India v Sri Lanka...once again

 

Since 1979 India have competed with Sri Lanka in a 140 ODIs. Apart from the famous semi-final of the 1996 World Cup and the 2011 World Cup Final, I cannot remember any of the other 138 games. I am sure I am not alone in this regard.

Since 2005, India have played Sri Lanka 60 times! 60! In 7 1/2 years that gives an average of 8 matches a year. In 2008 and 2009 the teams met 12 times each year!

Thus it makes perfect sense that the respective cricket boards have now arranged a further 5 fixtures between the teams this July. Another meaningless event!

The ICC, for once, needs to show some kind of authority here, so maybe one day the cricket world will respect them.

Marvan Attapatu's comment "a bunch of muppets run by a set of jokers" springs to mind. However, I am more tempted to say "retards who just want money, and could not care less about the game".

The latest ECB deal

Slight concern that these deals get done so far in advance that they get in the way of sensible changes to strategy - i.e. this deal with ESPN Sports will net the ECB $240m apparently but it runs until the 2019.   I really hope that the ICC use the 2015 World Cup as a cut off for 50 over cricket and revert to two formats of the game, but I said that about 2011 so I'm not very hopeful.   Perhaps if the ICC is on the ball they can ask the Boards to all work to the same time periods when negotiating these kind of extensions so they can all aim for deals up to 2019.....I can't see it happening though.

5ives cricket

Interesting couple of pieces here about how ODI cricket is suffering and what to do about it.

First, read this one about the empty seats at the Champions League and the India v England ODIs...worrying given that India has such a huge base of supporters and immense passion for the game. We're normally told that it's Test cricket the Indian fans don't like, but it appears that apathy is spreading to the shorter forms of the game.

Then read this piece about a proposed 5ives version of ODI cricket. It would be a big change to the game and will therefore inevitably mean that there would be quite a backlash, at least initially. But I wonder if it could be a goer....the piece certainly seems very positive and has various ex-pros talking positively about it.

It seems that something has to give. I can't see 50 over cricket continuing forever in it's current form and I think the ICC missed an opportunity to make the 2011 World Cup the last. Without considering financial implications, ending 50 over cricket entirely would seem sensible - returning to two formats of the game - but I doubt that would satisfy the money men. So an alternative to 50 over cricket to follow on from the 2015 World Cup is needed.....I wonder if 5ives could be it?

Shastri and Gavaskar BCCI employees

There seems some genuine surprise at the fact that Ravi Shastri and Sunil Gavaskar are paid by the BCCI for some of their commentary work. I don't think it's that surprising given, as ex-India spinner Maninder Singh has said "It's symptomatic of what the country is going through. There are scams, corruption in every sphere of life and cricket is no different." If you've ever been to India you'll recognise and understand that sentiment.

Surprising or not, I do think the amount they're paid is obscene. 3.6 crore, which I believe is £4,896,000 [this is actually 10 times too much - see comments!]. It doesn't seem a justifiable amount for an annual salary for any role, but certainly not cricket commentary. So the assumption I find it hard to avoid considering is that they must be being paid that much to ensure that they say exactly what the BCCI would like them to say - it would be interesting to hear what other explanation there is for that much money being paid for an ordinary commentary role?

Interesting to see that Shastri's intransigence around the UDRS, echoing that of the BCCI, is now being called into question. His little spat with Nasser Hussain made me laugh - first Hussain references the fact he has played 96 Tests as a reason why he's allowed to voice an opinion about the BCCI....surely it's the fact that he is a commentator and his role is, as Geoff Boycott isn't shy of reminding us, to comment. Who cares how many Tests he has or hasn't played?

And then Shastri's retort...."India has every right to take it or not". Erm, not really - ever heard of democracy Ravi? The ICC members should be putting it to a blind vote and then implementing the UDRS. One of the reasons the BCCI gave for not implementing the UDRS a while back was that it cost too much. Perhaps a bit of a cut back on paying back-handers to commentators fellas, and then you wouldn't just be able to pay for the technology for India's home series, you'd be able to pay for the low-income nations to use it too. Now that really would be fantastic leadership of the game of cricket.

