Sri Lanka and Windies boards postpone ODI series

You know the weather must be bad when the two boards postpone the series altogether as the Sri Lankan and West Indies boards had to do earlier in the week!

Sri Lanka seek to hush media

It seems that the British media aren't making allegations about cricketers at the moment, based on this press release by Sri Lanka Cricket.

Murali to retire next year

I'm aware that a certain Cricket Burbler is adamant that Muralitharan throws the ball, but I'm happy to go with whatever the scientists that have tested him say and they have cleared him. So for my money, he's a truly great bowler and the time had to come when he'd bow out - having seen the diabolical way that Sri Lanka have handled the tail end of the careers of great players like Jayasuriya and Vaas, Murali has stated his intentions clearly - he wants to retire from Tests in November 2010, play in the 2011 World Cup, and then milk the cash through Twenty20.

Fair play - I wonder if the Sri Lanka board will allow it to be that simple....they seem intent on making player's retirements tricky.

Ownership of the 3rd umpire referrals rule

Sri Lanka and India are about to play the first Test series in which players will be able to appeal decisions. England and South Africa could have been the first, but as the boards couldn't agree on the terms of how the 3rd umpire would be used, those plans were shelved. How Paul Collingwood must regret the fact that some non-players somewhere couldn't come to an agreement allowing players results to be based more on skill than luck. And the likes of Alastair Cook, Hashim Amla and Dale Steyn must be cursing too given poor decisions against the first two when they batted, and the last when he was bowling. Who knows how the game would have turned out if England's batting collapse on the first morning at Headingley hadn't been triggered by the wrong decision against Cook?

Sri Lanka and India have recognised that it's best for everyone when the ifs and buts are taken out of the equation, so it will be interesting to see how the trial goes. I'm not sure if there have been any trials in non-international 3 or 4 day matches, but if there have they've been kept pretty quiet. The wisdom in going straight to Test cricket, if that's what they've done, remains to be seen.

The issue that I think may emerge is that the 3rd umpire has access to less technology than the TV spectator - this is a recipe for problems. The spectator can see if there was a sound at the exact moment the ball passed the bat using the snickometer, and yet the 3rd umpire is only allowed to listen to the stump microphone. Equally, the spectator can see if the ball would have hit the stumps using Hawkeye, but the 3rd umpire is only allowed to see the trajectory of the ball until the moment it hits the pad. I'm totally confused why you wouldn't give the 3rd umpire access to any technology they'd like, but the boards have agreed these rules and someone like me who has wanted to see technology used for a while shouldn't complain! You can see how technology will be used here.

The other issue that I find intriguing is that Seenaka Weeraratne, a Sri Lankan lawyer who wrote a letter to various publications in 1997 entitled "Allow appeals to the 3rd umpire", is claiming ownership of the idea of using technology. He would like the use of technology to be given a term such as the "Weeraratne rule" just as was done with the Duckworth-Lewis method" of determining runs required when the weather intervenes during a match.

I'm no lawyer, and as Mr Weeraratne is then I suspect he knows his stuff, but this seems to fly in the face of common sense. Does it mean that if - for the sake of providing an example - I write to a few newspapers suggesting that a particular formula, which includes the number of spectators present and the likely TV audience, is used to evaluate whether players come off for bad light, that I now have some rights to the naming of the rule if it was put in place? And why would I want the rule named after me anyway....is there any financial benefit to having a rule named after you?

I'm going to try to track down Mr Weeraratne's original letter - as a lawyer I wonder if he had a view on whether cricketers could sue for loss of earnings if adversely affected by wrong decisions that could have been easily corrected. That's something I've considered myself and believe should logically be the case, but I'm told by lawyers I know is not the case. I'll post a link to the letter if I can find it at some point....

Irrespective of the name of the rule, at least technology is being used. I know some people see the use of referrals as a step backward, but personally I think it's one small step forward, when about 100 steps would be easily possible if the cricketing world (by that I mean the ICC and their full members) got their act together.

Ranatunga takes Sri Lanka role

It must be because professional sport offers such a short career that so many ex-players end up in administrative positions after their retirement. After all, it would be pretty tricky to take up a completely different career, so no-one can blame them. However, presumably ability to do the job must come first in the selection criteria, and the fact that they used to play the game a distant but advantageous second, I would hope.

