Cover Points

The first ever reviews (read "legalised challenges") of umpiring decisions in Test cricket has taken place. And Sri Lanka have piled up over 400 runs with 3 century scorers. Jagadish has a few suggestions, including a novel way of handling Jacques Kallis, and argues that there'd be less player dissent:

The one good thing that may come out of the referral system is that meaningless appeals could come down. e.g. if a batsman is struck on the pads and it looks fairly adjacent, previously there'd have been very vociferous appealing hoping that the umpire would ignore the obvious inside edge off the bat. Now, since the batsman can question the decision, such appeals would be reduced. You could also see less instances of player dissent.

Straight Point argues that the result of less pressure on the umpires will be even less reviews:

it will slowly but surely eliminate theatrical appeals used to pressurize umps...knowing at back of your mind that even if you get the decision in your favor, it will definitely be reviewed...

needless to say that this will definitely ease pressure on umpires and in turn we will see more good decisions from them...

hence resulting in less referrals...?

But, as Ottayan asks in the comments, what of the pressure that appeals put on the batsmen themselves? Kartikeya argues that the very first use of the new law by Kumble was absurd. How could the players have a better view of an LBW decision that the bowling umpire? After all, the players can't wait for a TV replay before asking for review. Also, on no-balls and improving the system:

Then there is the issue of the no-ball being checked by the third umpire when the review is made. Dismissals which occur off deliveries which are ruled as no-balls are not checked! If the third umpire were allowed to review decisions without prompting from either the batsman or the fielding captain, he would have identified that Mark Benson ruling a no-ball on a delivery where Zaheer Khan had Warnapura caught and bowled was wrong.

...

Cricket cannot afford to have players and umpires as adversaries. The referral system directly undermines the Umpires, and does so in the worst possible way. It ought to be scrapped immediately and if it is to be replaced at all, it should be replaced with a simple system where the third umpire is instructed to be in constant communication with the on-field umpires whenever an appeal is made by the fielding side and a decision is made by the on-field umpires.

And Samir Chopra comments on the Dilshan review. Do batsmen tend to misjudge snicks when their bat simultaneously makes contact with the ground?
Finally, Patrick Kidd has some comments on the now well-established review system in tennis, thanks to Hawk-Eye.

As England try to regroup after being thrashed at Headingley, the recriminations and rethinking is everywhere. Here's Will on what to do with Broad. And part of King Cricket's tongue in cheek proposal: 

Buoyed by their mind-addling repast, the selectors brought in a barely-known Antipodean roofer and promoted Tim Ambrose to number six on the strength of his seven-ball four at Lord’s. So what treats have they got in store for us come the next Test?

Well after showing admirable resilience with the bat, James Anderson will surely move up to number three in order to protect Michael Vaughan from the new ball. Stuart Broad will move up to four as the team’s strokemaker and also to protect Michael Vaughan from the newish ball.

Ottayan argues for patience during upcoming Indian tour to Sri Lanka. Doesn't every team go to Sri Lanka with that plan?

And, on an entirely different note, Patrick Kidd quotes someone writing in to him about Don Bradman's "average" birthday:

"There will be plenty of celebration regarding Don Bradman's 100th birthday on August 27, 2008. Has there been any thought as to when he would have turned 99.94? This would be on August 5 (using 99.94 rounded) or August 6 (using his un-rounded average of 99.94285714286 etc)."

Nice one! Finally the next step up from Twenty20 now that we're all so jaded by it:

The rules of roller-cricket is the same as that of the cricket. However, the number of players participating in a team has been fixed at seven. Each game will be of 25 overs a side, he said.

Jacob said the game is not costly, as one can get a skater for Rs 400.

...

The popularity of the game is steadily rising and there are enquiries from various schools for starting camps, he said.

A roller-cricket tournament has also been planned in the state, he said.

Terry Jenner and Guddappa Viswanath are among the chorus of voices on Ajantha Mendis. Jenner is surprised that Mendis does not have a stock ball:

"Mendis needs to develop the stock ball which is very essential for leg break bowlers. When I heard that he doesn't have stock ball, I was amazed," said the Australian great, who is in New Delhi to oversee a bowlers' camp.

"World's best spinners have great stock ball. Murali [Muttiah Muralitharan] was one of them. As a coach, we need to teach basics not magic deliveries," he added.