End of rotation for ICC Presidents?

While in general I'm in favour of selecting people on merit rather than a rotation basis, the timing of a potential change from the ICC's current rotation policy (although it wouldn't come into force until 2015) couldn't come at a worse time for those that think that India already effectively run the ICC. A change to voting for the ICC President will presumably mean a succession if Indian Presidents, and what are the chances of finding someone from India who isn't beholdent to the BCCI first and the ICC second? Zero sadly.

Greig not endearing himself to India

When I read Tony Greig's comments about how he'd change the ICC, it was no surprise that the headline referred to his comment that "the ICC is dominated by India" and indicating that he'd change that. That was always going to

stir up comment in India. And so it has....but surprisingly balanced.

Here's the argument against Greig. And the argument supporting some of his views.

Number of teams in the World Cup

It's always going to be a talking point....the number of teams that get to play at the World Cup. I'd encourage you to scroll down to the comments on this article and read the exchange between the author and "Russ". I found it pretty interesting.....and I started to wonder if my view that 10 teams was the right number, but the bottom 2 or 4 should play in the qualifiers for the right to reach the final 10, was right for the future growth of the game.

What are your views?

KP as an opener?

That's not something I saw coming - using Pietersen as an opener. It didn't really work today with Pietersen making a start and not converting (no change there then), but it will be interesting to hear from England after he match whether this is the plan for the World Cup when it starts.

Stuart Broad played in the end, despite not being well, although why England felt they needed to ask the ICC for dispensation to play Tremlett (who's not in the squad) in a warm up game confuses me. It's up to them what they do isn't it - other sides have even fielded 12 or 13 players!

Disappointed that Bopara isn't in the side, as I imagine King Cricket might be given their Bopara piece yesterday - I thought the top 7 picked themselves and it was just a matter of working out what order to bat them in....

England 1st team for the World Cup

Assuming the walking wounded make it for the 1st match of the World Cup I'd be going with:

Strauss, Trott, Bell, Pietersen, Bopara, Prior, Collingwood, Bresnan, Broad, Swann, Anderson.

If Collingwood finds batting form I'd bring him higher in the order because otherwise you've got four loose flashy players in a row. Yardy can consider himself unlucky and could come in for any of the bowlers on spin-friendly wickets, which some will be.

It's difficult to get concerned about the World Cup at this stage - if England make it to the knockout stage I'll take an interest then! Believe it or not, that's not until 23rd March! Three thoughts for you coming into the World Cup:

Limited squad numbers

I assume there's a very good reason for having a set number of players in a squad but off the top of my head I can't think of one. If the national board can pay for accomodation and flights, wouldn't it be easier to allow them as many as they need or want? That way the likes of Mike Hussey could grace the later stages of the competition....with it being 6 weeks in total, there is the prospect of some of the world's great players watching the final stages from home, fully fit. That seems daft, given that everyone - spectators, players and sponsors alike - want to see the best players available contesting the World Cup.

Warm up matches

Warm up matches need to be against local first class sides - warm up matches between international sides are just World Cup matches without anything riding on them. Completely pointless!

ODIs in general

Although he was quick to deny it, it's been claimed that Kevin Pietersen was considering retiring from ODIs after the World Cup. If he isn't, he isn't, but some will do eventually if the ICC don't take the decision to end ODIs and go back to two forms of international cricket. Twenty20 is where the money is and Test cricket is where the real skill and quality cricket is. Difficult though it is, the ICC and member countries need to take the decision to bring ODIs to an end.

Who will win? I'm going for Sri Lanka given that they're on home turf (until the final anyway). But there's any number of teams that can win it and with the final just the one match it's impossible for anyone to predict with any accuracy.

