar, Sunil's son, has signed up with ICL. Gavaskar knows how to keep both sides of the ball shining.

Anyway, this is the beginning of the end for the ICC.

ICL should look at signing top Twenty20 hitters like Ian Harvey, Graeme Hick, Mark Ramprakash.

Is this the Australian team?

2007-09-12T22:46:00.000+05:30

Something was dreadfully wrong with the way Australia batted this evening. They scored 139/8 off their 20 overs - making Zimbabwe look like world champions.

It is true that the pitch was too slow for some free hitting. But, then, what happened to running between the wickets?

The last three balls of the innings was a complete disaster - how on earth could have Hodge got back for the second run - to keep Bracken on strike?

Aussie batting was pathetic.

Go Zimbis!

I am watching the telecast on TEN sports, which means the comms are Ian Chappell, Nasser Hussein, Graham Gooch, Michael Slater, and David Lloyd.

Nasser Hussain talks too much as if he knows it all. Graham Gooch is a chatterbox, talkin' and sayin' utter rubbish about 'bowlin in the right areas' in a Twenty-20 game!

Gooch should easily be the worst commentator around, now that I don't get to hear Sanjay Manjrekar on Air.

Whatever Gooch thinks about himself, he will never be half as good as David Gower - as a commentator and as a batsman.

---

It is raining; looks like the Duckworth/Lewis winner is going to be Australia.

---

Rain stopped. Australia has been beaten. Woo hoo!

Gilchrist hits ICC for a six

2007-09-12T17:41:00.000+05:30

There is only one man in International cricket, who walks - when out, and that is Adam Gilchrist.

Glichrist is an honest man, a rarity these days - in commercial sport. Unlike Ponting, who was only happy to suck up to the ICC and the powers that be... Glichrist has once again proved that he is made of strong character. Whether Glichrist is going to join the ICL or not, he has dared to speak the truth - that ICC is a monopoly that exists at the expense of the players.

"I think the International Cricket Council does have a monopoly on the game, and it's nice for the players to have more opportunities and to have more control of their futures," Gilchrist was quoted as saying in the South African media.

"It's quite a good thing for guys like me who are at the back end of their careers. I'm 10 years older than guys like Graeme (Smith), and about eight years older than Daniel (Vettori), so it's a great opportunity," he said at the Captain's Breakfast at the Sandton Sun on the eve of the Twenty20 World Cup.

ICC Awards 2007

2007-09-11T11:55:00.000+05:30

Cricketer of the Year: Ricky Ponting (Aus)
Other nominees:
Shivnarine Chanderpaul (WI)
Kevin Pietersen (Eng)
Mohammad Yousuf (Pak)

Test Player of the Year: Mohammad Yousuf (Pak)
Other nominees:
Muttiah Muralitharan (Sri)
Kevin Pietersen (Eng)
Ricky Ponting (Aus)

Emerging Player of the Year: Shaun Tait (Aus)
Other nominees:
Ravi Bopara (Eng)
Shakib Al Hasan (Ban)
Ross Taylor (NZ)

Captain of the Year: Ricky Ponting (Aus)
Other nominee:
Mahela Jayawardene (Sri)

One-day Player of the Year: Matthew Hayden (Aus)
Other nominees:
Ricky Ponting (Aus)
Jacques Kallis (SA)
Glenn McGrath (Aus)

One-day Player of the year for non-Test nations: Thomas Odoyo (Ken)
Other nominees:
Ashish Bagai (Can)
Ryan ten Doeschate (Ned)
Steve Tikolo (Ken)

Women's Cricketer of the Year: Jhulan Goswami (Ind)
Other nominees:
Lisa Sthalekar (Aus)
Claire Taylor (Eng)

Umpire of the Year: Simon Taufel (Aus)
Other nominees:
Mark Benson (Eng)
Steve Bucknor (WI)
Daryl Harper (Aus)

Spirit of Cricket Award: Sri Lanka
Other nominees:
Australia
Ireland
New Zealand

World Test Team of the Year:
Matthew Hayden (Aus), Michael Vaughan (Eng), Ricky Ponting (Aus, capt), Mohammad Yousuf (Pak), Kevin Pietersen (Eng), Michael Hussey (Aus), Kumar Sangakkara (SL, wkt), Stuart Clark (Aus), Makhaya Ntini (SA), Mohammad Asif (Pak), Muttiah Muralitharan (SL), 12th man: Zaheer Khan (Ind)

World ODI Team of the Year:
Matthew Hayden (Aus), Sachin Tendulkar (Ind), Ricky Ponting (Aus, capt), Kevin Pietersen (Eng), Shivnarine Chanderpaul (WI), Jacques Kallis (SA), Mark Boucher (SA, wkt), Chaminda Vaas (SL), Shane Bond (NZ), Muttiah Muralitharan (SL), Glenn McGrath (Aus), 12th man: Michael Hussey (Aus)

It is insane to pack the World Test team with six batsmen, Sangakkara as the wicket-keeper means - the team has seven top batsmen. Three fast bowlers and one 15 degrees spinner. No all-rounder too.

What the hell has Michael Vaughan done in the last one year to be in the World Test team? If Vaughan could get in, why not Flintoff?

No Indian player in the Test XI is also an interesting pick by the ICC selectors.

This whole idea of ICC Oscars is ridiculous.

Mark Boucher has done well in the ODIs - especially a big hundred against the mighty Zimbabwe. How does that pale Gilchrist's performance? How could ICC ignore Gilchrist's big hundred in the World Cup final?

