While a number of bloggers, mostly Indian, complain of too much cricket much like their ODI captain MS Dhoni, I can't get enough of it.

Since the IPL all the series' played have had something to watch out for.

There was the New Zealand fightback in the ODIs against England including the last ball win, KP's switch hits, Collingwood' mood swings, emergence of McCullum as a top order test batsman, England's excitement over Bopara, Strauss proving he is here to stay, Southee showing why he's the best thing to happen to NZ cricket for a long time.

There was the West Indies trying to compete against the Aussies in the tests, a younger Australian ODI side showing why they will remain one of the best sides for some time to come, another ODI that went to the last ball, a stunning 92 from Gayle, the exciting IPL opening combination of Shane Watson and Shaun Marsh, Johnson with the white ball, David Hussey finally making it to the ODI side and hinting at why he should have been there long before.

There was the short and sweet tri-series in Bangladesh where Pakistan against all odds defied India the trophy, Younis Khan's "silencing the critics" 100 in the final, India's largest victory over Pakistan ever.

There was the battle for the Asian supremacy, where Sri Lanka emerged champions on the back off yet another spinning freak, India failing in their 2nd successive final within weeks, Misbah's emergence as potential captain, Younis Khan's continued run of form, Sehwag and Gambhir's opening salvos, King Sanga at his best, Sanath Jayasuriya breaking down all age barriers, Amjad Ali showing the talent present in the UAE, Saeed Ajmal and Abdur Rauf letting the selectors know how ignorant they have been, and Suresh Raina coming of age.

So why exactly have the cricket fans been bored?

I fail to understand.

And there's more to look forward to as the South Africans gear up to take on England and the Indian Seniors try to do to Sri Lanka what the juniors could not.

With the final ODI between England and New Zealand just a few hours away my mind is still on the controversary from the 4th ODI. Just to refresh everybody's memory, with the game hanging in the balance and New Zealand in the midst of a fight back 8th wicket partnership the spirit of the game came into question.

England's fast bowler Ryan Sidebottom collided with New Zealand's batsman Grant Elliot and knocked him to the ground. With Elliot flattened, Bell picked up the ball and ran Elliot out. After some moments of confusion and indecision England's captain Collingwood was asked by the umpires if he would like to uphold his appeal; Collingwood made the decision to still appeal for the runout thus tilting the match to his side's favor. The New Zealand dressing room erupted understandably so as this seemed completely against the spirit of the game. Was it? Had Collingwood crossed the fairplay and decency limits of the game?

My initial reaction and thought, more than likely purely emotional, was that Collingwood and England had violated the spirit of the game and crossed cricket's line of decency. With the batsman being flattened by a collision with your bowler it just seemed wrong not to call the batsman back. It just would have been the right thing to do to call Elliot back.

But then one has to contemplate on the fact that there have been many runouts resulting from an incidental collision between the bowler and the batsman. Sidebottom was going for the ball and did not knock Elliot down on purpose. So were Collingwood and England okay to appeal and get Elliot to take the angry walk back to the dressing room?

I am a huge fan of good sportsman spirit and because of that I think the right thing to do was to call Elliot back; actually the best thing to do would have been not to appeal in the first place. Actually, why is nobody talking about Bell throwing the ball to get the runout - if he did not throw the ball to run Elliot out then there would be no controversary!

In the end it was poetic justice with New Zealand winning on the last ball. Everybody made the right statements after the match - Collingwood saying he should have called Elliot back and Vettori saying that his team overreacted. I cannot help but feel that New Zealand's victory helped save the spirit of game and preserve the sport from being tarnished.

The biggest debate around the cricket world this week has revolved around Kevin Pietersen's Switch-Hit.

Before I go on with my 10 paisas, I would like to point out to this news piece that dates back to over 5 years ago.

Shortly after winning the World Cup in 2003, Australia's coach John Buchanan came out with a future development plan of sorts for cricket's future in Australia.

As the article states the key objective was to "think about how the game is played and how we can play it differently".

John Buchanan's response to the "playing it differently" was "develop ambidextrous players who can field, bat - and possible even bowl - right and left-handed".

John Buchanan went on to say that by the next World Cup, which was held last year, Australia would have players who would be able to use both sides of their body.

He described Ian Harvey as one who can throw with both hands, and Adam Gilchrist as one who can hit the ball left handed as well as he does right handed.

Before going on, I want to ask my 1st question.

Why didn't the ICC or the MCC or anyone else question the legality of ambidextrous players who could bat and / or bowl either right handed or left handed?

Was it because no one thought that would ever happen?

We didn't see that skill on display at last year's World Cup, but we did see it during the 1st ODI between England and New Zealand when Kevin Pietersen switched his grip, switched his stance, and hit Styris for 6. Not once but twice. (Link above).

But that isn't the first time Pietersen has played that shot. This clip shows Pietersen doing exactly the same to Muralitharan in a test match played in 2006.

Pietersen switched his stance, stood like a left hander and played a reverse slog sweep and sent the ball over the ropes for 6.

