Pakistan Annexes Dubai!

Well, in cricketing terms only! ;) As was suggested and predicted by many, Pakistan has agreed to move some of its international "home" matches to Dubai:

The Pakistan Cricket Board has signed a three-year agreement to play its home one-day internationals and Twenty20 matches at the new Dubai Sports City.

The Emirate will also host three ODIs against the Windies in November.

The new 25,000 stadium in Dubai will initially host a series involving Pakistan, Sri Lanka and Bangladesh next April and a series of Twenty20 matches against various teams. [LINK]

This is an excellent move. It's sad for Pakistanis, but the reality is that Pakistan is not getting much home cricket. I think the matches will be better attended, more closely followed, and higher earning than those played in Pakistan.

It remains to be seen whether Pakistan will move Test matches as well. I can't imagine why not. No "white" (excuse the political incorrectness) team is touring Pakistan anytime soon.

Q - I have to say I'm a little jealous! Lucky you!

Exodus to ICL

Oh boy, this makes things really interesting:

Six leading Bangladesh players - Habibul Bashar, Aftab Ahmed, Shahriar Nafees, Farhad Reza, Dhiman Ghosh and Mosharraf Hossain - have informed the Bangladesh Cricket Board they intend to retire from international and domestic cricket. The news, announced by the BCB, follows a report in the Bangladesh daily Prothom Alo which said 14 players, including the six mentioned above, were set to join the Indian Cricket League. [LINK]

I really don't blame them. They see so many players making a lot of money and enjoying themselves while playing in the IPL. So why should they be left out? Next best thing: the ICL.

Until the ICC gets its act together and recognizes the ICL as a legitimate league, there are going to be more defections. These defections will hurt the ICC a lot since they have invested so much into Bangladesh as a model developing country. As for the Bangladesh supporters, I think they may enjoy seeing a more competitive Dhaka Warriors team rather than watching their national team get consistently outclassed.

The ICC really needs to figure things out. National commitment is in danger of being completely sidelined in favor of league cricket. If that's what the market demands, then that's what's going to happen. But the ICC's stupidity is a huge contributor to the decreasing interest in national cricket as well.

I have stated before that it's a good time to set up a competing official cricket board. And I hope it happens. ICL should actually start holding ODIs and Tests as well.

Competition is good; someone should challenge the ICC's stranglehold.

More Nails in the Coffin

Here's the schedule for next year's Champions League:

The second Champions Twenty20 League will take place next year between September 25 and October 11, and will feature 12 teams, four more than the first edition to be held between December 3-10, 2008.

I think this significant for two reasons. First, ICC had postponed the Champions Trophy to Oct 2009, still to be held in Pakistan. The scheduling of the Champions League basically shows that there is very little faith in Pakistan hosting the tournament. Unless ICC comes back with a strong statement criticizing the schedule, assume that the 2008 Champions Trophy is canceled. You can also assume that Pakistan won't be hosting any non-Asian teams anytime soon.

Second, it's also an indication of the worthlessness of the Champions Trophy as a tournament. In the wake of a Twenty20 world, it seems to be the ugly duckling of events.

My suggestion: cancel the 2008/09 version, and stick with the 2010 version in the Caribbean - if only to redeem themselves for a sub-par World Cup (btw, I assign very little blame to the Windies for the failure of the WC - the ICC was the biggest culprit). After 2010, let the tournament fade into obscurity. No one will care.

I'm not sure why countries can't organize more meaningful tri or quad series, rather than large tournaments which almost always don't live up to expectations.

BTW, interesting fact, Pakistan will end up not playing a single Test in 2008! Incredible!

Consequences of a correct decision

As everyone knows, the 2008 Champions Trophy has been postponed. Probably the right decision (IMO) when everything is taken into consideration, but it does come with some consequences.

Here are a few thoughts...

• The five countries to pull out have set a poor precedent - that countries can unilaterally pull out without fear of punishment. If it applies to teams like SA (who, btw, safely and successfully toured Pakistan more than any other non-Asian team in the recent past), it should apply to everyone else. I understand the concerns over security, but then other countries can have their own concerns too in the future, maybe not limited to security (political, logistical, financial, etc). Can ICC define security as the sole acceptable reason to meddle with a tournament/series? Or are we just opening up a Pandora's box?