This year's awards are a clear indicator that it is time we got rid of the ICC. The game of Cricket needs a professional body, not a feudal monopoly.

Hussey should be in the team and not wasted as a 12th man. Just that Hayden has got many chances (as is the case with Tendulkar) at the top of the batting order - makes him the best?

This ICC XI (not Twelve) would easily be beaten by the Rest of the World XI.

The Big Cricket Conspiracy

2007-09-05T10:58:00.000+05:30

BCCI has been flexing its muscle - thanks to India being the cricket economy giant. BCCI have had issues with ICC's FTP - and wants to play more games against top cricket nations like Australia, Pakistan and England. BCCI is driven by greed and nothing else.

Everyone wants to play India, simply because of the financial rewards being so high.

ICL has always maintained that they are not going to do a Kerry Packer on BCCI. If you look at it, ICL is not an Indian rebel cricket league. ICL poses a threat to ICC's hegemony...

It is obvious that Cricket Australia and the BCCI have been plotting and planning to come up with a challenge to ICL. And in doing so they have legitimised ICL's birth and existence. CA and BCCI are telling the ICC that ICL did the right thing; so much so that ICL will now be seen as pioneers.

According to a Hindustan Times report:

For the past two days, some of cricket's top officials have been involved in intense discussions at a five-star hotel in Singapore, putting together the minutiae of a proposed two-tiered world club championship in Twenty20 cricket, the details of which were first reported by HT 10 days ago.

And on Monday morning, in England, BCCI president Sharad Pawar briefed the Indian team on the championship. "The president gave them the details of the proposed league and told them it would be announced in Delhi on the 13th," Board vice-president Rajeev Shukla told HT from London.

The Singapore meeting was to be a final pow-wow between the various board representatives before they presented the plan in full to their respective boards for approval.

According to sources, the representatives from the cricket boards of India, Australia, South Africa and England, among others, "sorted out the nuts and bolts and loose ends" of the upcoming Premier Cricket League (at the domestic level) and the Champions Cricket League (at the international level).

"The meeting was constructive," said a representative, adding that things had "more or less been finalised" and were "moving fast". There is likely to be one more meeting on the 10th in South Africa, on the eve of the Twenty20 World Cup, before the league is formally announced simultaneously in various countries.

Look at that: Premier Cricket League (at the domestic level) and the Champions Cricket League (at the international level)!

BCCI and CA are the winners; England and South Africa are marginal winners too. ICC has been defeated, humiliated, kicked on the teeth.

What happens to West Indies, Zimbabwe, Pakistan, Sri Lanka, and New Zealand - where the top four commercial teams don't want to play a match?

The answer can be seen in the same HT report:

The discussions in Singapore reportedly included those over player transfers, caps on salaries and how players from countries without a domestic league would manage. "Four countries — India, Australia, England and South Africa — look certain to have domestic leagues," said a source, adding that "perhaps Pakistan would manage" too.

If not, Pakistani players, like those from New Zealand or Sri Lanka, could play in the domestic leagues in other countries. Pawar, who addressed the media after India's win at Headingley on Sunday night, also said the BCCI had been working on the tournament for two years and that it would involve current players, rookies, retired players and foreign players. He also gave a final warning players joining the ICL.

BCCI has been working on this for the last Two years? Wow!

Perhaps the conspiracy to break up ICC's firm hold has been going on for the last two years. According to media reports, Suhash Chandra of ICL had kept Pawar informed of his intentions. Both parties, BCCI and ICL clearly knew what they were up to. If this is some sort of a corporate conspiracy, then the cricketers who signed up for ICL are only pawns in this 'power game'.

I would like to base my speculations based on two interesting news reports:

1. Malcolm Speed is to step down from his position as chief executive of the International Cricket Council in June. Cricket's world governing body says Speed, 58, will not seek an extension of his deal when it expires in 2008.
[BBC Report]

2. Both Morgan and India's Sharad Pawar were put forward as candidates for the ICC presidency at the beginning of the year, resulting in an impasse which lasted until a compromise was agreed when officials arrived in London earlier this week.

It will see Pawar succeed Morgan as president in 2010, a year before India, Pakistan, Sri Lanka and Bangladesh co-host the World Cup. "I am happy to pledge my full support to the ICC as we move forward together at an exciting time for cricket," Pawar commented. [BBC Report]

Why is Speed leaving his job? Maybe he knows that the ICC will not be lucrative anymore, or he doesn't wish to be seen as the establishment man - when the big boys of cricket are striking new deals.

As for Pawar, he couldn't have pulled off the coup - while being the president of the ICC.

It is just a matter of time - The big four have decided to start their own league, throwing ICC's Future Tour Programme into the deep sea. ICL is also pressing on with its new league. A divided Indian cricket economy is not good for the commercial success of the game, which means the new professional league will have to broker a truce with ICL.

A couple of teams from the ICL will have to be then accommodated in the new Premier League. Lawyers are going to make a lot of money, Politicians are going to make a lot of money as well, Big business is also going to make a lot of money.

The immediate losers will be ICC and many cricket boards across the world, including the likes of PCB and Sri Lankan Board.

Far way from Dubai, Mumbai, and Singapore -- there is an interesting development in the Caribbean Isles, the WICB (West Indies), a member of the ICC, are to sign a five year deal with the Texan Billionaire Allen Stanford. The once mighty West Indies clearly knows they need to act now - before the big4 runs away with the game.

The West Indies Cricket Board are to sign a five-year deal allowing the Stanford Twenty20 competition to become an official part of their calendar.