And the picture on the right shows that Pietersen has played that shot in matches before the 1st ODI between England and New Zealand.

Why didn't anyone question its legality then?

Was it because it was a reverse sweep and not a shot hit over the bowler's head?

Even before Pietersen, I distinctly remember one Jonty Rhodes do exactly the same. He played the reverse sweep different than most batsmen.

While the reverse sweep was largely played by turning the bat in the hand and sweeping the ball the other way without a change in stance or grip, Jonty Rhodes used to change his grip and stance, in effect becoming a left hander, and then play the sweep.

I couldn't find clips to prove that, but I do remember some commentators questioning if that was allowed.

Why didn't anyone check the legality back then?

Is the hue and cry, which has thankfully been cleared by the MCC, all because Pietersen sent the ball sailing over mid off, or was it mid on, rather than sweep it?

Whatever the answer to the above questions, all it does is goes to show that one day the ICC might be concerned over an issue that has been totally ignored in the past.

In either case, as Sledgehammer points out in his last post, thankfully common sense has prevailed and the MCC have termed the switch-hit legal. Even though I feel there was no need to check for its legality since it has been played for some time now.

What needed checking or revising were other rules that go flushing down the drain if a batsman deploys the switch-hit.

Rule 1: Bowlers switching hand of delivery

That article in which John Buchanan talks about ambidexrous players concludes with "You've got to inform the umpire or they might see it as cheating. If you told the umpire and the batter knew, that's be fine".

That refers to the bowlers switching their hands before the delivery.

This is the first rule that I believe needs to be looked at and ammended or added or whatever it is the MCC does.

The rule in my view should imply that a bowler needs to declare the side of the wicket he is going to bowl from (i.e. over or around) but he doesn't need to declare which hand he is going to deliver from.

It's simple really, if the batsmen can switch from right to left or vice-versa, the bowlers can too.

Rule 2: The Wide Ball

A ball delivered down leg is a wide even if it misses the batsman or the stumps by an inch. This is fine, though what happens to deliveries bowled on the off-side, which becomes the leg side when a batsman switches?

Surely they should not be wide.

But then deliveries bowled down leg side, which becomes the off-side when a batsman switches, should also not be wide.

Rule 3: LBW

A ball that pitches outside the line of leg stump rules out the LBW. But then what about the ball that pitches outside the line of leg stump, which becomes the off stump when he batsman switches?

That should not rule out the LBW.

And the ball that pitches outside the line of off-stump, which becomes the leg stump when the batsman switches, should also not rule out the LBW.

The batsmen have a lot of things going their way in ODI cricket, and its high time the rule makers do something for the bowlers.

Som, who openly criticizes the use of the switch-hit and considers the plight of the bowlers, may not be as against it if these rules were implemented.

Nor would the others who think its unfair.

Not only did they win the test series against New Zealand, one from England also displaced me from the top position in Sportsfreak's tipping competition.

King Cricket is now at number 1 on the leaderboard and I have to take off my orange cap that I had been proudly wearing for the last 2 weeks.

I have a chance to get it back when Sportsfreak adds on the series tips, but I think my tipping form has slipped.

Typical Pakistani - start with a bang, end with a whimper! Though I'm holding on to the 2nd position currently, I could drop lower. (Need for some bonus points Sportsfreak).

Well I guess since they have been in the Wisden and all and England have won the test series, its only apt that King Cricket sits on top of the leaderboard.

At number 3, there is another Englishman - The Suave one from Republique Cricket. England have reclaimed the number 3 spot in the test rankings and Suave has done the same jumping up from number 5, where he stood after the 2nd test.

Sportsfreak, who is running the competition and at the same time has claimed to "blatant and careful rigging" is at number 4, dropping a spot from the previous tips.

The first Australian, in the form of Miss Field, makes an appearance at number 5 on the leaderboard. Its strange seeing anything Australian so far down a cricket leaderboard, particularly more so when those above are from England, New Zealand, and Pakistan.

The Silly Point, who was sitting pretty at number 2 at the end of the 1st test has dropped to number 6 at the end of the series. He is followed by Moses from Beer and Sport at number 7 and Martyd from Cricket Action and Art at number 8.

The bottom 4 on the board are equal on points with Cricket with Balls, Sports Review, and Ben & Mike from Mike on Cricket completing the leaderboard.

The fact that Cricket with Balls ended last on the leaderboard goes to show that there is no correlation between tipping and cricket blogging.

Sportsfreak promises more excitement with tipping competitions for the upcoming 20-20 game as well as the following ODIs.

Hopefully the Kiwis will do better in the ODIs and the 20-20 game.

Actually, definitely they will do better.

Since the popularity growth of 20-20 cricket, speculation on when a batsmen will get an ODI double hundred and who the first one might be has been doing the rounds.



Today saw the 8th List A double hundred when England batsman Ravi Bopara hammered an unbeaten 201 for Essex against Leicestershire in the quarterfinal of the Friends Provident Trophy.