And yet Mendis also requires greater variety?

"What he is doing has been done before by bowlers like John Gleeson. He is a good bowler but I am doubtful about his success in Australian and South African pitches. He does not have variety in his bowling," Jenner said.

Viswanath suggests that the Indian batsmen can easily handle Mendis. Apparently, they should watch his wrist and fingers:

"You've got to pick him [Mendis] up at the time of delivery. Our batsmen need to observe Mendis's wrist and finger movements at the time of delivery...then he'll become easier to negotiate," the 59-year-old said on the sidelines of a Delhi District Cricket Association (DDCA) function in New Delhi on Monday.

What does Vishy think they have they been watching until now? On the other hand he did deal with Jack Gleason pretty well back in the day.

It's a convoluted piece of logic, to be sure. Apparently the BCCI has seen fit to tell Indian players not to play for any teams that have ICL players in them:

"The BCCI has advised its players to stay away from counties that have ICL players," board secretary Niranjan Shah told Mumbai's Mid Day tabloid on Friday.

"We are not saying that no player can play county cricket in the future. The England and Wales Cricket Board is coming out with a policy regarding ICL within a year. So, we will see how it goes," Shah added.

There's the restraint of trade angle to all of this, of course, but most of all the degrees of separation aspect is extraordinary:

So you play for the ICL, then travel to England and play for Notts, then VVS Laxman can’t sign up for Notts. You go to Aberdeen for a vacation, and Rahul Dravid can’t vacation in Scotland for the rest of his life. You book in to a British Airways flight to go to England to watch the British Grand Prix at Silverstone, and you’ve denied Sachin Tendulkar the opportunity to meet Lewis Hamilton.

As Geetha Krishnan suggests, there's more than a hint of the contamination logic of caste here. The ICL's route forward is obvious: get their players into as many different teams around the world as they possibly can and make it impossible for a BCCI-sanctioned player to play anywhere at all... Hah!

Another swing bowling token selection for Headingley: Darren Pattinson. And no one seems to know much about him, excepting Australian bloggers of course. Here's Jrod on "Eyelids" and a trip down memory lane:

In conclusion, he is front on, quick enough, ex roof tiler, Dandenong boy, seams the ball, closes his eyes, takes wickets and is a Victorian.
Oh, and I forgot to mention, his inclusion is sure to piss off a bunch of English supporters and surprise a whole lot more.
So it’s a good inclusion for everyone.

 Patrick Kidd on the possible logic:

There are two possible explanations for why Darren Pattinson was called up at short notice from Trent Bridge. 1) In these straitened times, the selectors wanted to save on paying mileage to a bowler from a southern club; or 2) Possibly following on from that, the selectors actually meant to call up Darren Gough but hit the wrong number on the speed dial. I suppose there is also a third explanation: that the selectors have seen real promise and think he can do a job.

And to make Jrod happy, Graham Gooch railing against all things foreign in England (except his mates, of course).

Hold the press! The ECB has a new competition in the offing that will revolutionize the game...featuring all the counties and then some more playing Twenty20. Who would have thought that the county boards could have thought of something just so exciting and revolutionary.

Or was that self-serving and stultifying? I forget. The actually interesting Stewart/Bradshaw proposal is out and we have this instead:

The EPL will have two divisions of 10 teams featuring the 18 existing counties plus two overseas teams.

There will also be a Twenty20 League to replace the existing Twenty20 Cup.

The England and Wales Cricket Board has yet to confirm which foreign teams will play in the EPL but the winners of the Indian Premier League and a Sir Allen Stanford XI are rumoured to be the ones that will be chosen.

Andrew Miller is quite scathing,  and Jonathan Liew compares it to the Premiership:

What the EPL vision reminds me of most is not its Indian counterpart, but its footballing equivalent: the bloated, joyless Premiership. A middle-class preserve, a place where corporate fools will go to show how ‘down with it’ they are, the domain of Sky or Setanta subscribers alone. We will be told, patronisingly, that this is the price you pay for higher standards.

Finally, Q has the run down on Pakistan's probables squad for the Champions Trophy, including an introduction to the 5 unknowns in the squad.

Flintoff is finally ready for his comeback. The only thing, don't put any pressure on him, says Michael Vaughan:

"I don't want to put him under any more pressure than the media has already. He just needs to be able to bowl like he can, hopefully whack it like he does, and try to get his performance level to where it was before. But 18 months is a long time out. It might take him a little time to adjust."