• Is the Champions Trophy even worth it anymore? I know this is kinda of a rehash of the same ol' T20 vs ODI discussion. But even logistically, we have a Champions Trophy scheduled in April 2010 in West Indies. So two CTs in the span of six months? That won't happen. Something will have to give.

• ICC has basically given a blank check for any team not to tour Pakistan at any point. I can completely understand the fears of the players. And I know comparisons to Ashes/London bombings, or IPL/Jaipur, etc. may not be completely warranted, but it's something to think about. IMO, nothing would ever have happened to the players. But the overall climate resulting from any untoward incidents in Pakistan off the cricket field would have made things quite uncomfortable for all involved.

• For Pakistanis, I think it is very disappointing. Cricket is a diversion for the ordinary citizen and it would have felt good for Pakistanis to host the entire cricketing world. But, I think there is one other reason that led to the CT postponement - the lack of attendance in Pakistan's matches. It may not be an immediately obvious cause, but the near empty stands in recent matches (even some involving Pakistan were very poorly attended) makes it easier for the authorities to make decisions without taking into account the fans. Pakistanis have to start working on this. Many matches are basically free and still attendance is abysmal.

• I'm confused by countries' earlier willingness to send weaker teams. I would not feel too great if I were a "weaker" player, knowing that my life is not as valuable as others!

• A month of no cricket is way too juicy for teams and boards to ignore. While it's a good time for a rest for players, it's also a great time to make money (like it or not, that's the way things run). Expect some interesting ad-hoc series and tournaments in the next few weeks.

Lightning Bolt and Cricket

Usain Bolt, the Jamaican track phenom, loves cricket, Australia, and Matthew Hayden:

"I can't wait to come to Australia and I'm trying to find a way to get down there because it sounds great and you're fun people," Bolt said.

"And one of my favourite cricketers in the world is from your way. I am a huge fan of Matty Hayden and he's a cool customer out in the middle and I like his style."
...
Bolt is a cricket fanatic and played the sport as a teenager in the cricket loving Caribbean island.

Hayden has never met the dual gold medallist and was flattered his name was mentioned just moments after Bolt broke Michael Johnson's 12-year-old world record in the 200m..

"Just to see him dance and carry on is truly inspirational and for him to have me in his mind is just so humbling," Hayden told Channel 7.
...
Hayden intends sending Bolt a signed cricket bat and wants to meet the Jamaican speed machine when he visits Australia. [LINK]

Also, running was not Bolt's first passion. Perhaps Windies cricket has lost a potential superstar. Although, a fast runup doesn't necessarily equate to a great bowler:

But Bolt wasn't always set to be a sprinter. Cricket was his first love. He stood out as a fast bowler playing for William Knibb High School in Trelawny, and only ditched his cricket whites when his coach, seeing how fast he could run, suggested he have a go at athletics. [LINK]

And a message to the Jacques Rogge and the IOC - STFU!!! Let Usain celebrate - everyone loves it, save some out-of-touch stuckup suits whose goal is to take the fun out of everything (shades of ICC, huh?). If you have any balls, bring up the issue of 12 and 13 year olds playing for China. Then I'll give you some credibility around sportsmanship. He's 21 years old, he's done something no one has ever done before, and he hasn't disrespected anyone. Sure he could be more gracious (as could anyone). But for the IOC's head to single him out, that's just pathetic!

Usain...ignore the IOC! With all due respect to 10CC and their song Dreadlock Holiday, I think the entire world will agree with me if I add this line to the song...

"I say we don't like Lightning...oh no...we love him!!!"

Twenty20 in 2020?

This could be the ultimate destiny - Twenty20 cricket in the 2020 Olympics:

Steve Waugh, who led Australia to a Commonwealth Games silver medal, is part of a growing group of current and former players who have supported Adam Gilchrist's push for Twenty20 to be part of the 2020 Olympics. Gilchrist raised the idea on Monday and since then a series of big names, including Sourav Ganguly and Stephen Fleming, have climbed on board. [LINK]

Per the article, cricket has been given "recognition status" by the IOC, but it competes with lots of other sports for inclusion in the games.