India lag way behind the rest on UDRS

Time and again India say that they aren't happy with the accuracy of technology and therefore won't use it. But then Dhoni continually criticises the umpires for wrong decisions, and it's proven there are more wrong decisions without the UDRS than with it. The fact that India or any other country are allowed to decide if they use technology leaves the ICC rightly open to criticism, not to mention the fact that the players can use reviews and technology isn't used whenever the umpires want it.

Personally I hope the ICC and India see sense soon because the use of the UDRS in some matches just makes it even clearer when mistakes are made in non-UDRS matches. India won by one run against South Africa in their last ODI match but during the chase South African's Johan Botha edged the ball down to 3rd man for a single, only to be given out LBW despite the fact the ball had missed the pad completely. You could easily argue that just that one wrong decision changed the result and South Africa will now go into the World Cup again trying to get rid of the chokers tag, perhaps unfairly in this case.

And anyone reading the New Zealand v Pakistan bulletins couldn't do so without reading about regular umpiring howlers. The latest of the 7 wrong decisions in the first 3 days was Younis Khan who, with Misbah, was going to open up a significant lead for Pakistan in all probability. Instead, he was given caught off the pad and Pakistan lost 6 wickets for 90odd to finish their innings.

Be patient cricket lovers from all around the world. Even the BCCI and ICC will catch up eventually. It would be great for the game if India go out of the World Cup due to an umpiring howler in a tight match as that might finally get the BCCI out of the dark ages, but assuming that doesn't happen, on present form it may be 2020 before the BCCI and ICC get themselves sorted out....

Interesting point from history

We cricketers are proud of the role the sport played in the eventual abolition of apartheid in South Africa but I see from today's Times, which has a repint of the edition that announced that we'd been awarded the 1966 World Cup, that at the same meeting FIFA told the football authority of that country that it neeeded to fall into line with its non-discriminatory policy within 12 months or be removed from membership. And we all thought that FIFA made the ICC look speedy !

Ponting is spot on...

No, not in his field placings obviously. In expressing his frustrations about low catches not being given because of the way that technology is currently being used. I think he's 100% right, but he offers no solution other than to reach a gentleman's agreement with other captains. If you scroll to the comments at the bottom of this piece on The Roar you'll see my proposed solution to the problem of adjudicating on low catches - it's ultra simple - and the same solution I've burbled about before.

Surely the ICC have to see sense eventually?

Bad light makes me seeth

The umpires got out of jail when it rained shortly after they took the players off for "bad" light at the Gabba. Would it have been considered bad light in a Twenty20? Of course not, because it wasn't *really* dangerous for the batsmen or fielders. And as I've Burbled before conditions are either dangerous or they aren't - it shouldn't matter what format of the game is being played.

I would suggest that if the umpires can't get this right, the responsibility for addressing bad light should be moved to the ICC referee.

[Definition of "dangerous" in the legal dictionary is apparently "creating a risk of bodily injury", but injuries are part of sport so I'd suggest that in this context it should be interpreted as "creating a risk of death"?]

Economist calls cricket authorities into question

Amongst a pretty general article about the spo-fixing scandal at The Economist, they've hit on something that could come out of the current betting scandal - a shake up is required of the way the game is run. OK, so it's a particularly one-sided view, but there is an element of truth in their grand statement:

"This blight is a syptom of cricket's mismanagement. Most national boards are manned by unaccountable, often incompetent and overly politicised administrators, ill-fitted to a game that generates billions of dollars. The supremo of its governing body, the International Cricket Council, should have no time to spare for this task. He is Sharad Pawar, India's Agriculture Minister."

Perhaps not exactly how I would have put it, but a sentiment I can't help but agree entirely with.

Innocent until proven guilty?

Obviously not a concept the ICC agree with if reports are accurate that they have asked Pakistan not to include the 3 players under suspicion (Kamran Akmal seems to have been ruled out of wrong-doing for now). This despite the PCB rightly asserting that the players are innocent until proven guilty and therefore only withdrawing them under duress.