The deal ensures that the Twenty20 tournament, a private initiative financed by Texas billionaire Allen Stanford, enjoys the blessing of Caribbean cricket authorities and avoids any clashes with other competitions.

An agreement also avoids the risk of a rift such as the one in India where authorities say they will ban players for participating in a private Twenty20 league.

The deal involves a $1 million per year payment from Stanford to the WICB for franchise rights, Stanford project manager Rhonda Kelly said on Wednesday.

I checked their website http://www.stanford2020.com/ for more information... In his Vision Statement, Allen Stanford writes,

"I want to create a professional Super League where West Indian cricketers can do what they do best, play with their fellow countrymen and against their Caribbean counterparts and be rewarded for excellence. Everywhere else in the world, professional athletes are paid according to their skills and ability."

I want to create a professional Super League is the real statement.

What does it mean to the game of cricket and the players? The commercialisation of the game has been going on since late 1970's. The pressure to be profitable is going to be considerable on the clubs and the players. Can cricket retain its credibility as a TV sport? Why would these big corporations and private entities ensure that match-fixing wouldn't make a strong comeback?

Any Casino owner in Las Vegas would tell you - to make money out of gambling - you need to fix the results.

Maybe it is a better idea to start watching cricket which is not televised.

CricInfo chops Tendulkar out

2007-09-03T18:35:00.000+05:30

CricInfo published a news report on Damien Martyn joining ICL: "Damien Martyn joins Indian Cricket League"

Damien Martyn has become the first Australian to sign up for the Indian Cricket League, according to the Sunday Telegraph. Martyn also flagged the possibility of playing under Shane Warne's leadership, although Warne has not yet confirmed if he will join the group.

Martyn, who retired from cricket midway through the Ashes series last December, has been linked to the ICL for two weeks but his manager initially said that the league was "not for him". However, Martyn said he had reached agreement with the ICL bosses on Friday and he was excited about playing alongside the league's first international signing, Brian Lara.

"It's a chance just too good to miss,'' Martyn told the paper. "It's a chance also to play in a team captained by Warney." Both Warne and Glenn McGrath initially expressed interest in playing in the ICL but neither has committed.

Martyn shocked Australia with his retirement from all forms of cricket amid a form slump during the Ashes. After four weeks of silence, he finally revealed the reasoning behind his departure and said he had "never been comfortable with the whole celebrity stuff that comes with the game, I found [it] hard to deal with," while adding that he can "now go and live life and enjoy it".

He insisted, however, that the ICL would have minimal impact on his personal life. "It's only six weeks each summer," he said, "which wouldn't have the same burdens of playing for long periods of time away from home."

What exactly did Sunday Telegraph report?

Martyn, 35, has been tempted by lucrative financial lures and the chance to play alongside some of the game's biggest stars, including Shane Warne, West Indies batting genius Brian Lara and Indian legend Sachin Tendulkar.

Martyn agreed late on Friday to join the controversial league.

The breakaway threatens to rock the foundations of world cricket similar to the turmoil Kerry Packer caused when he formed World Series Cricket 30 years ago.

Martyn revealed yesterday that an opportunity to play alongside Lara and Tendulkar was too good to pass up.

"Imagine walking out to bat alongside either of those guys,'' he said.

"It's a chance just too good to miss. It's a chance also to play in a team captained by Warnie.''

How come the editors at CricInfo failed to see Tendulkar mentioned in the Sunday/Daily Telegraph report?

It is not that they didn't see it; it is just that CricInfo decided not to mention it - in spite of quoting the source.

Bad journalism? Of course it is.

Is it a coincidence that CricInfo is owned by ESPN and that ICL is owned by Zee that we have such reporting by CricInfo? Mind you, ESPN has an alliance with Murdoch's STAR in Asia.

Did Martyn spill the beans?

2007-09-02T18:21:00.000+05:30

Damien Martyn is an ICL player now.

According to the Daily Telegraph in Australia:

Martyn revealed yesterday that an opportunity to play alongside Lara and Tendulkar was too good to pass up.

"Imagine walking out to bat alongside either of those guys,'' he said.

"It's a chance just too good to miss. It's a chance also to play in a team captained by Warnie.''

Tendulkar and ICL?

ICC has all reasons to get worried now.

Economic Times reports,

On the advertising front, ICL has hit the market and is in talks with clients to sign on the four main sponsors. ICL has priced the sponsor package at between Rs 4-5 crore.

On an average, international cricket matches featuring India cost between Rs 1-2 lakh for a 10-second commercial spot, depending on the channel and the team India plays. The breakaway league is, however, being marketed at three-fourth the cost, making it a very attractive proposition to advertisers. Advertisers currently in talks with ICL include HLL, Videocon, LG, Hutch, Reliance, Coke and Pepsi.

If Pepsi are in talks with ICL, they would definitely want Tendulkar to be a part of it.; such is the relationship between the two.

.

India's 20:20 idiot

2007-09-02T14:31:00.000+05:30

Trailing 1-3 in the seven-match ODI series against England, India's Twenty20 captain-select has decided to share his expertise with the world. "I will need to balance caution and aggression," says MS Dhoni.

Why the hell is Dhoni talking to the media about the Twenty20 World Cup, when the ODI series against England is still on. India has everything to lose now, as they have to win the remaining three games to take the series.

In the ODI series, Dhoni has scored 66 runs at an average of 16.50. He has faced 116 balls to score those runs, which gives him a strike-rate of 56.89 - the worst of the top-order batsmen.