Had Twenty20 been a recognized success several years earlier, I think the London 2012 committee would have worked to include it in their Olympic bid (although demonstration sports are no longer encouraged by the IOC). I am quite surprised though that India has not included cricket in the 2010 Commonwealth Games, especially since Malaysia included in the 1998 Commonwealth games.


For those who may not know, cricket has made an appearance in the Olympics once - back in the 1900 Olympics in Paris. Well, it was really just one match between British and French club sides. The entire 1900 Olympics were a bit weird though - they lasted several months, were combined with the Paris Expo, and many players (across all sports) had no idea that they were participating in the Olympics.

For more on cricket's brief appearance in Olympics, click here and here.

Getting back on topic, I think cricket would be great for the Olympics, Commonwealth, and even Asian Games. If kabaddi can be a sport at the Asian Games since 1990, I'm sure cricket can stake a claim too. Of course, the logistics would be a tad more complicated than kabaddi, but I'm sure something can be figured out!

Cricket at any organized games would become another major trophy for teams to vie for, and there will be interest from non-traditional spectators as well (if people can watch synchronized swimming without shooting themselves, they'll watch anything!). Let's see how strong the Twenty20 lobby becomes, and what they can do to convince Jacques Rogge and his crew that Twenty20 cricket needs to become an integral part of the Olympics. I foresee it happening.

Alright...all together now..."Twenty20 for 2020!"

An Impressive Debut

So, Cricket's much anticipated referral system got underway today in the first Test of the ongoing Sri Lanka - India series.

In summary...both the batsman and the captain of the fielding side are allowed to ask for a referral (aka challenge, review). Each team gets three unsuccessful challenges per innings (there is no limit on successful challenges). The third umpire looks at a few replays to determine whether there is enough to overturn the on-field umpire's decision. Use of Hawkeye or anything like that is not allowed (which is fine).

There were three referrals done today, with the second one a perfect example of why referrals are a great idea:

45.4: Harbhajan to Warnapura. LBW appeal turned down by on-field umpire. Kumble refers to third umpire, who agrees with on-field umpire's decision. Challenge was unsuccessful.

105.3: Zaheer to Dilshan. Dilshan given out caught behind. Dilshan challenges it. Third umpire overrules on-field umpire's decision! Challenge was successful.

119.1: Harbhajan to Dilshan. LBW appeal turned down by on-field umpire. Kumble refers to third umpire, who agrees with on-field umpire's decision. Challenge was unsuccessful.

Of course, there are innumerable pros which are fairly obvious. But I'll mention a couple of potential issues I see with this system...first, there is the time delay factor - how much will this referral system impact a sport that is already so pressed for time (yes, even five days aren't enough! ;-). Second, what is the time limit to challenge a decision? You want to avoid pavilion involvement, i.e. you don't want the supporting cast to see a replay and then signal accordingly to the on-field players. As long as a player decides to challenge within 10-15 seconds, it should be ok.

Overall though, a great idea, and a much-needed relief for players, umpires, and fans. This cricket fan, for one, is extremely excited. Let's hear it for Technology! And, we all take our shots at them all the time, so let's give them a rare moment of appreciation...kudos to you, ICC, for pressing on with this system despite less than welcoming attitudes from many in the cricketing world, and a failed trial in domestic cricket.

It's About Time!

A big day of cricket is about to begin. As India take on Sri Lanka in the first test, the eyes of the cricket world will be on the trial of the new referral system (Tendulkar's potential record-breaking innings notwithstanding).

I, for one, am very much in favour of the system. Cricket has been at the forefront of technology - from replays for runouts, to Duckworth-Lewis. So why not take the next logical step, especially when it's fairly easy to do so?

Per the system, there will be three referrals per team per innings = 24 potential referrals per match. Now that could mean a lot of time dedicated to referrals, but we'll have to wait to see whether teams actually take advantage of the system.

Many sports have headed the direction of replays. Tennis, NFL, etc. Baseball is planning to get replays as well. Football/soccer definitely should have it to, at least for goals that were declared offside.

Here are some interesting comments regarding the cricket referral system, some favorable, others more skeptical.

