Showing posts with label ICC. Show all posts
Showing posts with label ICC. Show all posts
Thursday, July 14, 2022

Kill ODI Cricket; Let Tests and T20 Cricket Rule the World


Posted by Q at Thursday, July 14, 2022 No Comments
Growing up in the 80s and 90s the cricket staple used to consist of multination tri-series, quadrangular tournaments, and even six-nation tournaments. Ofcourse there were World Cups every 4 years and bilateral tours consisting of Tests and ODIs, but these multination tournaments used to generate a lot of buzz.

They were like mini world cups. Pakistan and India did not tour each other back then either. But they would frequently play in Sharjah as part of an AustralAsia Cup, a Rothmans Trophy, a Sharjah Cup, a Sharjah Champions Trophy.

Besides the two multination ODI series in Sharjah every year, there was also the annual World Series of Cricket played in Australia (aka Carlton & United Series, CB Series, VB series, etc.), which involved three teams compete for the trophy.

Besides Australia, the likes of Pakistan, India, Sri Lanka, South Africa, and England also hosted multination ODI tournaments in that era.

Even unlikely venues like Toronto, Singapore, Malaysia, and Kenya hosted multination ODI tournaments in the 90s.

Those were the best days of ODI cricket!

That is when ODI cricket was exciting. In between world cups, we got to watch the big teams play mini tournaments. ODIs had some context.

With the advent of T20 cricket, the significance of ODIs has diminished significantly. 

Let alone the fact that T20 leagues take up most of the cricket calendar; the biggest problem is the fanbase. ODI cricket is not exciting any more.

When you can watch a more exciting brand of cricket that produces a result in three and a half hours, why would you sit in front of the TV for 8 hours? 

I am a cricket nut. I used to watch every single delivery of an ODI. I still do when it is the World Cup or the Champions Trophy. But bilateral ODI cricket, I just cannot watch. 

I prefer a T20 match, league or international, over an ODI any day.

And that is really the future.

ODI cricket is dying in my view.

Unless multination ODI tournaments are brought back, ODI cricket will be in the grave very soon.

I see the future with only two formats: Tests and T20s.

Test cricket is still very exciting and creates some very interesting battles over 5 days. However, when it comes to limited overs cricket, the T20 format is killing ODIs.

And that is ok in my view.

We all need to evolve.

Cricket is no different.

Year round T20 leagues, a T20 World Cup every two years, bilateral test tours, and a World Test Championship every two years sounds like a great future for cricket.

With the amount of talent available in some nations, and the ability of others to develop talent pools, I will not be surprised if the T20 and Test calendars ran simultaneously.

Nations can develop two very different talent pools - one for test cricket and the other for T20 cricket.

Teams like England and India are already doing this where their red ball and white ball teams are involved in international tours at the same time.

Let each country have their T20 league. Let T20 cricketers participate in whatever league they want. Limit bilateral tours for T20 cricket. Maybe have 1 or 2 of them just before the T20 World Cup to fine tune the national teams.

Let Test cricket run in parallel.

T20 cricket is the way forward for associate nations also. The likes of Afghanistan, Ireland, Scotland, Netherlands, UAE, and even frontier markets where cricket wants to expand like the USA and China have greater potential to compete in the T20 format, relative to ODIs or Tests.

Let cricket expand through T20 leagues and T20 World Cups.

I have not seen the exact numbers, but I believe the number of ODIs played every year has reduced drastically every year over the past decade.

South Africa have already cancelled an ODI tour to Australia in January 2023 due to it clashing with their new T20 league!

Who even watches bilateral ODIs now?

I think the 2023 ODI World Cup should be the last one. Let ODIs die and let cricket live through T20s and Tests.

It will ease scheduling concerns as well.

We literally have a T20 league running 365 days a year. 

The BBL, UAE T20 and the new SA league in January, the PSL in February-March, the IPL in April - May, ECB's League and The 100 in June-July, the CPL in August, and back to the BBL and UAE T20 in December.

If these leagues want the best white ball players available, then where will they find the time to play ODIs?

Players should not be put in this difficult position at all.

The September-October-November window with no T20 leagues should be left for nations to play a couple of bilateral international T20 series, followed by the T20 World Cup.

This gives you a year-round T20 Cricket calendar, which sounds extremely exciting!

At the same time, test tours can continue simultaneously since the test teams will be built around completely different talent pools.

In my mind and on paper, this all sounds like a fabulous way forward for cricket.

Now over to the ICC and the cricket boards to implement it!

Make your pitch on this post...

Share this post...


Labels: , , , , , , , , , , ,


Monday, November 15, 2021

Babar Azam - The Real Player of the T20 World Cup 2021


Posted by Q at Monday, November 15, 2021 Pitched (3)
Yes I know that David Warner played crucial knocks in the Semi Final and the Final of the T20 World Cup, leading Australia to a first time T20 title.

But so did Shahid Afridi in 2009. 

Do you know who was the Player of the Tournament in 2009? 

Tilakaratne Dilshan.

Because he was the leading run scorer of the tournament.

Sri Lanka did not win the T20 World Cup in 2009; Pakistan did.

Similarly, in 2007, India won the T20 World Cup, but the Player of the Tournament was Shahid Afridi. He was the second highest wicket taker and scored his runs at a strike rate of 200!

In 2010, England won the T20 World Cup, and Kevin Pietersen was Player of the Tournament. He was the second highest run scorer and had a better average than the highest run scorer.

In 2012, West Indies won the T20 World Cup, but the Player of the Tournament was Shane Watson. Australia did not even play the Final! But Watson was the leading run scorer of the tournament. Please note that Watson scored 6 more runs than Jayawardene and 19 more runs than Samuels - two batsmen who played in the final.