Dhoni definitely knows what it takes to win a game of cricket, "Anyway, it's not about comparisons. It's about a team, about how well you gel as a group to get the desired result. If you play well as a team, you win."

What what what - is the idiot trying to say? That India has not played as a team in the three games India lost in the current series?

All Dhoni has to look at is his own pathetic performance. If he is such a team man... he should drop himself. No other team in the world would play two part-time wicketkeepers.

Dhoni also felt that Twenty20 was not loaded against the bowlers as it was made out to be. "Not really, otherwise the Australians wouldn't have picked the almost the same team they had for the World Cup. It is about how fit you are because you need to give more than hundred per cent every time. It will require high energy levels and it will take a lot out of you."

His feeling is based on what the Aussies do. What an idiot!

No wonder he is talking to the media - when a series is on - and his focus is already on the Twenty20 World Cup.

BCCI, ICL, ICC, and Karl Rove

2007-09-01T19:07:00.000+05:30

In the 70s, a television guy from down under had the audacity to challenge the cricket establishment, and threatened to run away with the game

When Kerry Packer, with the help of Tony Greig, pulled of a major coup in 1977, the cricket establishments stood exposed. The guardian of the game, MCC, and the other cricket boards were too old-fashioned and archaic. Packer’s package of coloured clothing, playing under lights, white ball - were powerful enough visuals to ensure the rebel image. World Series Cricket had turned the game on its head.

It was not the love of the game that spurred Packer to plot this revolution. The rebels were the real big names of the game and the establishment couldn’t ignore the threat of losing validity. The firm (cricket administration) is a big business, in spite of its feudal nature. They gave what Packer wanted – TV rights to Channel Nine.

To quote an article in the Sydney Morning Herald:

"There is a little bit of the whore in all of us, gentlemen," Packer said to the board at the time. "What is your price?"

By 1979, he had his answer. Having covertly signed 35 of the world's best cricketers in 1977 - including Lillee, the Chappell brothers, Tony Greig, Viv Richards and Imran Khan - to three-year deals, Packer's "circus" was eventually embraced by the public, which took to the concepts of night matches, colourful uniforms and modern television coverage. Acknowledging as much, the ACB approached Packer in a more conciliatory mood two years after the split.

A truce was reached, and Channel Nine has held the free-to-air broadcast rights for Australian cricket ever since.

Rick Eyre writes, “It is wrong to say that Kerry Packer personally revolutionised cricket – but his business sense, his audacity and his belief in the project gave the support to a bunch of people willing to innovate in an attempt to make the game more marketable. It is a fallacy to say that World Series Cricket brought the crowds back to the game – the attendance figures for Test cricket in Australia in 1976–77 show that they hadn’t been away – but now with increased TV rights and increased marketing and merchandising, there was more money flowing into the sport, and more to the players. More than anyone, the impoverished West Indian cricketers appreciated this.”

If Packer could sign international players on a three-year contract, why can’t the ICL do the same? The common factor of both the coups is the towering figure of Tony Greig; the man still has a big appetite for money! If Packer’s circus was a revolution, even though the motives were TV rights and revenue, ZEE TV has failed to create any revolution with the ICL.

There is nothing new about ICL; the ‘rebel tag’ bestowed upon the fledgling league by PR spin masters is a big hoax. ICL is not a rebel league; it is just a parallel league.

Many former and some current players have come forward in support of the ICL with all sort of altruistic statements. No one should get fooled by this “love of the game, for the betterment of cricket etc.” ICL is about greed and selfish interests and motives; it is about money – mo and mo money.

That Subhash Chandra launched a brand new sports channel, ZEE Sports, for the telecast of Indian cricket – and had in fact won the TV rights of cricket in India – only to be taken away from them by the BCCI on the basis of some ridiculous technical excuses. The other contender for the TV rights was Kerry Packer’s arch enemy – Rupert Murdoch. Murdoch owns a lot of influential TV channels – all of them are conservative, business-friendly TV channels like SKY, STAR, and FOX!

Back in 1998, Murdoch tried to steal Football in England by trying to take over Manchester United football club. He was trying to create a monopoly and he failed in his bid to buy ManU.

ICL is bound to fail, simply because the TV rights are guaranteed to Zee Sports Channel. It will always be seen as Zee Cricket – something like TNT Nitro Wrestling in relation to WWE. ICL will never be the Real McKoy.

What ICL has done is to open up a can of worms. It has exposed the existing establishment - the hypocrisy that rules likes of ICC, BCCI, PCB, Cricket Australia etc. Ladies and Gentlemen – none of these establishments are here to serve the game; they are here because of the money in it.

ICC moved their HQ to Dubai from London, a couple of years back, for the prime purpose of tax evasion. The state airline, Emirates, has consistently supported ICC (which means cricket?)…. Emirates is the official sponsor of the ICC umpires. Recently, Emirates bailed out Cricket Australia during the World Cup by sponsoring the Australian cricket team. Even if the state of UAE cannot differentiate between the rear side of a camel and the game of cricket – it still supports the cricket establishment! When it comes to supporting the game… oh well!

The domestic 2007-08 cricket season was to start in Dubai last week.

Gulf News reports:" Cricket in Dubai was dealt a severe blow with the Dubai Cricket Council (DCC) officially announcing that the 2007/08 season will not take place.

The sport has been fighting for survival ever since the seven cricket grounds at the Al Jadaf area were taken away for the construction of the Dubai Health City.

The announcement has crushed the hopes of over 2,000 cricketers in the city who were hoping that cricket will resume in Dubai."