I do wonder who will be the first referred dismissal (or non-dismissal). Could it be Sachin Tendulkar, the man who was the first player to be given run-out by a TV umpire?

Like any new system, there will be success and failure, and the system will adapt over time. So let's accept any failures as a learning process, and cherish the successes as a much needed step in the right direction.

To referrals...cheers!

"Cricket, Texas-Style"

Here's a link to an article that appeared in Time magazine (in the US edition at least), about cricket and Allen Stanford. Nothing new really for someone familiar with the cricketing world, but still worth a quick read.

Aamer, Champions Trophy, etc.

Aamer Sohail has to be my favorite commentator/analyst, purely from an entertainment perspective. Every utterance has the potential to be a classic. Like this gem (taken from Cricinfo Quotes):

"Countries such as Australia and England are our allies in this war on terror, yet they are not supporting us here. Are we real allies or are we just being used?" Aamer Sohail, never short of radical comments that provoke a thought or two, on major teams' security concerns over playing in Pakistan

I'm hoping he was being at most semi-serious, but when it comes to Aamer Sohail, who knows!

Levity aside, I really do think the Champions Trophy will be shifted. Sure the Asia Cup went off successfully, but it's a smaller tournament, with simpler logistics, and less attractive "targets" for those who want to create chaos and attract attention. I'm almost 100% sure that if the tournament goes ahead, the safety of anyone involved with the tournament will not be compromised. However, a series of unrelated events in the country at the time could lead to a potential cancellation, or a pull-out, which would be even worse.

As much as I would like to see cricket played regularly in Pakistan, the situation is not great. A security assessment will be released in the next week and ICC/cricket boards will study it carefully. Regardless though, I think players will put enough pressure to ask for a change in venue. The recent events in Islamabad and Karachi don't help either, and anymore unfortunate events will make things even worse.

Finally, Pakistanis have also not really shown their thirst for cricket. The paltry crowds during the Asia Cup were embarrassing, even for most Pakistan games. I know this can be attributed to many reasons (heat, weekdays, lack of competition, etc), but still it is not encouraging.

So Sri Lanka (ICC's official backup venue) or South Africa (the self-appointed backup venue ;) may need to start preparing to host the tournament. I'm going to stay hopeful that it doesn't come to that, but reality is steadily sinking in.

Carry For...What?

I just realized that India and Sri Lanka got 2 carry-forward points each from the group stage. My simple reaction was...WTF??? Why???

CF points are normally used in lieu of playing the same team again in the next stage. But in this tournament, each team plays each other again anyway. What were the organizers smoking when they put the rules together???

So thanks to the pointless CF points, Sri Lanka has to beat India for Pakistan to have a chance (assuming Pakistan beat Bangladesh). Without CF, even if India beat Sri Lanka, it would come down to NRR between Pakistan, India, Sri Lanka (again, assuming Pakistan beat Bangladesh).

Last time it was some obscure bonus point that screwed Pakistan. This time it very well could be CF points.

However, if you do look at it from the angle that CF points were carried forward and the relevant teams didn't play each other again, then you'd have the following situation after today's match:

SL: 4
Ind: 2
Pak: 0
Ban: 0

So in that way, SL would have to beat India anyway for Pakistan to have a chance.

Regardless, I think the best would be to have everyone play each other as happened, but no CF points. Combining the two makes no sense.

grumble...mumble...

Analysis of World Twenty20 2009 Groups

Let me caveat this post right up front. THERE ARE HUGE ASSUMPTIONS I AM USING!!! I have been burned by this before (WC 2007), but apparently I have not learned my lesson.

OK, now I will proceed. In a previous post, I posted the schedule for the 2009 World Twenty20 in England next June. The groups were actually decided many months back, but I never really looked at them until now. So here's a basic analysis.

First off, just like the ODI WC 2007 (and I believe the previous T20 WC as well), teams are assigned a "seeding" which they carry with them into the (poorly termed) "Super-8s".

e.g. Pakistan are B1 in the group stage. They will be B1 for Super-8 purposes too. If one of the seeded teams is knocked out (now, would that ever happen???), then the team that qualifies in its place assumes its seeding. e.g. if West Indies qualify instead of Sri Lanka, they will assume Sri Lanka's seeding of C2.