In 2014 and 2016, Sri Lanka and the West Indies won the T20 World Cup respectively; however Virat Kohli was the Player of the Tournament both times. In 2014, Kohli played the final and was the leading run scorer; however in 2016, Kohli did not play the final and he was the second highest run scorer; however he had the best average.

Then why did Babar Azam not get the Player of the Tournament award in 2021?

Babar was the leading run scorer of the T20 World Cup 2021; he had the most number of fifty plus scores among all batsmen; and he had a better average than David Warner - 12 runs better than Warner's!


Babar was the best performing captain in the T20 World Cup, both in terms of runs scored, as well as, matches won. He was by far the finest captain on show.

For me, Babar Azam was the Player of the Tournament of the T20 World Cup 2021.

Don't really care what the ICC says.

Make your pitch on this post...

Share this post...


Labels: , , , ,


Tuesday, December 11, 2018

Simon Taufel Reminisces about the past and talks about umpiring


Posted by Q at Tuesday, December 11, 2018 No Comments
"The best way I can describe it is that umpiring chose me. I didn't choose it."

- Simon Taufel, renowned former international cricket umpire and former member of ICC's elite panel of umpires.

Having spent over a decade as an ICC umpire, Simon Taufel is now semi-retired and recently spoke to Betway, over Skype from Australia, about his career, what he is up to currently, and how he feels umpiring has changed and can be improved going forward.

Taufel stood in 74 tests, 174 ODIs and 34 T20Is resulting in the best part of his life spent on the road. This trip to Australia however, is for pleasure as he is there to watch is daughter compete in an Under 12s regional tournament.

“When I pulled the pin on my international career," he says, "I sort of thought that I'd lost a lot of my two boys growing up, and I didn't want to lose my daughter."

Taufel was just 29 when he umpired his first Test in December 2000 between the West Indies and Australia.

He estimates that, for each of his 13-and-a-half years as an umpire, he spent an average of between 60 and 70 days officiating, and another three days away for every one that he was on the field. That is about 180-210 days a year!

That is a total of over five years spent away from family.

"It's not easy and it's not for everyone," he admits.

Taufel was only looking for some "handy pocket money" when he took up a friend's invitation to enroll in an umpire's course before starting university in June 1990.

His friend, Dave, failed to achieve the 85% required to pass, but Taufel, managed it.

"If anything, I was always probably a little guilty of over-preparing," he says. "I'm a bit of a checklist freak."

By the time Taufel reached International level, he was reviewing and summarizing six different laws every day to refresh his memory of the cricket rule book. He studied bowlers and batsmen, he reviewed previous series, and he attended net sessions to watch teams train.

He also prepared for contingency by reading up on local airports and alternative hotels in case of emergencies.

All this was before the cricket had even started!

"I think I probably went further than most, simply because I wouldn't describe myself as a natural umpire," he says.

"I had to work harder at my game to feel that I was ready and that I deserved to have a good day out there, rather than just turn up and it be OK."

Such dedication saw Taufel win the ICC David Shepherd Umpire of the Year award for the first five years since the award's inception, though he's since given all but one of the trophies to people that supported him along the way.

"I did feel embarrassed and uncomfortable with those awards," he says, "because umpiring is a team sport and we were singling out one person."

Talking to Taufel, the importance of teamwork between umpires is a recurring theme.










































After retiring from umpiring in 2012, he moved to the head office to work as the ICC Umpire Performance and Training Manager, where he supervised the development and implementation of additional resources to support umpires on the field and in the television booth, including the deployment of umpire coaches to all international matches.

“If I did my career again, I would probably want to talk more about my mistakes," he says.

"To share my shortcomings more with my colleagues after a day's play, rather than keep them to myself and have to deal with them on your own in your hotel room."

One would think that DRS would have helped ease the burden on umpires but Taufel, who experienced only 4 years, out of his 13.5 year career, with technology thinks otherwise.

“I don't think DRS has necessarily made umpiring easier or more difficult," he says. "It's just made it different."

“Pre-DRS, you'd deal with the error later. With DRS, you've got to deal with it at the time.You hear your decision dissected in your ear piece, in front of millions of people, and then, after 90 seconds, two minutes, you have to publicly change your decision and somehow regather your thoughts. You can feel a bit embarrassed and humiliated. It's really tough to move on and focus on that next delivery.”

As was made clear in March this year, when Australian batsman Cameron Bancroft was caught using sandpaper to alter the condition of the ball in a Test match in South Africa, technology has become increasingly important not only in aiding decision-making, but also in helping to manage player behaviour.

"The third umpire, quite easily, has got the toughest job out of the whole umpiring team," explains Taufel.

"Their job is to watch the TV as their primary focus. There should be nothing that goes out to people in their lounge rooms that is missed by the third umpire.”

But, the sandpaper gate, which led to Bancroft, his captain Steve Smith and vice-captain David Warner all being banned, proved that this is not always possible.

"I think it's fair to say that nobody would have expected what happened in Cape Town to unfold before our eyes as it did. As much as you try to simulate different scenarios in a training environment, sometimes there are things that you just think: 'Wow, is this really happening?'"

Taufel was working for Cricket Australia, in charge of umpire selection and match referee management, at the time, and has sympathy for officials that are put in that position.

"The game of cricket is now more commercialised. It's a different type of animal at Test and international level. There are a lot of people who push the envelope to try to get the result to go their own way. I've got no problem with players playing the game hard, no problem at all," says Taufel.

Not many know that Taufel also played some cricket before he went on to become an umpire. He captained his first team at secondary school before going on to play for New South Wales Schoolboys Under-19s alongside Adam Gilchrist and Michael Slater.

He laughs “I played the game pretty hard. I appealed for just about everything I could. I don't think I ever got into trouble with the umpires, but I do remember getting a bit of a bollocking from my coach for swearing on the field. For me, behaviour is a captain, a coach and a team issue. At the moment, people seem to abrogate that responsibility of managing player behaviour through code of conduct or umpires.”