So much for the love of the game!

In the meanwhile, in India, the BCCI is contemplating starting its own professional league! What sort of reception would the ICC and other cricket boards give to BCCI’s new premier league? All fun and games this is turning out to be.

With all this happening all around, what’s ICC, the keepers of the game, doing to save the situation? There are media reports that the ICC is set to recognise rebels who toured South Africa in the 1980s! If the report is true, ICC is about to slap on the face of Mandela and everyone who fought so hard against the apartheid regime.

Karl Rove recently announced his resignation from the Bush team; he has had enough of being the shadow president of the USA. The man is available; as the ICC President, Rove will provide the real leadership to save the game from the Cricket WMDs (BCCI, ICL etc) in the sub-continent.

There was an interesting report from down under, “Australian cricket captain Ricky Ponting has urged cricket boards around the world to act tough with players joining rebel cricket leagues.”

Sounds like George Bush threatening to take tough action against Iraq?

If Test matches (the real stuff) are to be played, no cricket league in India would hire Ponting, if they checked his record on Indian soil. In 12 Test matches, His Highness Punter has scored 128 royal runs at a majestic average of 12.28!

Sreesanth's effort ball is a chuck!

2007-08-12T01:09:00.000+05:30

Towards the end of the third day's play, this happened.

87.3 Sreesanth to Prior, no run, well down the leg side, Prior doesn't even try to go after it

That was a clear throw. A chuck. I hope the TV comms and others take a look at it.

Richard Hobson writes about Sreesanth in The Times:

Sreesanth may hail from Kerala, a part of India known for its slow pace and sleepy waterways, but he is rebelling against those tranquil roots. Football is the more dominant sport in the state and his spiky character is better suited to snarling engagements in midfield than in mid-pitch.

Hobson is an ignorant journalist. Kerala is not known for slow pace; it is a place where you find people responding/ reacting...

I am also from Kerala, and I can tell the world that Sreesanth has a "kink in his action" when he tries to bowl the 'effort ball'.

The metamorphosis of Kevin Pietersen

2007-07-12T15:53:00.000+05:30

Kevin Pietersen has earned his degree as a "whingeing pom." That Seth Efrican bravado has disappeared, now it is all about making excuses.

BBC reports: England's Kevin Pietersen has blamed tiredness for his poor form in the one-day series against West Indies.

He says, ""At the end of the day I've failed three times in a week and that's not going to make me lose any sleep."

Even though he is not losing any sleep over his three successive failures, Pietersen goes on to say:

"Right now I'm mentally fatigued, I'm just a very, very tired person. The England team is a team that never, ever stops. It's been a long, long three years and I haven't had a proper break to be honest with you."

What other than a Whingeing Pom?

Ever heard Steve Waugh complaining about having to play more cricket? Even when he left the international arena, Waugh still was very much hungry to play more and more.

It's cheating, you dope.

2007-07-04T18:28:00.000+05:30

Ben Johnson ran like lightning at Seoul Olympics to take the 100 metres Gold. The shocking news stopped the world on its track - Ben Johnson was on performance enhancing drugs!

In a world of "you don't win silver, you lose gold," - with the commercial pressure to succeed - a few athletes try to cheat, denying sport its right to be an innocent expression of joy.

The two Pakistani cricketers who took performance enhancing drugs - were caught by private tests done by Pakistan Cricket Board (It was Woolmer who took the initiative!). What it did was the players didn't do a Warne 2003; they weren't sent to the World Cup. The official explanation given were lies - both players are injured.

PCB enjoyed wallowing in the mud with those two cheats.

Shoaib Akhtar and Mohammad Asif tested positive for a banned anabolic steroid in tests conducted by the PCB in October last year. They were banned by a tribunal set up by the board, only for the decision to be overturned by a subsequent appellate tribunal, also constituted by the PCB. That decision - and the fact that the game's governing body, the ICC, could take no action as the tests were conducted out of competition - prompted WADA to lodge an appeal with the CAS.

CricInfo reports:

The Pakistan Cricket Board (PCB) has welcomed the decision of the Court of Arbitration for Sports (CAS) to reject WADA's appeal against its two leading pace bowlers as a vindication of its stand and says its has now adopted a WADA-compliant doping policy.

"The CAS has rejected WADA's appeal. Our position, our policy has been vindicated. The PCB and Pakistan cricket have been vindicated," Nasim Ashraf, chairman of the PCB, told Cricinfo. "We followed the correct procedure throughout and it has been a terrible burden on the players. We are very happy about this and both players, now fully cleared, can look ahead and concentrate on their cricket."

Whatever Nasim Ashraf has to say, the truth remains: Both those players are drug cheats. How can PCB be happy with the fact that two of its top players are drug cheats? PCB protected the players by not selecting them for the World Cup...

What message is PCB sending to the vast number of followers of the sport in Pakistan?

Taking drugs is cheating, even if it is the so called 'recreational drugs'.

If the other playing nations took a strong stance, PCB would have taken strong action against the two cheats. It is a pity that neither BCCI, Cricket Australia, ECB or even the ICC has the moral integrity to bring those two drug cheats to justice.

The game must always be bigger than a Pakistani bloated ego.

PCB have brought the game to disrepute - by lying and supporting the two drug cheats. Neither ICC nor any of the member nations have "the balls" to protect the game from such crimes. In fact, the cricket boards and the ICC are a big mafia.