Logistically, this is pretty good. Competitively, this is not a really great idea. Unlike in the ODI WC 2007, all Super-8 teams will not end up playing each other. So it could be that one Super-8 pool is composed of all second place teams from the group stage, and the other is composed of all first place teams.

Anyhow, here are the initial groups and the "seedings":

GROUP A
A1 India
A2 Bangladesh
A3 Zimbabwe

GROUP B
B1 Pakistan
B2 England
B3 Associate1

GROUP C
C1 Australia
C2 Sri Lanka
C3 West Indies

GROUP D
D1 New Zealand
D2 South Africa
D3 Associate2

Now, the Super-8 groups are already fixed too, and they are:

GROUP E
A1
B2
C1
D2

GROUP F
A2
B1
C2
D1

Using basic algebra, AND ASSUMING THAT THERE ARE NO MASSIVE UPSETS (wow, this sounds so familiar!), this is what the Super-8 groups will look like:

GROUP E
India
England
Australia/West Indies
South Africa

GROUP F
Bangladesh/Zimbabwe
Pakistan
Sri Lanka/West Indies
New Zealand

Obviously, Group E is the tougher group. IF (and the "if" is capitalized and bolded for serious emphasis) Pakistan make it to the Super-8s, they could potentially get to the semis without ever playing Australia, South Africa, or India.

Lucky for Pakistan (hey, I shouldn't complain), but not so great from a competition perspective. Given that all the Super-8 matches are in London itself (albeit different grounds), they should have made Super-8 groups based on standings at the end of the group stage. So two first placed teams, and two second placed teams in each group. That would have made more sense.

BTW, many of the second round matches are double headers, so you could, get to see matches like India vs Australia, and Pakistan vs Sri Lanka/West Indies on the same ground, same day.

Once again, please take into account the assumptions I have made. Pakistan and India have shocked and pissed off their fans before - I know this way too well!. They can do it again!

ICC World Twenty20 2009: Tickets on sale soon

Yes it's a year away, but it's never early enough to start your planning. Given the success of the first World Twenty20, and the increasing acceptance of this format, this event should prove to be a cracker (as long as the rain stays away).

I personally plan to attend, but it's all a bit tentative. But I do plan to scoop up some match tix just in case.

Anyway, here's the ticket info. Tickets go on sale June 30th, 2008. Tickets can be purchased from the ICC's official website.

And here's the schedule.

Additions to the Faculty

INTERNAL MEMO

To: Students and Readers

18t June 2008

Dear all,

As the Co-Founder of the Allen Stanford University for Cricket Bloggers, I have continued to recruit new faculty members since our launch in response to the growing demand for quality cricket education and entertainment.

Though the new recruits have been brought on board over the last few months, I haven't been able to formally introduce them to you.

What better day to make the introductions than the one on which the Co-Founder & Dean of our University celebrates his 1000th lecture. Congratulations Uncle J!

Our first new facutly members since the launch were DS Henry, Scorpicity, and Trideep.

DS was hired as the exclusive lecturer for "Marketing & 20-20 Cricket Leagues", while Scorpicity and Trideep joined Straight Point as lecturers on "Reporting on Indian Cricket".

The ever growing Indian cricket industry required us to continue the hiring process for this subject as demand from students was unmatched by any other subject. This led to the recent hirings of Som and Samir Chopra.

In between we also recruited our 2nd female member as Miriam of Cricket with Balls joined us as the professor on "Fashion in Cricket". Her first few lectures were on Daniel Vettori's glasses and Jacob Oram's garments from 'Big & Tall'. Her most recent lecture that generated a lot of interest was on Kevin Pieterson's ability to switch (between male and female clothing).

One of our most recent recruit is The Cricket3r who joined us in the Administration of the University and takes care of collating all information and data regarding the faculty members as well as the students. He knows all of us, but none of us know who he is. Not even his name.

At the beginning of this month, we recruited Sledgehammer who joined the Well Pitched crew to alternate on lectures on "How to Manage Cricket in Pakistan".