Jacob Oram, Ross Taylor, Ricky Ponting, and Shiv Chanderpaul all had short stints in the Indian Premier League and all 4 hit test centuries during the last week.

Brendan McCullum who also appeared in the IPL made a run a ball 97 in last week's 1st test between New Zealand and England.

McCullum has a test strike rate of 65.07. He is still topping the IPL strike rate table, during which he scored at a rate of 204.34. His 97 came of 97 balls - 34.93 more than his career strike rate.

Oram's 101 in the 2nd innings of the same test was scored at a strike rate of 83.47, which is 32.48 more than his career strike rate of 50.99. His rate of scoring in the IPL was 150.00.

Taylor's unbeaten 154 in the 1st innings of the ongoing 2nd test between New Zealand and England came at a strike rate of 87.50. That is 29.02 more than his career strike rate of 58.48. His IPL strike rate was 183.95.

To put things into perspective, Micheal Vaughan scored 106 in the same test in which McCullum and Oram played these innings. Vaughan, who did not play in the IPL, scored at a rate of 49.53 runs per 100 balls.

Ricky Ponting and Shiv Chanderpaul had relatively less successful IPL stints than the New Zealanders mentioned above. They hardly got going and managed strike rates of 73.58 and 80.64 respectively.

Ponting's 158 in the ongoing 1st test between Australia and the Windies came at a strike rate of 70.53 (12 more than career SR), while Chanderpaul's 118 in the same test came at a strike rate of 42.75 (almost similar to career SR).

Out of the 5 test centurions and near test centurion that appeared in the IPL, only 1 scored at a strike rate less than his career strike rate. The other managed to score well above their career strike rates.

Is this a trend that will be more apparent going forward? Or is it just a one off coincidence?

Or maybe its just something about the Kiwis. They managed scoring rates that were faster by 30 runs or more than their career strike rates.

Have the Kiwis started playing more aggressive cricket? Or has the IPL had an impact on them?

I know it is too early to speak about how the IPL or 20-20 cricket has affected scoring rates in test matches but the trend above could go on to be an indicator of the times ahead.

Whoever thought that 20-20 cricket and leagues would kill test cricket. Think again.

I think it will make test cricket more exciting!

(NOTE: All times are UAE standard time, +4h GMT)

This is what the weekend would have looked like if we had an international weekend, i.e. Saturday / Sunday.

Saturday 24th May 2007

1:00pm: Alarm Rings. Press Snooze.

1:05pm: Alarm Rings. Press Snooze Again.

1:10pm: Alarm Rings. Press Stop. Get up and sit. Look outside the window. Change Alarm to 1:30pm and sleep again.

1:30pm: Alarm Rings. Jump out of bed.

2:00pm: Fox Sports. England vs New Zealand 2nd Test LIVE from Old Trafford.

2:30pm: Switch to Prime Sports. Chennai Super Kings vs Rajhastan Royals LIVE from Chennai.

2:30-6:00pm: Keep switching from Prime to Fox and back.

6:00pm: Fox Sports. Watch end of Session 2 on Day 1 of England vs New Zealand.

6:30pm: Prime Sports. Delhi Daredevils vs Mumbai Indians LIVE from Delhi.

7:00pm: Ten Sports. Day 2 of Australia vs West Indies 1st Test LIVE from Kingston, Jamaica.

7:15pm: Switch back to Prime and IPL match.

7:15-10:00pm: Keep switching from Prime to Ten and back.

10:00pm: Ten Sports. Last session and a half between Australia and West Indies.

2:00am: Go out.

3:30am: Come back home. Watch LOST.

5:00am: Set alarm for 1:00pm. Sleep.


Sunday 25th May 2007.

1:00pm: Repeat above.

Do you know what it feels like to be Adam Gilchrist?

Matthew Hayden sure does.

Back at the training camp for Australia's tour to the West Indies, Hayden feels that a shift in gear would be required for the tests after his short stint at the Indian Premier League.

Hayden said that he would need to adjust to the longer version of the game. His exact words were:

"Jaquesy and I have to graft away for four-and-a-half hours before we get a chance to express ourselves, in Twenty20 it's a great relief for opening batsmen to feel like you have a licence - you feel like Adam Gilchrist."

Well what can one say when Gilly's long time opening partner felt relieved to feel like him. I wonder if Hayden also wants to be like him. Be the cricketer that Gilly is. Be the man that Gilly is. I don't know what I mean by what I've just said but I felt like taking a dig at Hayden.

Besides Hayden; Ricky Ponting, Micheal Hussey, Andrew Symonds, Ross Taylor, Jacob Oram, Brendon McCullum, Shiv Chanderpaul, Ramnaresh Sarwan, Dwayne Bravo will all be returning to the test fold after 20-20 stints with the IPL.

Will these batsmen suffer from an IPL hangover? Will the adjustment to tests be a difficult one for them? Or are they good enough batsmen to adapt easily?

They are good enough I think, but I sense that the likes of Micheal Clarke, Phil Jacques, Jamie How, and the Marshall brothers will upstage the IPL members of their test sides.

The tests are coming up and it will be great to watch.