But time and again players move into admin roles all around the world. And it's not necessarily the down to earth business like players that get these roles - it's often the more outspoken players like Gaveskar and Miandad. This time it's Ranatunga in Sri Lanka who is changing his role within Sri Lankan cricket. I hope that he does well, but I can't help feeling that he may be another who's ego comes first, and his job requirements come second - I hope I'm proved wrong.

New Sri Lanka coach announced

It's the Australian Trevor Bayliss as you can read about on Cricinfo. Bayliss has previously been head coach of New South Wales.

The Sri Lankan board have done well here I think. In Moody and Bayliss they have now twice gone for relatively young up and coming coaches rather than looking at guys who feel they have already been there and done that and, I assume, demand more money. It will be interesting to see if Bayliss can continue where Moody left off....

It will also be interesting to see the reaction of the Indian public when they see that their neighbours can recruit a good coach with a minimum of fuss...

Moody worried about player burnout

Tom Moody may have recently retired from international coaching but he has had an excellent view of international cricket as coach of Sri Lanka, and he's also part of the ICC's cricket committee. So when he suggests that the international calendar is far too crammed because of the greed of some international boards, everyone should listen.

Moody has suggested that the scheduling of extra ODIs on the sub-continent is a particular problem. "There seems to be more add-on tournaments than there is on the set out and structured fixture list that the Australians and England and some other countries tend to have," Moody was quoted as saying in 'The Australian'.

"It's finding the balance of the financial gain the cricket boards can have against harming the game and the players along the way. Looking at the Australian fixtures in 2008, Australia play something like 22 Tests in little more than a year, and that's at least seven too many.

"If we're trying to look after the game and get our best cricketers on the park full-time and give the public the best standard of cricket with the best players on display, you're not going to do it trying to play 22 Tests in a year and throwing in more than 30 one-dayers as well as Twenty20 matches.

Moody went on to suggest that the result of all the money-grabbing by the various boards could be that each country has two different international sides - one for Tests and another for ODIs. "If they're going to continue down that track there must be serious thought given to a full one-day set-up and Test set-up with two teams and two coaches. If that's what they (cricket boards) want. If the demand is there for more cricket, maybe the price for that is that you're not going to see a Ricky Ponting or an Adam Gilchrist in both forms of the game. Players would be designated to one form of the game and countries build a team for the other format."

Given Moody's concerns, it was interesting to read an article vehermently attacking the BCCI for their sole aim being financial reward. You can see the article at Business Standard.

The sad thing is that Moody seems resigned to the fact that all these games will be played and is offering a possible solution to the problem by having 2 teams for each country. It is worrying that he's doing that rather than trying to add pressure to the boards who think only in terms of money - perhaps in his time with Sri Lanka he has already decided that is a fight that won't ever be won.

Tom Moody and Sri Lanka

Spotted this article on Cricinfo about Tom Moody's legacy and thought it was worth a mention. Under his management and, as the article says, with decent support from the Sri Lanka Board after a shaky start which saw the dropping of Sanath Jayasuriya. Hopefully everyone in Sri Lanka will remember him very positively despite a losing final ODI series against Pakistan.

Why is Abu Dhabi hosting international cricket?

Ready yourselves for another rant. Why are Sri Lanka and Pakistan playing in Abu Dhabi from 18th - 22nd May? Yet more strange scheduling brought about by money, much like the World Cup schedule - you can view that particular rant here.

After lots of uncertainty, Zakir Khan, PCB’s Director of Cricket Operations, has publicly stated that the Abu Dhabi series will be played from May 18-22 as the hosts have sorted out all the financial concerns. “The Abu Dhabi cricket officials have informed us that there are no financial issues anymore and the series would go ahead as planned."

Originally the organisers in Abu Dhabi wanted a triangular series to go ahead between Pakistan, Sri Lanka and South Africa, but South Africa rightly refused to enter a tournament so shortly after the World Cup. There is something very different about a tournament held in a neutral country between 3 countries, and a series held as part of a tour to another country such as India are going to play in Bangladesh and West Indies are going to play in England. This particular series should never have been scheduled, and it's no wonder that the hosts have had so much trouble getting sponsors and bidders for the TV rights given the proximity of this series to the World Cup.