The growing mismanagement in Pakistan cricket led us to hire some more faculty members to lecture on several areas such as "Selecting a Squad - How Not to do it the Pakistan Way" and "Running a Cricket Board - How Not to do it the Pakistan Way".

Wasim was hired for the former, while Khansahab for the latter.

I officially welcome you to our elite faculty and thank you for the immense popularity we have achieved since our launch.

I am sure that going forward, the Allen Stanford University for Cricket Bloggers will continue to grow and match your expectations in educating and entertaining you with all things Cricket.

Yours faithfully,

Q
Co-Founder, Allen Stanford University for Cricket Bloggers.

Guardian Angels

How happy and thankful we should all be that the MCC is the guardian of the Laws of Cricket, and not the mindless, bureaucratic nightmare that is the ICC. The issue in question is the Pietersen "switch-hit," where he switches his grip from right-handed to left-handed as the ball is being delivered.

Of course, the ICC wanted to challenge this. After all, it's (*gasp*) inventive and exciting, so the ICC must step in! They asked the MCC to review the legality. And the MCC quickly comes up with such a sensible statement:

MCC believes that the 'switch-hit' stroke is innovative and exciting for the game of cricket. Indeed, the stroke conforms to the Laws of Cricket and will not be legislated against.
...
MCC believes that the 'switch-hit' stroke is a difficult shot to execute and that it incurs a great deal of risk for the batsman.

It also offers bowlers a good chance of taking a wicket and therefore MCC believes that the shot is fair to both batsman and bowler.

The MCC also answered a few of the critics, particularly those who feel bowlers are at a disadvantage since they can't switch style mid-run-up:

Furthermore, MCC acknowledges that while bowlers must inform umpires and batsmen of their mode of delivery (Law 24), they do not provide a warning of the type of delivery that they will send down (for example, an off-cutter or a slower ball).

It therefore concludes that the batsman should have the opportunity – should they wish – of executing the 'switch-hit' stroke.

Well, perhaps not the best analogy, since a batsman doesn't also indicate whether he's going to play a cut, a pull, a Misbah, etc. But still, the point is made - the batsman is taking a risk which is within his right, and the bowler also has an array of tools at his disposal to challenge the batsman.

And the MCC is realistic enough to acknowledge that there are implications for at least two laws - wides (ball going down the legside) and LBWs (ball pitching outside leg stump):

MCC accepts that the use of a 'switch-hit' may have implications for other Laws of the game, principally Law 25 (Wide ball) and Law 36 (LBW), and will continue to research and discuss these implications.

These areas have been referred to and will be researched and discussed by MCC's Laws Sub-Committee, which will next meet, at Lord's, on Tuesday 12 August.

Given the MCC's quick, decisive, and appropriate reaction to this issue, and the way they have preserved and adapted the laws for over two centuries, I am confident they will deal with it properly.

I'll end with a prayer: May the MCC remain forever the guardians of the sacred Laws of Cricket. And may an iota of their sensibility rub off on the ICC.

Darwinism and Cricket

Here's a bit of commentary I read on Cricinfo:

This has set up an intriguing final day's play with West Indies needing 240 and Australia seven wickets. Can a Twenty20 game give you all that? I think not.

I've heard this rhetoric over and over again. People constantly trying to defend Test cricket in a time where IPL and Twenty20 have (temporarily) garnered all the attention. Frankly, I'm getting sick of the rhetoric.

Why does anything successful that is not Test cricket have to be viewed as a threat, or a forbidden love? So much talk of selling cricket's soul (re: IPL and Stanford). Get over it guys!

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.

Here are the percentages of non-drawn Test matches in the last few decades:

1970s: 114/198 = 57.6%
1980s: 143/266 = 53.8%
1990s: 223/347 = 64.3%
2000s: 306/399 = 76.7%

(stats extracted from Cricinfo's Statsguru)

That's a significant increase in positive results. And ODI cricket is definitely a reason for it. So, ODIs have complemented Tests, and both have manged to peacefully co-exist.

There is no question that Tests provide the biggest challenges, the most skill, and the greatest duels, in all of cricket. And that's why Test cricket will endure. But at the same time, Twenty20 will also have its niche. And if crowds like that, then why is everyone so scared?