Sehwag is lucky

2007-06-14T14:00:00.000+05:30

How can it be good fortune when you are dropped from the national team? In Sehwag's case, it could very well be a blessing in disguise that he has been dropped for the tour of England.

It is another matter that the selectors decided to punish Sehwag for the World Cup debacle. The selectors just didn't have the balls to drop any other failed batsman.

Sehwag was found good enough to be the opener of the Asia XI, when it came to BCCI making the choices he was found not good enough to play for the India XI. Is Asia in India or India in Asia?

Sehwag, with his lack of footwork, would have been thoroughly exposed in England - the likes of Hoggard would have beaten him outside the off numerous times.

Sehwag is not David Beckham; to be dropped after the World Cup and to make a great comeback. Sehwag should work on his fitness and learn Salsa or Kathak to improve his footwork.

The selectors are telling us that Dinesh Kaarthik is India's best opening batsman; it says a lot.

Good luck to team India.

How did Woolmer die?

2007-06-13T11:45:00.000+05:30

What a big farce! Is this one of the biggest cover ups the game of cricket has ever seen?
If Woolmer died of natural causes, what are those causes? If it was not asphyxiation was it poisoning? Was it a heart attack that the pathology reports didn't specify right from the beginning? Or did Woolmer's heart stop "Just Like That"?

What happened to the toxicology report? What happened to the bottles of Champagne?
There are a lot many more questions that goes unanswered.
If the truth about JFK's murder wouldn't come out, why would Woolmer's death be suspicious?

Woolmer's last email to PCB at 6AM on the day of his murder/death had raised a lot of new questions.

The email, sent to Nasim Ashraf, the board chairman, reportedly contained this passage: "I would like to praise my association with the Pakistan team but now I would like to announce my retirement after the World Cup, to live the rest of my life in Cape Town. I have no lust for the job and I will not like others to make personal remarks at me. Professionally, I am open to criticism, I will be ready to continue the job if the president asks me for it."

People who know Woolmer well suggest it is not his style of writing.

Isn't it so UnBritish to "praise my association" and "announce my retirement" through an email?

The official word from the ICC is disgusting.

"The ICC welcomes the true facts of Bob Woolmer's sad death being made public," Condon said in a statement on the ICC's website. Condon said the reputation of the World Cup and the game of cricket were both "unnecessarily tarnished as the theories about Woolmer's death became wilder and more bizarre with many of those theories suggesting a link to corruption and match-fixing.

"To those who suggest that corruption is still widespread throughout the game of cricket -- and there have been plenty of people who have peddled such comments to anyone prepared listen in the aftermath of Bob's unfortunate death -- we have one clear message: put up or shut up," he added.

Is he by any chance asking the followers of the game to 'put up' with match fixing? Sorry, I can't understand what he is trying to say.

I cannot understand how the retired Scotland Yard cop could say that the game of cricket was "unnecessarily tarnished", simply because some of the theories suggested a link to corruption and match-fixing.

Isn't it true, given the cancerous levels of corruption in the game, any possible link to match-fixing must be investigated?

Former South Africa skipper Clive Rice says Woolmer knew a great deal about Match fixing (so should Graham Ford - if they were professionals)

Condon, you can try to shut up the world media. The harder you try, the more you shout - it will only increase the suspicion that the ICC is trying to cover up.

BCCI's Ford Fiasco

2007-06-11T17:02:00.000+05:30

It may be true, that the Mandarins at BCCI thought Ford is some foreign Automobile company which is to coach the Indian cricket team.

Doosra had made it's position clear that Ford (Cronje-Gate) and Emburey (Apartheid rebel tour) are not fit to coach the Indian cricket team.

The news is now out that Ford has decided not to take up the BCCI job!

Would it mean Embers will get the job?
How about disbanding BCCI?

CricInfo sold to Espn

2007-06-11T16:52:00.000+05:30

Unlike the corporate robbery which was termed as a "merger" of Wisden and CricInfo in 2003, this time Getty has sold CricInfo to ESPN, obviously for a profit.

That Getty's Oil Account must have bulged, thanks to the Iraq war and all the unholy "match-fixing" in the Oil business, he has no use for the "frightfully British game" (which others play better)

Reading Sambit Bal's letter brought back some memories of 2003, when a few racketeers conspired to sell CricInfo to Wisden.

Bal writes:
"I was also involved in the setting up of www.wisden.com, which carried the most powerful brand name in cricket media. It had an editor who knew his job and a bunch of talented professional journalists as opposed to Cricinfo's merry band of enthusiastic amateurs."

Yes Sambit, we were merry, very merry. You know why, cricket is a merry game.

I'll blog about CricInfo in a day or so; watch this space.

Ford, Emburey or Kerala Policeman?

2007-06-06T10:34:00.001+05:30

Team India's search for a coach has now come down to a shoot-out (Presentation?) to be held in Chennai.

BCCI will pick one from the two - the former South Africa coach Graham Ford and former England international John Emburey.

That BCCI never groomed an Indian coach says a lot about how they view Indian cricketers. If allowed to select foreign players to represent Team India, the selectors will be more than happy to select a team of XI foreigners.

I may not be qualified to question the cricketing pedigree of the two contenders... but, then, who the hell cares about Indian cricket?

Graham Ford was the assistant coach of the South African team when Cronje was on a fixing frenzy. Being the "shrewd tactician" he is, how come Ford couldn't read into the situation that Cronje with the help of a few players was involved in match-fixing?

If an Assistant Coach is not good enough to find out what's going on in his own team, and had to wait for Kochi police to expose the betting ring within the team...

We might as well hire a retired Kerala policeman to coach Team India.