England still seem unclear how to use Flintoff in Friday's match, though it is probable that he will replace Paul Collingwood, thus limiting England to only five specialist batsmen. And here is the first question: is a man who is averaging 22 in first-class cricket this season going to leave England vulnerable, especially on a ground where Flintoff has previously recorded four straight ducks?

On the other hand, consider the pressure the Saffer batsmen were under in their second innings. That's what Test cricket is all about. Here's King Cricket:

We were hugely, hugely impressed with Graeme Smith and Neil McKenzie in the Lord’s Test. We don’t care what the pitch was like - just imagine coming out to bat after you’ve been so comprehensively trampled for three days. Imagine what would have happened to England in the same situation.

Beaten men play crap cricket. These pair summoned some almighty resolve to do what they did. Playing one beautiful shot is easy - that’s a one-off. Playing virtually no stupid shots for an entire day is quite another. You can’t fluke that. That is near-superhuman concentration.

And speaking of pressue, when will Mark Ramprakash score his 100th 100? When no one is looking? Third Umpire has a county roundup.

Finally, and by no means least, the Pura Cup has become the Sheffield Shield once again. They actually had to rebuild the shield itself, or was it just a planned restoration?

The English media and the ECB, on behalf of English touring fans, have been complaining about the tour itinerary in India later this year:

The England and Wales Cricket Board announced on Monday it was upset that India's regular Test venues like Chennai, Kolkata, Mumbai and Mohali were not given matches during the six-week tour.

India want the two Tests in December to be played in Ahmedabad and Mumbai, while the seven preceding one-dayers were spread across various centres like Rajkot, Guwahati, Cuttack and Jamshedpur.

"We would like to remind the ECB that our venues are always decided on the basis of a rotation policy," Indian cricket board secretary Niranjan Shah was quoted as saying on the cricketnirvana.com website.

"The itinerary for the England tour has been finalised on the basis of this rotation policy."

...

An ECB statement issued on Monday said: "ECB are disappointed that, despite their representations, the itinerary doesn't offer the thousands of supporters who follow the England team abroad the opportunity to experience more of the great cricket grounds of India.

Here's King Cricket's personal take on some of the venues. Note the acerbic but exactly detailed first comment to King's entry. But for some real action, see the Guardian's David Hopp's entry and the ensuing commentary that even manages to discuss the 1857 mutiny and the current war in Iraq (see spoonman5150's comment, and humptydumpty's response.)

Mohammad Asif has been caught again in a dope scandal:

Pakistan paceman Mohammad Asif will seek a "B sample" test after testing positive for a banned substance during play in the Indian Premier League (IPL), his lawyer said Tuesday.

The IPL announced on Monday that the 25-year-old fast bowler had failed a drugs test at the lucrative Twenty20 tournament held from April to June.

But looks like he's going to get away with it. Again. This time because some idiot (or clever agent?) managed to announce his name before a testing of his 'B' sample. This is against WADA rules, apparently. Here's Ratnakar Shetty's nonsensical explanation:

The procedure is that once the report of dope test was received, the player has to be identified and can be asked whether he will exercise the choice for his 'B' sample test and can be asked to be physically present when the sample was tested, he said.

"However, if the player is not named, how do we ask the player to be present to give an option along with the representative" during the test?" Shetty said. 

Apparently it's impossible for the chief administrator for the BCCI to do anything except via the media. And, finally, there was a Test match on. A tame draw between England and South Africa that might have been a fighting draw at one point. Will asks if we should be complaining about such cricket or not.

Sri Lanka Cricket just solved a payrise problem---Ottayan says that their debts have been cleared by the upcoming India tour---but are in all kinds of trouble over the newly scheduled tour next year to England. Looks like they're seriously considering letting their star players play in the IPL next year instead of touring England:

"The issue is yet to be finalised and very much at a discussion stage," the source said, asking to remain anonymous. He said they were awaiting a response from the England and Wales Cricket Board (ECB).

Some 13 Sri Lankan cricketers, including star players Mahela Jayawardene, Sanath Jayasuriya, Muttiah Muralitharan and Kumar Sangakkara, have signed three-year contracts to play in the IPL.

The players argued they received permission to play in the IPL before the ECB came up with the idea of replacing Zimbabwe with Sri Lanka for the early part of the summer 2009.