Yet Taufel, who remains the only umpire to have ever been invited to give the MCC Spirit of Cricket Cowdrey lecture, believes that the episode can serve as a turning point for the game as a whole.

“I hold the spirit of cricket close to my heart. Results come and go, but who we are and how we play really defines us. We are guardians of the game of cricket. We have to leave it in good shape for the next generation. The only way that we can do that is through adherence to the laws and to the spirit of that game." 

This is where Taufel believes that players and coaches can learn from umpires.

“You can't change what's already happened, it's part of history now. But, like a cricket umpire who can't change the ball that’s already gone, you can certainly do your best to get the next decision right,” he says.

“That's what I would say to Australian cricket and that's what I would say to the global game: learn from what's happened and use the opportunity to make the game stronger than it's ever been before. That's something that everyone can look at. Not just one country or one player or one captain, it's up to everyone to play their role."

Make your pitch on this post...

Share this post...


Labels: , , , , , , ,


Sunday, January 17, 2016

How Can India be the Number One Ranked Test Team? How?


Posted by Q at Sunday, January 17, 2016 Pitched (2)
England bowling South Africa out for 83 and going on to win the third test, and with that the series, was the final nail in South Africa’s coffin that had been building throughout 2015. South Africa’s capitulation comes as no surprise considering that the last time they won a test match was over a year ago during the first week of January 2015, when they beat West Indies. That was also the last time they won a test series.

South Africa played 8 tests matches in 2015, winning only that one. They could not register a win in Bangladesh where they drew both tests. They could not beat India despite significant verbal volleys before the start of the series. India beat them 3-0. And then England happened.

This England vs South Africa series was supposed to be closely fought. It was anything but. England’s wins have been easy – one by 241 runs and the other by 7 wickets, which could have very easily been by 10 wickets had some of the batsmen not tried to finish the game with big hits. England have dominated.

South Africa’s fall from number one also comes as no surprise as that is what usually happens when the number of world class batsmen in your line up reduces by half. There once used to be Smith, Amla, Kallis, and ABD – a lineup that used to send jitters to attacks all around the world. Only Amla and ABD are not enough. And they have not been enough. Not even for Bangladesh.

The same happened to Australia when Hayden, Lander, Hussey, Gilchrist left Ponting and Clarke alone in the middle. The Aussies however, thanks to their highly competitive club and state cricket are now finding their feet back towards dominance with Warner, Khwajah, Smith, and Voges right up there among the best batsmen in the business.

Anyhow, moving back to South Africa.

They are no longer number one in the test rankings. If they win the last test against England, they will be second; if they draw they will be third; if they lose they will be fourth. Surprisingly it will not be England, nor Australia, who take over as the newly ranked number one test team when the rankings are updated at the end of the England vs South Africa series.

It will be India!

Yes, India!

Sure they beat South Africa 3-0 and also registered series win in Sri Lanka (2-1), but the 5 series before those included a draw against Bangladesh and losses to Australia, New Zealand, England, and South Africa!

So 4 losses, 1 draw, and 2 wins in their last 7 test series and they are ranked number one!

How does that work?

Cricinfo have an “Understandingthe ICC Ranking System” article up on their home page. It is an article from May last year, which has probably been put up now again to explain the same question everyone has been asking since last night – How is India the number 1 test team?

Only 6 points separate India (110) at the top and England (104) at number 5. Australia (109) is a very close second and Pakistan (106) is also only a series win away from being number 1. South Africa will fit in between 109 and 106 points depending on the result of their last test against England.

There is no doubt that there is little gap between these five test teams; however it still does not explain how India is above them all, when it fact it should be below the rest.

Take a look at the series results for the past 3 years, i.e. results of all test series played since January 2013. I’m analyzing this period because Cricinfo explains that results of the past 36 months are the ones that matter.


So how can a team that has won the least number of test series and lost the highest number of test series during the past 36 months be ranked number one?

Any ranking system that provides that result has to be flawed.

Delving deeper into India’s results during this period and one can see that they do not really have impressive results. While they have won series against South Africa and Australia during this period, they have also lost to both them. They have also lost to England and New Zealand, whom they have not beaten at all. They have drawn against lowly ranked Bangladesh. So the only teams they have beaten, whom they have not lost against are Sri Lanka and West Indies.

And that makes them number 1?

What a joke!

On the other hand, a team like South Africa has lost to only India, Australia, and England during this period and suddenly they are no longer number 1 despite series wins against New Zealand, Pakistan, Sri Lanka, India, Zimbabwe, and West Indies during this period.

Even Pakistan for that matter have done better than India has. They have lost only to South Africa and Sri Lanka during this period. They have lost the least number of series during the past 3 years and have beaten Australia, England, Sri Lanka, and Bangladesh during this period.

Surely the ranking system needs some sort of reorganization. Not only because of the way it calculates rankings but also because of another factor. The fact that it does not take into account home and away wins!

According to the Cricinfo article, whether a team wins at home or in foreign conditions has no bearing on the number of points earned. That has to change. Surely India winning at home is not the same as India winning in England or Australia. The latter definitely deserves more points.

There is absolutely no reasoning that can convince me that India is the current number one ranked test team!

Make your pitch on this post...

Share this post...


Labels: , , , ,


Friday, November 6, 2015

Former cricket player Chris Cairns repeatedly denies match fixing


Posted by Q at Friday, November 06, 2015 Pitched (1)













Chris Cairns, the former cricket captain of New Zealand has been repeatedly questioned regarding the allegations of match fixing.  Cairns has repeatedly denied his involvement, and once again had to defend himself in front the Southwark Crown Court in London.