John Emburey was a non-spinning English off-spinner. When the cricket world had isolated Apartheid South Africa, John Emburey broke the spirit of the game - and was part of two rebel tours to the country. He openly supported the white supremacist regime by participating in the rebel tours.

Emburey's moral judgment failed him twice. Nelson Mandela was still in jail, millions of South Africans were denied basic human rights... yet he chose money over ethics, values and all that is good about life.

BCCI is a corrupt body -- that they have shortlisted Ford and Emburey says a lot; both men don't deserve to coach the Indian team.

A Kerala Policeman would be a better choice than the two.

If good sense prevailed, BCCI would have been looking at the likes of Robin Singh and Roger Binny to coach the Indian cricket team.

What Value for Tendulkar's 37th Hundred?

2007-05-26T17:06:00.000+05:30

Sachin Tendulkar hit his 37th Test hundred at Mirpur. Congrats to the little master.

I don't know on how many occasions, the first four batsmen have hit a hundred in an innings. More than anything it tells me that the conditions and bowling were really batsmen-friendly.

Rahul Dravid heads the strike rate with 73.29 - very good show for a batsman who is also known as the 'wall'. Tendulkar's strike rate is the worst of the lot: 53.98.

Tendulkar came in to bat with India 281-0. India scored another 329 runs, with Tendulkar's contribution being 122 off 226 balls. Mind you, he hit 8 fours and a solitary six.

His first fifty came off 98 balls (2 x 4 and 1 x 6). His second fifty took another 102 balls.

With the Bangladesh bowling at his mercy, all the "little master" could do was play for the three-figure mark! Had VVS Laxman or Yuvraj Singh got a chance to bat on this track against this attack , they would have possibly done a better job.

Tendulkar has opened for India in ODIs, he still wants to open for India. After today's performance, one thing is very clear - Tendulkar still plays for himself and not for the team. Not that he doesn't have the talent to be an attacking batsman, Tendulkar did what Ganguly did at the World Cup. Occupy the crease and try to make a point that he can bat!

Tendulkar must retire.

As for Ganguly, 15 off 32 balls when India was looking to declare, says a lot.

Mushtaq's Champagne Moment

2007-05-14T16:31:00.000+05:30

Last week, Pakistan's media manager for the World Cup Pervez Mir Ahmed was quoted as saying by ARY TV that Mushtaq had received two champagne bottles from some other person, which he later passed on to Woolmer,

Team manager Talat Ali was a witness to the incident, Mir said, adding, "As far as I know Woolmer was not a champagne drinker".

He further said that only Ali and Mushtaq Ahmed knew the identity of the person who gave the bottles to the latter.

Interestingly, Mir revealed that Woolmer rarely consumed champagne.

Meanwhile, Indian private news channel CNN-IBN quoted Mir as saying that it should not be assumed by the incident that Mushtaq is a suspect in the murder case.

"There were two bottles given to Mushtaq, but he doesn't drink. So he sent it to Woolmer. Mushtaq cannot be looked at as a suspect.

Gifting of champagne doesn't mean anything," he told the Indian channel.

***

The Telegraph published a story "Mushtaq finds salvation"

"We were all in tears. I told them they had to get strong." Reluctant though he is to discuss tragic events - "it's counter-productive" -

Mushtaq says he is 200 per cent certain none of the Pakistan players were involved. "People are right to ask questions but you don't kill your father."

He was irritated by reports that Jamaican police interviewed the Pakistan all-rounder Shahid Afridi twice: "Completely wrong. Afridi and I spent only 20-25 minutes helping the police with their inquiries. Everyone else had at least an hour. The Koran says you should not speak ill of a man without knowing the facts."

I asked Mushtaq whether he was ashamed of his pre-Muslim days but he wouldn't go there: "When Allah has forgiven you, it serves no purpose to look back."

In the meanwhile, Woolmer's last email to PCB at 6AM on the day of his murder has raised a lot of new questions.

The email, sent to Nasim Ashraf, the board chairman, reportedly contained this passage: "I would like to praise my association with the Pakistan team but now I would like to announce my retirement after the World Cup, to live the rest of my life in Cape Town. I have no lust for the job and I will not like others to make personal remarks at me. Professionally, I am open to criticism, I will be ready to continue the job if the president asks me for it."

Friends of Woolmer said the writing in the email does not match Woolmer's usual style.

"I have received hundreds of emails from him over the years and this is not his style — not the sort of words and phrases that he would use," said Neil Manthorp, a South African cricket journalist who knew Woolmer well.

Doosra wonders whether there is more to Mushtaq's Suspicious Nose than what we know now. How is it possible to think that God has forgiven him for the match-fixing sins? ("When Allah has forgiven you, it serves no purpose to look back.")

Sorry Mushy, if you do crime you have to do time as well. That is why Justice Qayyum was called on to conduct an enquiry on match fixing. We didn't leave it to the heavens to decide on who were involved in the crime of match fixing. Justice Qayyum made it clear that Mushtaq shouldn't be allowed to hold any position within PCB.

Just because Mushtaq has grown a long beard and is allegedly a member of Tablighi Jamaat, an Islamic religious outfit, doesn't necessarily make him a good muslim. How would one's faith make him above the law of any country?

The cricket administrators at Sussex have no self respect. PCB's decision to make him an assistant/bowling coach of the Pakistan team for the WC is also a slap on justice Qayyum's face. The spineless ICC should have acted immediately on the contempt shown by Sussex and Pakistan towards the findings of an official enquiry.