Meanwhile the MCC, Surrey, Hampshire and Lancashire have been caught with a plan for a 50 million pound Twenty20 for the top nine counties only:

The quartet had planned to launch their manifesto at Tuesday's board meeting of the England and Wales Cricket Board but it was leaked yesterday. Tuesday's meeting will now be an explosive one. While the competition, it is claimed, could realise £85m annually, some of which would be passed on to all the 18 existing counties, those outside the charmed circle are bound to resist. The basic principle that all counties participate in domestic competitions is the bedrock of the existing domestic system.

Not only that, but the ECB wouldn't be fully in charge. And the backlash has been swift in coming. Finally, a brilliant post on Michael Vaughan by David Barry.

India take on Sri Lanka in a one month series, containing 3 Tests and 5 ODIs. The big draw is, of course, Ajantha Mendis. Here's Mohan on the Indian squad:

The major surprise is that Virender Sehwag is vice-captain of the Test team!

After his comments on the idiocy of back-to-back games in the Asia Cup and after his comment that he was “running on reserve”, not unexpectedly, M. S. Dhoni, Team India Test vice-captain, has opted out of the Tests citing fatigue.

Also, Irfan has been dropped and Ojha included. Ottayan has the stats on all the hard work Dhoni has been putting in for the team.

Ducking Beamers has a post on that mystery of a bowler, Mendis, and his carrom ball. Meanwhile the really shocking news has been Pepsi's non-renewal of Tendulkar's contract. "Insider trading" on his retirement, perhaps?

The ICC has compromised again on the Zimbabwe question. In terms of the internal voting bloc logic the decision certainly makes sense. From the BCCI's point of view, that is. Here's Kevin Mitchell for the Guardian on the moral argument:

While cricket was never going to solve the political problems of Zimbabwe, nor were the International Cricket Council going to have the courage to take a wider moral stance, even in the face of atrocities, starvation and the daily spectacle of a nation cowed by a dictator. As an ICC spokesman said: 'We are not mandated to talk about politics.' Or death, it seems.

What matters to the ICC is they have been saved from making a judgment call (which they would have fudged by suspending Zimbabwe temporarily because 'they are not good enough'), and England don't lose their big-money gig. While England and South Africa suspended cricket relations with Zimbabwe last week, the ICC, their strings pulled by the Asian bloc, are adamant Zimbabwe will keep full membership and funding. All that has been saved is a tournament. Nothing else changes.

A Cricketing View attempts to separate out the moral and the sporting issues at stake:

If the ICC's consideration of the matter can be criticized, it is because they did Cricket a disservice in the arguments that they considered. In my view, Robert Mugabe's methods ought not to be discussed at an ICC meeting, any more than the issue of Kashmir should be discussed there. It is none of the ICC's business. If at all Zimbabwe was to be stripped of full member nation status, it should have been because they have a very weak cricket team which is clearly not good enough to be a Test team (much like Bangladesh). This would have been a discussion of cricketing interest. 

Q has a blow by blow fly-on-the-wall account of the meeting. Meanwhile Michael Holding quits from the ICC's Cricket Committee because of their other big decision: making the England Pakistan game at the Oval into a draw. And lastly, but by no means least, Cricket Australia's James Sutherland fires off a shot at the whole idea of private ownership of cricket teams (but, then, what is the BCCI or the MCC anyway if not private?).
 

The big ongoing story is of course the ICC's discussion of Zimbabwe. The British government's instructions are clear: no play. But what then happens to the Twenty20 World Cup? The Culture/Media/Sport Secretary of State says:

Like others, I have watched events unfold over the first half of this year, hoping against hope that the country would be about to enter a new era.

When it became clear that would not happen, I took the reluctant step last week of writing to the England and Wales Cricket Board (ECB) to say that the UK Government would prevent next summer's tour from taking place.

It was not something the Government did lightly. Wherever possible, sport and politics should be kept separate. Our governing bodies should operate autonomously. Any direct intervention should be a last resort and only in the most exceptional circumstances.

But that, in my judgment, is what we are presented with here. Mugabe's patronage of Zimbabwe Cricket blurs the line between politics and sport. Cricketing relations in these circumstances bring a brutal regime uncomfortably close.