Suspicions started in 2010 when former Indian Premier League Commissioner Lalit Modi posted a tweet accusing Cairns of match fixing. Cairns sued Modi for libel and declared under oath he was innocent, winning the case in 2010. He received £90,000 for costs and damages. It didn’t end there. In December 2013 he was yet again the subject of allegations when ICC (International Cricket Council) initiated an investigation of match fixing. He is suspected to have attempted to manipulate cricket games in the Indian Cricket League while he was playing for Chandigarh Lions. Cairns has denied and rejected these claims.

Cairns countryman and former teammate Lou Vincent admitted to partaking in match fixing in a video testimonial in July 2014. Vincent’s apology for cheating got him banned for life from cricket, but also put Cairns on the spot. Although Cairns won the libel trial and denied his involvement in any match fixing, the Metropolitan Police declared in September 2014 that they would bring Cairns in for perjury in conjunction with the Modi libel trial.

More evidence was brought forward in the still ongoing perjury trial, when Vincent witnessed saying: “I was under direct orders from Chris Cairns to be involved in match-fixing.” Vincent was first approached by an Indian businessman Varun Gandhi believing it was a sponsorship deal. Vincent was offered £32,000 per game and a prostitute, who he later confessed to have slept with. In return he had to under perform in fixed games and got his orders from Cairns. “There were four games I fixed for Cairns in the April/May tournament 2008. I played between eight and 12 games. In three or the four games I was instructed either on the bus or at breakfast. Maybe score 15 runs off twenty balls and get out. “, said Vincent regretfully.

With Vincent‘s vivid testimonial among others, Cairns is now cornered. With evidence ranging from cheating, prostitutes, diamond deals, drug-taking and large payments from bookies it was highly anticipated that Cairns would appear on the witness stand in an attempt to exonerate himself. Cairns is also flanked by his former legal adviser Andrew Fitch-Holland who is charged for perverting the course of justice in regard to the libel trial in 2012 and evidence points to their guilt. The trial is still ongoing and Cairns continues to deny his involvement in match fixing. He claims to never have been approached by bookies to stage the games in order for punters to win on their betting. Therefore it was interesting to read the news recently of Cairns getting up on the stand to defend himself.

The former New Zealand captain claimed that Lou Vincent never told him about the prostitute “gifted” to Vincent back in 2008. Cairns also denied he ever asked his teammate to under perform in fixed games for payment during their time in the Indian Cricket League or that he never suggested such thing. It was an exhibition in no-saying and Cairns seemed composed and confident during the whole questioning.

Whether or not he will be found guilty future will tell, but his reputation as one of cricket’s best all rounders, has unquestionably  been dragged in the dirt for a foreseeable time to come.

Make your pitch on this post...

Share this post...


Labels: , , , , , ,


Thursday, October 9, 2014

Off Spin is Dead


Posted by Q at Thursday, October 09, 2014 Pitched (1)


Make your pitch on this post...

Share this post...


Labels: , , ,


Tuesday, September 30, 2014

This Crackdown on Off-Spinners is Extremely Unfair


Posted by Q at Tuesday, September 30, 2014 Pitched (2)
It started with Shane Shillingford, and then continued with Marlon Samuels, Sachitra Senanayake, Kane Williamson, and Saeed Ajmal in international cricket; and Adnan Rasool, Mohammad Hafeez, Prenelan Subrayen, and Sunil Narine in the ongoing Champions League T20.

These bans and warnings to bowlers is getting a little out of hand I think.

The only thing common among all the names mentioned is that they are all off-spinners.

Off-spin has existed for as long as cricket has existed, but there have only been a handful successful world class off spinners that have played the game. For majority of the game's existence, off-spinners have been used as bowlers who would come on to stem the run flow, or just full in for the primary bowlers.

For perspective, out of the 64 bowlers who have taken more than 200 test wickets, only 4 are off-spinners - Muralitharan, Harbhajan, Swann, and Saqlain Mushtaq. While in ODIs, out of the 35 bowlers who have taken more than 200 wickets, only 3 are off-spinners - Muralitharan, Saqlain, and Harbhajan.

What is interesting though is that despite the few off-spinners among the top wicket takers in the game, the leading wicket taker in both formats is an off-spinner - Muralitharan,

The leading wicket taker in T20 internationals is also an off-spinner - Saeed Ajmal.

And the best bowling figures in a test match also belong to an off-spinner - 19-90 by Jim Laker.

Anyhow, enough with this little historical background. My key problem with all these bans is why now!?

For close to two decades, the ICC allowed Muralitharan to bowl in international cricket, despite the several times that he was called by on field umpires and tested in Australian labs. Not only that, but the flex in his arm, due to an injury or whatever reason, also resulted in the 15 degree allowance for bowlers.

Muralitharan went on to become the leading wicket taker in both tests and ODIs, and sits firmly at the top, well ahead of all other bowlers with over 1300 international wickets to his name.

Luckily, Muralitharan no longer plays international cricket. He only appears in T20 leagues around the world.

What will happen if Muralitharan is warned in a T20 league game and eventually banned from bowling?

Will the ICC scrap his world records?

Is it fair that bowlers like Saeed Ajmal, Sunil Narine, and Senanayake are banned from bowling in international cricket, yet the world record holder was a bowler who had a flex similar, or worse, to theirs?

What suddenly woke the ICC up to start this crackdown on off-spinners?

The fact that it is only off-spinners being banned, can it not be a case that there is a technicality that is being missed? Isn't it quite possible that off-spinners require a greater flex than leg spinners, left arm spinners, and pacers?

There are many questions to be answered, however the most pertinent one is, WHY NOW!???


My geometry teacher always used to say to never trust the eyes when measuring angles; always use a protractor.

We don't need no protractor to see who has the greatest flex among the bowlers in the above picture. It is quite clear to the naked eye.

No ban on any off-spinner will ever be fair because Muralitharan was allowed to play international cricket for 18 years.

No ban on any off-spinner will be ever be fair because Muralitharan is the leading wicket taker in international cricket.