If Allah has actually forgiven Mushtaq, why in the world did he accept two bottles of alcohol, which are clearly haraam? How come Mushtaq didn't refuse the gift?

Clearly the gift came from someone who wasn't a stranger. Didn't this person know that Mushtaq doesn't drink? Who in the cricket world doesn't know about Mushtaq's strong religious belief?

There are many more questions than a broken nose, for which Mushtaq will have to answer.

Would Allah forgive Mushtaq for accepting two bottles of Haraam Alcohol? Would Allah forgive Mushtaq for gifting two bottles of Alcohol to Bob Woolmer?

Is Mushtaq using his faith as an excuse?

Jamaican Police have been extremely incompetent on the issue of solving this murder mystery. ICC is a cartoon show.

India and Pakistan come together

2007-05-09T20:10:00.000+05:30

India and Pakistan have been trying to come together ever since the separation in 1947. After two or three declared wars and countless undeclared ones, the chill of Kashmir politics has refused to warm up the relationship between the two countries. We even tried cricket diplomacy (what a big farce!). When cricket failed, both countries went nuclear - hoping nuclear warmth would bring them together... oh well.

Whilst India enjoys a democratic status, Pakistan's democracy dreams drown in the fact that they are an Islamic state.

In spite of all the differences, when it comes to right-wing politics - they are the same on both sides of the border.

Pakistan's minister of tourism Nilofar Bakhtiar gave a hug to her French parachute jumping instructor only to receive a fatwa: "Two clerics said the hug was ``an illegitimate and forbidden act'' and ``without any doubt, she has committed a great sin.''

On the other side of the border, Shilpa 'Big Brother' Shetty (Even Geof Boycott thinks she is sexy!) found herself under the morality microscope. It is not the RSS or the Shiv Sena which got upset... believe it or not, it was a Judicial Magistrate (in the democratic republic of India!)

Jaipur chief judicial magistrate, Dinesh Gupta, ordered the arrest of Hollywood star Richard Gere for a public act of kissing at an AIDS awareness show. Gere kissed Shilpa Shetty (Poor Boycs!)

The Hindu reports:

Arrest warrant for Richard Gere

Special Correspondent

JAIPUR : A city court here issued an arrest warrant against Hollywood actor Richard Gere on Thursday and asked film actress Shilpa Shetty to appear before it on May 5 in connection with a case of kissing in public. Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Dinesh Gupta gave the orders on a complaint filed by a lawyer that the two actors kissed at an AIDS awareness campaign event in New Delhi recently and this amounted to ``indecent representation of sexual activities'' at a public place.

Both Richard Gere and Shilpa Shetty have been named accused under Sections 294 (doing obscene act at public place) and 34 (act done in furtherance of common intention) of the Indian Penal Code. The offence is punishable with three months' imprisonment, a fine or both and is bailable.

The Magistrate, who subpoenaed video footage of the episode last week, observed that the demeanour of the two actors was ``highly sexually erotic'' and ``transgressed all limits of decency with the potential to corrupt society.'' The court cited complainant Poonam Chand Bhandari's contention that Shilpa Shetty's attitude was ``cooperative'' and that she did not resist. The court felt that Shilpa Shetty was involved in an unlawful action that ``denigrated Indian culture, traditions and social values and offended people's sensibilities.''

Pointing out that Richard Gere was a foreigner and could leave India any time, Mr. Gupta directed the Superintendent of Police (headquarter), Jaipur, to arrest him immediately and produce him in the court. As for Shilpa Shetty, the court requested a Metropolitan Magistrate in Mumbai to serve the summons to ensure her presence on May 5.

In Pakistan a hug is a SIN and in India it is about offending people's sensibilities. Wish I could issue a fatwa or a court order - giving freedom to all men and women to express their emotions peacefully.

Turbanator says Eff You

2007-04-26T23:53:00.000+05:30

Did Harbhajan Singh really say that?

What are they investigating?

2007-04-23T15:13:00.000+05:30

One thing is certain, Bob Woolmer is no more. As far as the cops are concerned, Woolmer was murdered.

The latest leak on the Woolmer's murder is that it could have been Snake Venom. It could have been anything - it could have been a bloody toothpick!

Why are the cops spending so much of time to find out HOW the murder was committed than WHO committed the murder?

To catch the murderer is the main objective of any murder investigation. They have to find out what motive could anyone have had to get rid of Woolmer.

This snake and ladder theories that have been planted in the media is such a joke.

"The detective told Gill they believe it must have been a natural poison, such as a snake venom, which leaves the body fairly soon afterwards. The police theory is that this was administered to Bob in the bathroom of his hotel room to subdue him before he was strangled. The officer said that the only way to prove this was to look for tissue damage, which was why they had sent the results back to England for further testing."

Doosra has had enough of this Toxicology Drama.

Why can't they spend more time to find the MURDERER?

From CCTV pictures to various theories on what Woolmer's condition was when he was found in his room/bathroom, everything has been extremely suspicious.

There were reports that Woolmer's vomit and blood were on the wall. There were reports suggesting there are enough evidence to prove that there has been a struggle (Pillows?)

All we have now is rumours and more rumours - thanks to the leaks and whatnots. What we should have had by now is the name of the bloody murderer who killed Woolmer.

The Jamaican cops have already lost the credibility. ICC never had anything to lose in the first place. That the ICC didn't stop the World Cup tells us a lot about how the game is managed and run.

We are three games away from the end of this disastrous world cup. I sincerely hope this is the last World Cup organised by the ICC.