And here are John Traicos and Goolam Rajah taking opposite sides of the recurring sports and politics question—do they/don't they mix. Traicos focuses on the moral standing of cricket players in Zimbabwe and Rajah on the moral standing of foreign players, boards and governments:

Yes

John Traicos
Former South Africa and Zimbabwe Test cricketer

Suspending Zimbabwe from inter-national cricket will have little or no
political impact because there are greater issues at stake - Robert Mugabe may like cricket but power and position probably matter most. It is unrealistic to expect sanctions to effect political change by putting pressure on those in power if a sporting body is controlled by politicians and has to adhere to the laws of the country, regardless of whether or not it agrees with them. In any case, anyone upset by a sporting boycott can do nothing about it since the right to vote currently has no relevance in Zimbabwe.

...

No

Goolam Rajah
General manager of the South Africa cricket team

Frankly, I think it is crazy for anyone to say there is no place for sporting
boycotts, or that they are ineffectual. South Africa is living, breathing proof that they can have a profound and dramatic effect for the better.

Here's Homer's entirely financial explanation of this mess. And, finally, Q spots some shady reporting by the Guardian about the ICC's meeting.

(My apologies for the long absence from blogging!)

 Clearly New Zealand were robbed of a victory against England in the recent ODI:

The New Zealanders were desperate to complete the 20th over, which would have allowed them to win under the Duckworth/Lewis regulations if they had scored seven further runs without losing a wicket.

But to the agony of Brendon McCullum, who was unbeaten on 60, the umpires decided that the conditions had deteriorated too severely and the game had to come to an end.

But was it because of the rain, the fixed length break between innings, or simply because England bowled at an astonishing rate of 13 overs an hour? The latter, surely? But the fix is in for the fixed length break only:

Umpires will now have the option of reducing it to a minimum of 10 minutes to try and ensure a result. ICC regulation 15.1 now reads: "The duration of the interval shall be agreed mutually by the umpires and both captains subject to no interval being of more than 30 minutes' duration or less than 10 minutes' duration.

Meanwhile, the BCCI is being generous enough to discuss the possibility of a Test Championship with the ICC, whilst also warning the English counties of the consequences of picking ICL players in the English Twenty20 league. And, on another note entirely, here's Q's great post on switch hitting.

The MCC are due to consider the legality of Kevin Pietersen's remarkable switch-hitting sixes against New Zealand. Looks like it was already on the agenda, but batsmen switching stance and grip will now be considered seriously:

Unlike bowlers, a batsman does not have to notify the umpires and bowler if they opt to reverse their batting style.

However, the shot raises a number of questions for umpires, including the lbw and leg-side no-ball laws.

But despite the controversy, Pietersen believed he has broken new ground with his stroke.

The first six flew over deep square leg boundary (for a left-hander) at Chester-le-Street, while the second bore more of a resemblence to a Marcus Trescothick slog sweep over the ropes at long-on.

"Reverse sweeps have been part of the game for however long, I am just fortunate that I can hit it a bit further," Pietersen said.

And the new challenge system for out decisions will be trialled during India's tour of Sri Lanka. Meanwhile, Sledgehammer argues that Twenty20 and ODIs augment Test cricket not push it aside:

Test cricket survived the onslaught of ODIs and Kerry Packer. In fact, it flourished once ICC and cricket boards made ODI cricket a victim of overplay and greed (roughly mid-90s and beyond). And Test cricket actually benefited from ODIs - players picked up the pace, and teams wanted positive results.

Will dreams of a West Indies victory against Australia. At lunch on the last day they are 316 for 5... And in Chennai, the DMK party have switched up in their own way, organising a Ten10 "Karunanidhi Gold Cup" with over a thousand teams playing.

Pakistan have won the Kitply Cup. Dileep writes about Younis' batting in particular and Kartikeya writes of India's continuing woes in ODI finals:

This was India's 13th defeat in 19 tournament finals in this decade. They have won three finals, of which only the NatWest Final at Lord's in 2002 was a sudden death game. The two finals India won in Australia earlier this year were part of a three match finals playoff.

This is a telling record, especially for a team which has won more than it has lost against good opposition in the same period.

Geetha digs up an old proposal to do away with the toss in cricket—captains bidding runs for the right to bat first—and considers the role of tradition in cricket. And Nilankur Das reports on women's cricket in India generally and the fast bowler Jhulan Goswami in particular.