I don't mean to take anything away from Muralitharan's achievements. He is arguable the best spinner to have played the game.

However, just because of precedence and history, the likes of Ajmal, Narine, Samuels, Shillingford, Hafeez et al should be allowed to continue playing the game.

Or the ICC should just scrap Muralitharan from the record books.

Make your pitch on this post...

Share this post...


Labels: , , , , , , , , , , , , ,


Monday, August 26, 2013

The Good, The Bad & The Cricket


Posted by Q at Monday, August 26, 2013 No Comments
Match fixing is a dirty word. Since the biggest scandal to rock international cricket back in 2000 with Hansie Cronje making all the headlines, match fixing has continued to dog a sport known for its gentlemanly demeanor. It’s a term that comes up time and time again and one can be assured that when a team is fairing really bad, odds are there are a few fans mumbling the words “match fixing” under their breath.

Just recently match fixing once again fell under the spotlight when Pakistan went up against the West Indies in July. The Pakistan team was accused of match fixing in St Lucia when in the third match, the West Indies were chasing 230. It doesn’t help they scored just one run from 18 balls. Matters of this nature are bound to raise questions.

More recently the 2013 Bangladesh Premier League came under scrutiny when the ICC (International Cricket Council) charged 9 cricketers for their involvement in match fixing. Of the 9, 7 were charged for fixing while the other 2 were suspended for the knowledge of the matter.

Although only officially brought to light in 2000, match fixing has been around for years and through its dramatic exposure (Hansiegate) has not only tarnished the good name of cricket but has also made it quite clear that the sport has a very seedy underbelly. The murder of Pakistan coach Bob Woolmer back in 2007 has only added fuel to that fire. According to various books published on match fixing, and more specifically ‘Caught Out’, written in 2007 by Laurie A Claase, an investigative journalist and cricket enthusiast, match fixing has an annual turnover of $1 billion.

The general public and fans alike struggle with the idea of match fixing. Many refuse to believe that their cricket idols could become fallen ones. Many also don’t understand why something like match fixing, which is an incredibly questionable betting scheme could do as much if not more business than a reputable and legal casino site like iPadcasino.co.nz that provides punters with a range of mobile casino games to choose from along with a regulated casino environment that assures players of fair play.

The cat is out of the bag and it is safe to assume that the clean image that cricket once held will always be weighed down by match fixing. On the plus side the cricketing governing boards have implemented stringent measures to counter this scourge of the game and the recent indictments in the Bangladesh Premier League is a testimony to their commitment to keep the game clean.

Make your pitch on this post...

Share this post...


Labels: , , , ,


Monday, September 3, 2012

There is no Logic behind Saeed Ajmal's Exclusion from ICC Award Nominations


Posted by Q at Monday, September 03, 2012 Pitched (10)
"I don't mind that I have not been shortlisted for any of the awards. I will try even harder next year and try to win the award next year Insha'Allah"

 Saeed Ajmal's reaction at not being shortlisted for any of the ICC Awards that he was initially nominated for was probably the calmest reaction among former Pakistan cricketers and Pakistan cricket supporters. The news that Ajmal was no longer a nominee for any of the ICC Awards came as a shock to every Pakistan cricket fan that I know.

So are we Pakistani fans cribbing for no reason or are we justified for feeling that Saeed Ajmal was unfairly treated.

Firstly, lets take a look at the shortlist of nominees for three of the Awards:

 ICC ODI Cricketer of the Year: MS Dhoni, Virat Kohli, Lasith Malinga, Kumar Sangakkara

ICC Test Cricketer of the Year: Hashim Amla, Michael Clarke, Vernon Philander, Kumar Sangakkara

ICC Cricketer of the Year: Hashim Amla, Michael Clarke, Vernon Philander, Kumar Sangakkara

All great cricketers no doubt!

What do you think the criteria is behind selecting these cricketers as the shortlisted nominees for these awards?

The awards are for the period between 5th August 2011 and 4th August 2012. Lets take a look at who achieved what during this period in ODIs and Tests.

ODI PERFORMANCES

 Batsmen

Typically I show the leading 10 run scorers whenever I write about leading batsmen in a series or a year, and so on. Here I had to increase the list further to highlight Dhoni's performance considering he's one of the nominees for the ODI Award.


Yes, Dhoni has been nominated for the ODI Cricketer of the Year award even though he was not among the 10 leading run scorers during the year.

So what criteria do you think was used for shortlisting Kohli, Sangakkara, and Dhoni among the batsmen for the ODI Award?

From what it seems to me, they went for the two leading run scorers (Kohli and Sangakkara) and the one with the highest average (Dhoni).

Don't you think that maybe Dilshan should have made the cut instead of Dhoni? Dhoni's average is significantly bloated because of his not outs, which account for 50% of the 22 innings that he played during the stated period.

Bowlers

 The choice of Lasith Malinga among the shortlist of nominees for the ODI Cricketer of the Year Award seems more straight forward - he is miles ahead of any other bowler in terms of number of wickets taken during the stated period.




TEST PERFORMANCES

 Batsmen

 Now you can see a pattern emerging among the choices made for the shortlisted nominees. For the 3 batsmen chosen, i.e. Sangakkara, Clarke, and Amla, the choices are of the two leading run scorers and the one with the highest average during the stated period.

Exactly the way it was done for the ODIs, as shown above.


But does it make sense? what makes Hashim Amla more deserving than Mohammad Hafeez? Or for that matter Shivnarine Chanderpaul? (Please don't read this as a comparison between the class of these batsmen. After all the nominations have been made based on these performances and not on how good a batsman is technically or how good he looks while executing those cover drives)

 Bowlers

 Now this is where it gets really confusing. While the same sort of criteria seems to have been used for selecting 3 batsmen as the nominees for the ODI and Test Awards, this is not the case for bowlers.