The role of the toss in day/night matches

India got absolutely thrashed the other night at Dambulla, so I don't think there can be any claim that the toss changed the result by that much, but it is clear that conditions in day/night games can vary more significantly than a match played during normal daylight hours.

Sangakkara's comments were very revealing:

"The concept of day-night ODIs needs to be looked at. It's not good to have the toss decide so many games, or whether you bat earlier or later. Ideally, personally speaking I would like to see only day matches or only night matches. But sponsors and broadcasters obviously feel day-night matches are the way to go, and we play according to the conditions and norms we are given. It's a concern since it's not a level-playing field at most times."

Given that it seems Test cricket will experiment with day/night matches, it's something that's going to be increasingly important moving forwards, so definitely something the ICC need to have done statistical analysis on. I personally hate matches being decided by a quirk of fate, even though there are some observers - Cricket Burbler Aussie Dave included - who like the way that luck can impact a match. Given the sponsors and broadcasters want day/night cricket according to Sangakkara, what about returning to the "run auction" at the toss that John Wright has burbled about before?!?

After 6 months the ICC confirms what we already knew

Yes, it appears it's taken 6 months to conclude that the sound wasn't set right when Daryl Harper mistakenly failed to give Graeme Smith out. Of course, the ICC should take the grief for that as they should be sorting out the UDRS, but it appears that the broadcaster's technician is the one in the firing line. It just goes to demonstrate why the ICC should not be relying on broadcasters - it should be mission critical to the ICC so they should have their own technician's ensuring everything is perfect. Instead they have chosen to rely on the broadcaster for whom small details are not mission critical.

It's inevitable the ICC will have to take control of the UDRS technology eventually, but a bit sad that they are being backed into a corner rather than showing genuine leadership to move the game forward successfully. Or the foresight to have considered this years ago and planned for a successful implementation of technology.

Pakistan look for way forward

The ICC seem to have bought in Mike Brearley and Greg Chappell as "ambassadors" to help the Pakistan cricket board to return to home Tests. The article mentions nothing about their exact responsibilities, but instinctively it seems unlikely that ex-cricketers are likely to be right for that role.....a combination of political savvy, security knowledge and change management skills on an international scale seem to be what's needed, but the attempt can only be applauded.

This comes at a time when the Pakistan team is again in turmoil on the pitch after Afridi's resignation one game into his Test return. My view? He's soft and he needs to put his country ahead of himself. It's not tricky to change the way you bat based on conditions unless you think you're "too cool for school" and aren't willing to make the effort. He is good enough to play Test cricket and his assertions that he isn't, rather than getting in the nets for hours to practice defensive shots, puts him in the same bracket as Shane Bond to me.

When did players start to take representing their country - the highest honour in the game - so lightly?

UDRS not in use in Bangladesh Series

No deal between the ICC and Sky. Crazy that the governing body of a sport has to go cap in hand to a broadcaster asking for their help....perhaps if they'd thought about this in advance (i.e. a decade ago) and formulated some plans for how to integrate technology into cricket, they might be in a slightly better position!

Technology to be used more consistently....

....according to the ICC, with appropriate caveats about having to reach deals with local broadcasters. But also interestingly they want to stop batsman changing their stance until after the bowler has entered their delivery stride - should the batsman do this twice a 5 run penalty will be incured.

There's several reasons why that's crazy - 1, it's unenforcable - who decides exactly when the bowling stride has begun and how is the standing umpire meant to police it (eyes in the back of his head?). 2, you need to be consistent so if you're to create such an odd law then you need to ban the likes of Pietersen and Collingwood walking towards the bowler as they reach the end of their run up. 3, it's making it harder for batsmen to play a truly innovative shot and stifling excitement.

If I was a first class bowler, I'd be gutted - the last thing I'd want is for batsmen to stop switch hitting as even for the most talented like Pietersen, it's a high risk shot and the bowler's chances of a wicket go up when a batsman plays it.