Outside of England, Australia, and India, Test cricket doesn't attract crowds for the most part - that is the reality. ODI attendance has also waned in certain countries thanks to so many meaningless matches. T20 attendance is up, primarily because of the short time commitment.

Remember what Brian Lara asked the crowd after his last ODI match, in true gladiator fashion - "Did I entertain you?" Lara understood that cricket is as much about skill, as it is about entertaining those who watch it. People want to see competitive, meaningful, engrossing, and result-oriented cricket.

Like almost everything else in this world, cricket is governed by Darwin's Law of Natural Selection. Test, ODI, and T20s will complement, and compete with, each other. But if there are signs of extinction for a certain type (e.g. crowds don't attend, players have no heart, diminishing financial returns), then it better adapt quick, or it will not survive the battle of the fittest.

Too Much, Too Soon?

The Twenty20 Champions League has been given the green light. Surely a step in the right direction, but my fear is that ICC and cricket boards are falling into the trap of over-exploiting the success of T20 and IPL way too soon.

First, late September / early October is not really an ideal time in England. It's hard enough to ensure no rain delays in the summer months. The worst thing for the T20 bubble is a bunch of poorly attended, washed-out, and 7 or 8-over games to decide a champion.

Second, there are going to be several conflicts. You have players who have played IPL, as well as another domestic league. So, what to do about the conflicts? Modi says that IPL will get priority, but this is bound to create issues. And this will be an even greater problem going forward, as more domestic T20 championships spring up.

Third, the "traitorous" ICL players come into play. Several of them have played for non-IPL domestic teams. Modi also has a simple solution for this - any team fielding an ICL player will be barred. Again, something that won't go down too well with some non-IPL teams.

Finally, I could be wrong here, but I don't see much loyalty to the teams. I think those who attend will attend just for some great cricket, or to support specific players, and not to support a specific team. Nothing wrong with that at all, as these are just the beginnings of this new environment, so we are all getting used to it. But wouldn't it be better if the current top 4 national teams met for a T20 or ODI tournament, with a huge cash prize?

It would be better for the ICC and cricket boards to take a pause for now. T20 has gone great so far, so why not revel in the success, and make gradual plans. Don't push the limits though, $5 million prize offer notwithstanding.

I really hope the champions league is a success. Perhaps the player conflicts can be resolved more-or-less amicably, and the weather holds up. But if it isn't, maybe it's the best advertisement for the ODI Champions Trophy in Pakistan that will immediately follow it. Provided, of course, that external factors don't ruin the hosting of the Champions Trophy.

Sledgehammer Makes his Debut

Well Pitched welcomes Sledgehammer on board.

Sledge runs his own general blog (www.buthyaar.com) and is an avid cricket follower. He joined us at Well Pitched a few days ago and his first post can be found below this.

Happy blogging Sledge.

Afghanistan Marches On

As Q had mentioned in a previous post, ICC's Division Five tournament was held to decide two teams to continue on the road for qualification to the 2011 World Cup. The two teams have now been decided - they are Afghanistan and Jersey.

For Afghanistan, a country torn for decades, this is an incredible step. But before celebrations break out in the streets of Kabul and Kandahar, there's a long way to go for the Afghans to make a mark on international cricket:

Afghanistan and Jersey not only progressed through to Saturday’s final but will also join Hong Kong, Fiji, Tanzania and Italy in the six-team ICC WCL Div. 4 set for the Tanzanian capital of Dar Es Salaam from 4 to 11 October.

In turn, the top two teams from that tournament will progress to WCL Div. 3 in Argentina next January and hope to finish in the top two to qualify for the ICC Cricket World Cup Qualifier 2009 in the UAE, which incorporates Divisions 1 and 2.

The top four Associate or Affiliate teams from the ICC World Cup Qualifier will book their places at the ICC Cricket World Cup 2011 to be staged in Bangladesh, India, Pakistan and Sri Lanka. [LINK]

A long and near impossible road, but wouldn't it be nice to see Afghanistan there? And even if they don't make it to the World Cup, just seeing them gain experience and improve is really great. How about Pakistan playing Afghanistan in an official ODI at some point? Preferably in Peshawar - now that would be one raucous crowd!