Saeed Ajmal is the leading wicket taker in tests during the stated period, just like Malinga was for ODIs. But, while Malinga was nominated for the ODI Cricketer of the Year Award, Ajmal has been ignored for the Test Player of the Year Award.

Why?

The bowler nominated for the test award, Vernon Philander, has no doubt had a phenomenal year. No one even comes close to his average and strike rate, however he is not the leading wicket taker.

Moreover, if the leading average or strike rate were the criteria for selecting the nominee from bowlers, then it should have been Sunil Narine or Steven Finn who should have been nominated for the ODI Cricketer of the Year Award, and not Malinga.

Whereas, if wickets was the criteria, then it definitely should have been Saeed Ajmal who should have been nominated for the Test Cricketer of the Year Award. Don't forget that those performances also include match winning performances in each of the three tests that Pakistan beat the world number 1 test team in.

How can this be ignored? Seriously!

We are not done yet. There is the final category, the Cricketer of the Year Award, wherein Ajmal has also been unfairly excluded.

CRICKET PERFORMANCES

 Batsmen

The same 3 batsmen that were nominated for the test award, have been nominated for the Cricketer of the Year Award, but this time the same criteria, i.e. two leading run scorers and one with the highest average was not used.


These are performances of batsmen across all formats (Tests, ODIs, and T20s) during the stated period, and it really makes me wonder why Kohli and Dilshan were ignored from being nominated. Look at how far down the pecking order Amla is, and this time he does not even have the best batting average.

Bowlers

 Now this is where the real shocker comes.


Just take a look at what Saeed Ajmal has achieved across all formats of cricket during the stated period.

Take a look at it again.

No bowler even comes close to that performance.

A hundred and twenty wickets in tests, ODIs, and T20s; 40 wickets more than the next bowler on the list; and you do not get nominated for the the Cricketer of the Year Award.

WHY!?

Now do you really think that Pakistan fans are cribbing for no reason at all? How can anyone explain the exclusion of Saeed Ajmal from the shortlist of nominees?

I really do not think that there is any logical explanation to this. None whatsoever.

Make your pitch on this post...

Share this post...


Labels: , , , , , , , , ,


Friday, December 17, 2010

We Deserve Answers


Posted by Q at Friday, December 17, 2010 Pitched (4)
What is going on in Pakistan cricket?

Yes we all heard that the ICC gave the PCB an ultimatum about cleaning up their act and getting their house in order.

But what exactly has the PCB been up to since then?

A lot for sure, but why have we, the general public, been kept in the dark?

First Kamran Akmal was not selected for the series against South Africa. Initially there was news about an appendicitis operation, but then even when he was fit, and Haider ran away, the senior Akmal was not selected.

Even Akmal was unsure as to why he was not selected and he requested the ICC for information on whether he was under any suspicion regarding spot fixing. The ICC gave him a letter clearing him!

Then there was the Danish Kaneria issue. A day before the test players were to fly out to the UAE for the series against South Africa, the PCB disallowed Kaneria from joining the team.

Why!?

And then came the news that the ICC has asked the PCB to not consider Kamran Akmal, Danish Kaneria, and Shoaib Malik in the initial pool of 30 players for the ICC World Cup!

Why!?

Yes we all know that there are suspicions regarding match fixing or spot fixing, but what exactly are those suspicions? Does the ICC have have reservations or the PCB? Do any of them have any evidence? Why are there conflicting reports every where? Why aren't the PCB or the ICC coming out in the open and publicly telling us what is going on? Why is everything going on behind closed doors?

Yes, we would like to see Pakistan cricket cleaned up, but whatever is being done regarding it, I believe the general public deserve the right to know.

The latest news now is that the PCB's integrity committee has grilled Akmal, Malik, and Kaneria and has asked them certain questions - what questions!?

We deserve answers!

Not from the players, but from the PCB and the ICC!

Make your pitch on this post...

Share this post...


Labels: , , , , , , , , ,


Saturday, October 30, 2010

What is the Purpose of the ICC Spot Fixing Hearings?


Posted by Q at Saturday, October 30, 2010 Pitched (1)
The UAE was abuzz today with the Pakistan cricket team involved in several engagements.

While Pakistan's ODI squad trained at the Sheikh Zayed cricket stadium in the capital city of Abu Dhabi, Salman Butt and Mohammad Aamer were busy with their lawyers and the ICC Code of Conduct Commission at the ICC Headquarters in Dubai. The two players, suspended for their alleged involvement in spot fixing, were there for the first day of hearings for their appeals against the suspension.

This whole situation regarding the players' suspension and ICC hearings seems a bit peculiar to me. The hearings will not lead to proving the innocence or guilt of either Salman or Aamer - then what exactly is the point?

As far as I understand it, the conclusion of the hearings will result in ICC making the decision of whether the players can resume their cricket careers or not. The players were suspended because the ICC felt that they had violated ICC's anti-corruption code, and now the players are appealing against that and trying to prove that they did not violate the code.

So if the hearings conclude that the players did not violate the code then does it not mean that they are innocent? At the same time if the suspensions remain, then does it not mean that the players are guilty?

Logical reasoning would lead anyone to that conclusion. Yet, it won't and I don't really understand why.

There is another investigation that is undergoing - the police are involved, however charges have not been pressed yet. Wouldn't ICC's verdict after these two days of hearings have a bearing on the decision of the other case?

What happens if the ICC clears the players, but the police charges them? Or if the ICC does not clear them but the police drops all the charges?

For sanity to prevail, both the verdicts need to be the same. Which means that ICC's verdict will surely have a bearing on the overall verdict. Yet the innocence or guilt of the players will not be decided after tomorrow.

Are you as confused as I am?

The statements that Salman and Aamer have given over the last few days indicate that the players are confident about being cleared. Salman has blamed Mazhar Majeed for exaggerating and also defended his association with the player agent. Aamer has been less vocal, yet silently confident of being cleared.

