Keeping cash in a hotel room

Hmmm, there's something that doesn't add up when it comes to the reason for so much money being in Salman Butt's hotel room. We hear that the Pakistan players are paid a pittance (in international terms), and that was one of the reasons put forward for why some could potentially have been tempted to spot fix in return for money. But now Salman Butt seems to be comfortable about the fact he had big wedges of cash in his hotel room.

What confuses me is (a) why the players weren't using bank accounts or even safes to keep their money in, and (b) why they are treated like small children and given a daily allowance in cash. They are on contracts with the Pakistan Cricket Board presumably so why aren't they paying them a proper salary monthly?

All sounds extremely weird. And to top it off apparently some ice cream parlour in Tooting is happy to pay Salman Butt £2,500 to open it. If true, I think we can safely say that ice cream parlour won't be making a profit and will close at some point....if it hasn't already.

Pakistan off the field and on

Interesting piece on the Guardian's blog asking "What if Zulqarnain Haider was right about corruption in Pakistan?" as he seems to have received zero support from any of his countrymen who consider him weak. I'm quite sceptical, but even I would give him more support than that.

I also love the fact that he gave his first press conference when he arrived in the UK from the back room of a Southall curry house!

Haider's actions no doubt were the latest in a string of difficult issues that have led to the Head of the Parliamentary Committee for Sports in Pakistan resigning, so that'll add just a little more turmoil on top of the existing turmoil. Pakistan are actually battling away against South Africa and gave the third Akmal brother, Adnan, a Test debut as keeper, but I'm not sure anyone worries about what happens on the field any more.

Ian Bell in form, Ijaz Butt out of form

Apart from punching the air after hitting boundaries before the end of the game on Saturday, it sound like Ian Bell's innings was pure quality and given the form he's in, it seems inevitable that he should be brought back into England's ODI side. So who makes way? If Bell plays, it looks like they need one from three in Collingwood, Bopara and Wright. They'll be reluctant to drop Collingwood given his fielding and (strangely) they seem to have more confidence in his bowling than Bopara and Wright's. But Wright played a handy little knock in the last match while his team mates fell at the other end. It'll be interesting to see which way they go, but the great news is that England have a squad with depth for next year's ODI World Cup.

Sadly it was inevitable that people might question England's surrender at The Oval given their collapse from a seemingly comfortable position. But for it to be the Chairman of the PCB, Ijaz Butt, and a public statement that England threw the game is somewhat worrying. His position has been called into question many times but knowing how to conduct himself as a public figure is surely a prerequisite for the job, so for cricket's sanity to return, he needs to go. And that remains the case even if the unthinkable happens and England are found to have thrown the game.

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.

Lucky escape for Pakistan

While the wrangling continues about what role, if any, Javed Miandad plays in Pakistan's future, I can't help thinking that his emotionally charged leadership is not what Pakistan need right now. Thankfully for them, he's turned down the offer of Head Coach. Their problem now is an absence of credible alternative candidates...

Pakistan board give too much information...

I'm not sure I'd want my board announcing to the press that I had genital warts!

Let's get serious, serious...

After the Mumbai bombings, the latest Test matches to be put in jeopardy are England's in India and India's in Pakistan in the New Year (although India hadn't actually confirmed that tour before the bombings - I'm not sure why given that it's only a couple of months away). It's only stating the obvious to suggest that this problem isn't going to go away and the ICC and it's member countries need to consider how to handle these types of situations, otherwise known as contingency planning. That might seem an obvious suggestion (check these links for terrorism in England, India and Pakistan for example and make your own assessment of the likelihood during a cricket tour) but judging from the way officials from the BCCI and ECB have been in constant negotiation and making individual public statements, it would seem that either this particular contingency plan didn't exist, or isn't working. Here's some basic Cricket Burble suggestions:

Terrorist attack during a tour:
1. Make no public statements until both boards have agreed on next steps, but recognise the need for making an announcement quickly.
2. Make a public statement together.
3. Agree not to make any element of the boards' discussions public.
(4. An additional point for teams like England who have large travelling support - recognise the problems late venue changes cause and agree who will pay for any additional costs for supporters in advance.)

Prior to the tour:
1. Consider insurance against the cancellation of the tour and assess whether it's best to have insurance for this or not.
2. Write into players contracts the circumstances in which they must tour (weighted in the player's favour so that they have the ability to choose where the situation is not black and white, but on the assumption that they will be paid less or nothing if they don't tour when the tour goes ahead).
3. Write into sponsor's contracts the circumstances in which they will receive compensation and consider insurance against it.
4. Upon agreement to tour, agree in writing what circumstances prior to the tour will prevent the touring side from coming.
5. Decide upon the criteria for a live tour to be called off up front, but allowing some "grey" for the two boards to manoeuvre as they need to.
6. Have the evacuation procedure mapped out for the touring side, should it be necessary.
7. Learn the lessons from previous terrorist attacks before or during tours.
8. Agree up front who pays for additional security should the tour continue but with greater security.