As always money is at the forefront of the decisions made by the Sri Lankan and Pakistani cricket boards to send their teams to Abu Dhabi - both teams have been reportedly offered $500,000 each, but this hasn't been enough to stop several top players ruling themselves unavailable - Younis Khan and Shoaib Akhtar from Pakistan, and Kumar Sangakkara, Muttiah Muralitharan and Chaminda Vaas from Sri Lanka.

It will be interesting to see if the cricket produces games that create even the slightest interest. Pakistan can't really be taking the series too seriously - they haven't even appointed a coach for the event following Bob Woolmer's death at the World Cup. Another case of turning up to collect the money then - one wonders if there is anyone that this particular series is benefitting?

Sanity prevails...

Fortunately sanity has prevailed when it comes to "Gilchrist-gate". Perhaps some Sri Lankans are a bit embarrassed by what their Secretary has said - it certainly seemed that way when Muttiah Muralitharan was asked what he thought about the Secretary's remarks, “This is his personal opinion, the team doesn’t think that,” Muralitharan said.

Australian officials have rightly joked about the situation. “It’s a storm in a teacup, or a batting glove,” Australian spokesman Peter Young told the Australian Associated Press. “It’s been suggested that if shoving a squash ball into your bottom glove makes you bat like Adam Gilchrist then perhaps the ICC should make it compulsory.”

If you are interested to see the statement from the MCC Laws Sub-Committee, you can view it here.

Sri Lankan secretary Kangadaran Mathivanan questioned if Gilchrist's actions had been within the spirit of cricket, so to read about the spirit of cricket, the text which comes before the laws, you can view it here.

Surely Sri Lanka can't think they have a case?

Can the Sri Lankan's really be suggesting there is a problem with Gilchrist's use of a squash ball in his batting glove in the World Cup final? Surely, they can't...can they?

It appears they can. It could have been hoped that Tom Moody's presence in the Sri Lankan camp might have brought about some sensible thinking, but unfortunately things don't appear that way judging from reports.

What exactly is Gilchrist guilty of? He has been quoted as saying "I had a squash ball in my bottom hand to help with my grip in training and I decided in this World Cup to use it in a match."

He clearly doesn't think there's anything wrong with using a squash ball in his glove or he wouldn't have said this publicly, and Cricket Burble agrees entirely. After all, had he asked a glove manufacturer to produce a glove with an inlay of squash ball material, they would undoubtedly have done so, and surely even Sri Lanka wouldn't have considered that unethical? As it was, things were made tougher for him as he had a loose squash ball in his glove.

But Sri Lanka do seem to be more than a little peeved about Gilchrist's admission. Sri Lankan cricket secretary Kangadaram Mathivanan has let reporters know his opinion on the matter. "We are of the opinion that it was unethical for Gilchrist to use a squash ball to give unfair advantage." He went on to say that Sri Lanka could even call on the ICC's cricket committee to enforce stringent application of law 42 on fair and unfair play to ensure that only approved protection equipment was used.

According to The Goan paper, Herald, the "revelation" made by Gilchrist caused uproar in Sri Lanka and many letters have been sent to Sri Lankan newspapers from members of the public "accusing the Australians of resorting to unfair tactics to win the game". The reaction of both the public and the administrators continues to go over the top in situations where even the most biased person must see that there is no reason for complaint. Before the 2003 rugby World Cup England Manager Clive Woodward asked Nike to produce a tight fitting shirt for the England team, which Nike did, but did the teams that weren't supplied by Nike complain? Of course not, they knew they could have done the same, and perhaps kicked themselves that they hadn't.

As always when something is done legally to advance sporting performance, there is a sense of jealousy from others that they didn't think of this tactic themselves. And the change will no doubt mark an improvement in the grips used on the inside of batting gloves, which all countries will be able to take advantage of because whether it made any difference to Gilchrist's performance is immaterial - the perception is that it did. Please Sri Lanka, you had a great World Cup, don't make yourselves look stupid by pursuing any line other than to congratulate Gilchrist and Australia on their win.