I'm not really sure how these hearings are going to go down, but I just feel the ICC acted in this manner because the world spoke of how ineffective their Anti Corruption Unit was / is. Since they had not been able to do much in eradicating the menace of match / spot fixing, they went ahead and suspended the players to show that they are not a toothless body.

I don't know if the players are innocent or guilty, but its for the police and the courts to decide that, not the ICC. The ICC have put themselves in a difficult position and probably the only way out for them is to clear the players, and sit back for the verdict from the police case.

Maybe that's the reason for the confident statements from Salman and Aamer.



Make your pitch on this post...

Share this post...


Labels: , , , ,


Monday, January 11, 2010

America's First Cricket Stadium (with pics)


Posted by SledgeHammer at Monday, January 11, 2010 Pitched (9)
[Updated to add a few pics directly in this post...scroll to bottom]

So I was visiting Miami a few days back (great place btw - everyone should go there if they get a chance!). While there, I took advantage of a small window of free time to make the short 30-minute drive up to Lauderhill, Florida.

Why Laudherhill, Florida, you ask? Well, it's the location of America's first cricket stadium - the Main Event field at the Central Broward Regional Park. Inaugurated a couple of years back, it has 5,000 seats (with space for accommodating 15,000 more spectators if needed), a pavilion, two pitches, floodlights, electronic scoreboard, well-maintained outfield, etc.

The town has a large population of Caribbean origin, which is why there is an inclination toward cricket. The ground is located in a sprawling complex of various sporting facilities.

There is some cricket held on the Main Event field regularly (domestic, exhibition tournaments, etc), but the field is also used as a soccer and rugby ground. There are four more football fields in the complex, and each pair is designed to be turned into a cricket ground if necessary.

I really don't know why international cricket hasn't been held here yet. It's a beautiful stadium near a wonderful location with a huge passionate fan base for many teams. Well, maybe there is the technology issue i.e. are the facilities available to transform the stadium into a third umpire/hawkeye/etc equipped stadium? And is it cost-effective to do so? Given that so many small stadiums around the world have been able to do this, I can't see why this would be an exception. Another issue would be getting visas to the US, but so many international sports events happen here that I don't think it's that big a deal.

I hope the ICC takes a closer look at the stadium and that cricket boards start getting interested as well. This is a financial success waiting to happen. A short T20 triangular between Pak/India/West Indies would be very well attended, and would constitute a lucrative TV contract as well. People are very keen to see the first international cricket in the US.

Oh well, let me keep dreaming of the potential this ground holds. Hopefully the ICC is listening and my dreams of cricket in the US will turn into reality soon!

Here's an album of stadium pics I put together, enjoy!

Updated: A few pics are pasted directly here for the reader's convenience:







Make your pitch on this post...

Share this post...


Labels: , , , ,


Monday, September 28, 2009

The ODI game lives on Courtesy the Champions Trophy


Posted by Q at Monday, September 28, 2009 Pitched (4)
I was given a lot of stick when I said that South Africa is not going to reach the semi finals of the Champions Trophy.

Many said that I was underestimating them.

I even explained why I thought that South Africa did not have it in them to get to the semis, let alone the distance to lift the trophy.

Even then I was doubted.

I admit that I was not entirely right by saying Sri Lanka and New Zealand will go through from Group B, but I was right about South Africa!

Why they are labelled favorites before every such tournament is beyond my understanding.

Anyway, enough on them.

Something more important that this Champions Trophy has shown is that the 50-over game lives; and it will continue to live strongly.

Just as long as the format is appropriate.

7 ODI series, 55 day long world cups, meaningless triangulars like the Compaq series; all that doesn't work.

But a Champions Trophy, involving the world's top 8 sides, that crowns a champion at the end of 2 weeks works absolutely fine.

The tournament has been exhilarating to say the least.

Every single game has been competitive and exciting with very few dull moments.

So anyone who was thinking that the ODI game was on its last legs, needs to think again.

And the ICC seriously need to re-think the World Cup format.

For me the Champions Trophy has already been a success; it'll be even better if 3 out of my 4 predictions for the semi finalists come true; and even better if Pakistan go the distance!

Still a few big games left, hence surely this competition will only get better near its climax.

Make your pitch on this post...

Share this post...


Labels: , , , ,


Monday, August 3, 2009

WADA's Stipulation Quite Unnecessary


Posted by Q at Monday, August 03, 2009 Pitched (17)
Can you imagine someone asking you for your whereabouts for the next 3 months and also for an hour on each of those 90 days during which you would be available?

More importantly, would you be able to give them an itinerary if you were asked?

I definitely would not be able to.

I have no idea where I will be during the next 90 days. Nor do I know during which hour of the day I would be free for some officials.

How could you in advance?

Sure everyone has a slight idea where they are going to be but the last minute meetings, rushed official tours, emergencies, and hastily planned vacations always come around.

There have been times when I have had to rush to the airport and board a plane and fly out for a meeting arranged at the last minute.

Those are so rushed that at times I didn't even find the time to inform my family and friends that I was flying out.

Then how can we expect cricketers to do the same?

We are after all mere mortals compared to the high profile cricketers whose lives are way more hectic than ours.

How can any cricketer provide a schedule of his whereabouts for the next 90 days?

Moreso how can he even make sure that he informs some official if he is swaying away from the schedule he has provided?

All this to me just seems like unnecessary hassle and stress.

I'm glad the Indian cricketers, and now the BCCI, are opposing this new WADA regulation.

Cricketers from other nations should have also opposed it; I don't know why they agreed to it and provided the ICC with the 3-month schedules.

Actually I don't even know how they managed to do it.

The solution that the BCCI is reportedly going to suggest is one that I fully endorse.

That is the way to go.

Make your pitch on this post...