I'm quite sure the BCCI, ECB and PCB would argue that they have the situation under control and have handled it successfully, but that's not the perception. And unfortunately for them, perception is everything. Wouldn't it be reassuring to hear a joint statement from both boards saying that they are following the pre-agreed strategy for dealing with this situation, and watch them follow it instead of daily manoeuvring?

Shoaib - what's your view?

What are everybody's views on the Shoaib story? I can't help feeling that the ban is a little unecessary and overly severe for the latest crime - slagging off the PCB. Why didn't they just leave him to do what he wanted but not pick him for the national team?

Good riddance Shoaib

Following on from Dave's post about Shoiab, take a look at this Pakistani cricket blog that I read sometimes (is cricket blogging taking over my life?!). It appears that public opinion in Pakistan is turning against Shoaib in a big way, and given what has been reported about his latest changing room scuffle, it's difficult not to agree. At least Pakistan have acted quickly and decisively in sending him home.

I hope that Pakistan now look to the future and ignore Shoaib's (no doubt extremely loud) calls for a recall via the media.

ICL controversy in Pakistan

It seems that the ICL is going to make it's mark on Pakistani cricket, having managed to secure the signature of Imran Farhat, Adbul Razzaq and Mohammed Yousuf along with Inzamam-ul-Haq. That's four of their squad gone immediately, given that the PCB have already made their stance clear - no player who goes to the ICL can play for Pakistan. Yousuf is a huge loss for them - all the others, it can be argued have limited value having failed to live up to their hype in the past or in Inzamam's case, due to his advanced age, but Yousuf has been Pakistan's best player over recent times, and at 32 he still has several years in him.

I have deliberately not commented on the ICL until now because it sits outside of the international cricket calendar and Dean Jones had previously commented that the ICL would not target current Test players. In this case though, the ICL clearly have lured current test players with money, so Pakistan will be annoyed to lose the services of all four, especially considering the youth of 25 year-old Farhat and 27 year-old Razzaq, although Razzaq got in before the ICL announcement by retiring from international cricket. The PCB need to stand strong if they have the long-term interests of the game in Pakistan and the rest of the world at heart and not give them contracts or pick them again.

Lawson starts Pakistan role

As expected Geoff Lawson was officially announced as coach of Pakistan yesterday. I've been trying to find any evidence of his previous coaching and he seems to have done some specialist coaching with Glenn McGrath, Nathan Bracken and Stuart Clark, but I can't find more than that. Lawson himself seems to need to defend his appointment, saying blandly "I am involved in a lot of coaching in Australia".

There are already a few dissenting voices already, unsurprisingly, given that Dav Whatmore's credentials appear far stronger. And the Pakistan skipper Shoaib Malik is clearly worried about Lawson's credentials to coach the batsmen, from his comments. Lawson will be hoping for a good start in terms of results, because if they don't come I worry for him that he won't see out his first year, let alone his second, when his contract expires.

Lawson confirmed as Pakistan coach

Geoff Lawson has confirmed that he will be the next Pakistan coach, although the formal statement hasn't been released by the Pakistan Cricket Board yet.

So far the only evidence of coaching Lawson has done before that I have found is that he "helped" with the New South Wales side, in this article. Perhaps the Pakistan board feel that international players have little to be coached and simply need a manager who can motivate them and manage all the politics going on in the background on their behalf.

Pakistan board get tough

Interesting to see the Pakistan board's stance on players talking to the media recently. A board official was quoted as saying "The days of the players enjoying freedom to enter into deals with the media outlets are gone. So are the days of players ignoring the clauses of their central contracts."

In theory the potential penalty for talking to the press without prior permission is match bans but presumably all that will happen is that stories won't be attributed to the particular player who has spoken to the media....which was exactly what happened when this news came out!!

"We have been told that if we violate this new ruling we can be banned for a number of matches. But, the ban would be for how many matches they have not told us as yet. Obviously the players are not happy with the new restrictions which have come into effect more strictly after the World Cup," the player said on condition of anonymity.

"But, the ban would be for how many matches they have not told us as yet." - you don't have to be Miss Marple to work out that the player in question isn't totally fluent in English....I wonder how many that narrows the contenders to. The Pakistan board might just need Miss Marple, as England did on their tour of Australia when their team tactics were leaked....

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.

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?