Share this post...


Labels: , , , , ,


Monday, July 20, 2009

Is the ICC waking up?


Posted by SledgeHammer at Monday, July 20, 2009 Pitched (6)
The 8 best teams in the world.

2 groups of 4 teams each.

Top 2 in each group go to semis.

2 weeks total.

That's the format of the Champions Trophy, and it rocks! This is what an ODI tournament should be all about. Short, simple, sweet, and to-the-point.

The Champions Trophy is certainly an endangered tournament. But a good, short tournament will ensure it stays. I think it's a good addition to the calendar in this form. Two weeks every two years is not a bad deal at all.

Between the T20 and a revamped Champions Trophy, is the ICC actually waking up? Now all they have to do is revamp the World Cup to make it shorter and more meaningful. No hope for any changes in 2011, but perhaps beyond that.

And if you are wondering about the groups, they are:

Group A: Pakistan, India, Australia, West Indies.
Group B: South Africa, Sri Lanka, England, New Zealand.

No way to predict anything because all teams are strong...that's the way it should be.

Make your pitch on this post...

Share this post...


Labels: , ,


Sunday, July 5, 2009

World T20 in 2010 Pushed Ahead by a Week


Posted by Q at Sunday, July 05, 2009 Pitched (8)
No that's not because Shahid Afridi said that Pakistan will not have enough time to savour their victory in the 2009 tournament.

The World T20 in 2010 was always scheduled for April 23rd - May 9th, however this morning saw the news mentioned that the competition will be held from May 1st - May 16th.

No one has officially said why the World T20 in 2010 has been pushed ahead by a week, but I believe its because of the IPL.

That is not a bad thing. I like the IPL; it provides for exciting cricket, which can be up a notch if more cricketers are available for it.

However, if the ICC tournament has been pushed ahead because of the IPL then I would like the ICC to stand up and say it was.

Instead of passing the buck on to the cricket boards and saying that they all got together to agree for the best suitable time, etc etc etc

For if that is how it happens, then what is the ICC there for?

Make your pitch on this post...

Share this post...


Labels: , , , , , ,


Thursday, June 11, 2009

Pre-Seeding vs Rankings


Posted by SledgeHammer at Thursday, June 11, 2009 Pitched (3)
Lots of people I know, and many in the blogosphere seem pretty confused about the way Groups E and F were made up.

Here's some facts to try to clear things up:

  • Each team was pre-seeded before the tournament began. India was A1, Pakistan was B1, England was B2, etc.
  • The constitution of Groups E and F was also decided beforehand. So Group E would comprise of the teams that were pre-seeded A1, B2, C1, D2. And Group F would comprise of the teams that were pre-seeded A2, B1, C2, D1.
  • If one of the third teams in the group (e.g. Ireland, Netherlands, etc) made it through, then they would assume the pre-seeding of the team that didn't make it through. So, since Bangladesh who were pre-seeded A2 did not go through, Ireland assumed the pre-seeding of A2.
  • This is exactly how the ODI WC 2007 was done.

Now does this pre-seeding stuff make sense? For the ODI WC 2007, yes it did. Because each team ended up playing each other in one group. So it didn't matter if you topped your group.

But in T20 WC 2009 it does not make sense. Since there are two different groups, they should each be comprised of two first place teams, and two second place teams. i.e. they should be defined based on rankings, and not pre-seeding.

The ICC does this so that you can "follow your team." So as a Pakistan supporter, I could buy tickets for B1 matches and be assured that I would follow Pakistan in the Super-8 if they made it through. Now, I did do this for ODI WC 2007, but of course Pakistan crashed out so my B1 tickets meant I got to follow Ireland! Hey, they're all men in green, right???

Hopefully that clarifies things a bit. Or adds to the confusion??? Who knows!

Make your pitch on this post...

Share this post...


Labels: , , , , ,


Wednesday, June 10, 2009

Well Pitched on Cricinfo!


Posted by Q at Wednesday, June 10, 2009 Pitched (26)
Yes its true!

Well Pitched was mentioned on Cricinfo's surfer section today and I feel like this is one of our proudest moments.

I thought Reuters linking to us, a radio channel mentioning us, Prem Panicker referring to us, not once but several times, ICC blogrolling us, Cricket Blips ranking us at the top, and Linq giving us some awards were big achievements for Well Pitched.

With all due respect to the above, this mention on Cricinfo is definitely the biggest tick on the Well Pitched CV.

Cricinfo is like the bible for cricket fans across the world and I have followed the site since its inception.

To see your name or your blog's name in print on that website sure feels good.

None of this is ofcourse possible without you readers who keep us going.

Thank you all visitors, readers, commenters, recommenders, et all!

And thanks to Osman Samiuddin, the Pakistan editor of Cricinfo, for linking us over at Surfer.

Make your pitch on this post...

Share this post...


Labels: , , , , , , , ,


Sunday, June 7, 2009

The Absurdity of the World T20 Format


Posted by Q at Sunday, June 07, 2009 Pitched (2)
The Scottish go back home after a weekend of cricket in England, while South Africa and New Zealand become the first teams to qualify for the Super 8s of the ICC World Twenty20.

Now South Africa and New Zealand clash in a league game in a couple of days, the result of which will have no bearing on their standing in their respective Super 8 pools.

How absurd is that?

Very!

Spigot over at 4.5 inches of wood has an idea for the ICC and I like it.

Maybe that's what they should be doing.

That will also keep the minnows like Scotland in England for more than just a weekend.

How many of the Scots will be going to work tomorrow morning?

Make your pitch on this post...

Share this post...


Labels: , , , , , , , ,


Overheard at BCC!


Posted by Q at Sunday, June 07, 2009 No Comments
A conversation between the ICC and the Scotland Cricket Board.

Make your pitch on this post...

Share this post...


Labels: , , , , , , ,


Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)