...when Pakistan was humiliated at Lord's in a World Cup final; can they make amends on the same ground and earn a title?

I know I'm getting ahead of myself here. Pakistan has a semi-final date first. A tough one, regardless of the opposition. But if (and it's a big if) they do make the final, they can at least attempt to erase the pain and shame that was forced on the country 10 years ago.

South Africa will also be looking to avoid repeating the heartbreak of a World Cup semi-final in England, once again almost exactly 10 years to day of their legendary loss to Australia.

New Zealand will also want to turn around their decade-old semi-final result and make it to the final. They have a lot of work to do before that though.

And England would like to be more than the spectators that they were 10 years ago when they hosted a World Championship.

West Indies and Sri Lanka have no time for the "10-years-ago" romantic musings of the other teams. They have no recollection of their performance a decade ago, and they are ready to create their own history. In one case to open their account at Lord's. And in the other case, to cement their dominance at Lord's.

10 years. Unfulfilled dreams. Six teams. One winner.

I read an article on Cricinfo that really touched me. It's about the NZ pacer from the 80s - Ewen Chatfield. I remember him well - his thin frame and signature mustache can not be easily forgotten.

It seems that life after cricket has not been too great for him:

It hasn't been a great time after retirement. He coached his minor association, Hutt Valley, for a long while, only to lose the job when Hutt Valley merged with Wellington. His last job before the current one with Corporate Cabs, was that of a lawn-mower. Then two successive wet winters came.

"There was no income. I got frustrated that I couldn't do enough in summer without killing myself to make up for that." And just like that he called Corporate Cabs, because he "liked driving around". He got the licence and was employed. In between he has worked as a courier, a salesman at a chip shop, and has driven a dairy van. "One of your compatriots," he says of the dairy owner.

"I start at 5.30 in the morning, and I am only allowed to work for 13 hours a day. That's all. You think that's enough? Thirteen hours a day?"

He is not in touch with any of his team-mates. He claims he doesn't get nostalgic, doesn't watch old tapes ("I haven't even seen the 50-run partnership with Jeremy Coney, against Pakistan, to win the match"). There's no bitterness either. [LINK]

I am filled with so much respect for the man. This really is true character. To be content with what you have, to work hard regardless of circumstances, and to hold no grudges or bitterness - now that's a role model.

I know it's not necessarily the responsibility of the cricket boards to take care of the post-cricketing career of its players, but I'm sure they can help out through their contacts and influence. Sure Chatfield is no Hadlee, and he's not had the success of the Crowe or Cairns families either. But he represented NZ with pride and dedication. He played more than 40 Tests and more than 100 ODIs.

This story reminded me of a random encounter I had back in 1999. My mom was visiting me in Atlanta and she wanted to buy some stuff for my home. I dropped her off at a Home Depot Expo (home furnishings) store and came back a little later to pick her up. She said a very nice employee was helping her out and was bringing out the stuff from the backroom. She said he was from the West Indies and was talking about cricket and Pakistan with her.

So when this person came out with the stuff, he started talking cricket with me too. After a bit he said: "You know Ijaz, Wasim, Malik? I played with them." Played with them??? I took a look at his name badge and it said "Lambert". A lightbulb went off in my head, and I asked him, "Are you Clayton Lambert?" And sure enough it was him!

Really enjoyed talking to him, what a wonderful guy. Later I found out he totally dominated the Atlanta cricket league - he even slammed a friend of mine for six after six, on his way to a double century in a 40 over game. Lambert also eventually made it to the US team, and played an ODI for them.

There are so many cricketers I wonder about. Would love someone to do a "where are they now" style show for some of the lesser known cricketers of the 80s and 90s.

The reality is that cricket has not been typically a financially rewarding sport. And in any sport really, there's a small percentage who are well set for life, whereas the majority will have to rough it out like the rest of us. And given that so many sportsmen don't have a solid educational background, things are often tougher for them.

Looks like Allen Stanford is being targeted by the authorities in the US. Things are not looking pretty for him.

The Securities and Exchange Commission, the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority and the Federal Bureau of Investigations are looking into the eccentric money man for alleged fraud involving his Stanford International Bank, which claims to have $8.5 billion in assets and some 30,000 investors.

Sir Stanford--he was the first American to receive knighthood from the government of Antigua and is infamous for his efforts to revive West Indian cricket--has managed to report shockingly consistent returns for years. Even in 2008, when Wall Street was hit across the board, he managed to make a 6% profit on his portfolio.

Regardless of whether he remains involved, he certainly did inject life into cricket, especially Windies cricket. It remains to be seen whether he can continue in some capacity, or whether someone can pick up from where he left off.

Graeme Smith showed some serious guts in the Third Test against Australia by batting with a broken arm. And he almost saved South Africa in what was an enthralling test.

His performance brings to mind a similarly courageous performance more than 22 years ago (wow, I'm feeling very, very old right now!). On the way back from school in Islamabad, my bros and I turned on the radio to get the latest on the first test between Pakistan and West Indies in October 1986. Pakistan, in its second innings, had established an overall lead of around 200 against the mighty Windies when they lost their ninth wicket. Given that Saleem Malik's arm was broken by a Windies pacer in the first innings, we were sure the innings was over.

As we were contemplating the solidity of the lead, the radio commentator in typically dramatic radio commentary style (anyone who listened to Pakistan radio commentary in the 1980s knows what I'm talking about) announced that Saleem Malik was (*gasp*) making his way toward the pitch!!! We couldn't believe it! We rushed home and were able to make it in front of the TV before Malik faced his first ball.

We were mesmerized as Malik defended, avoided, and even steered the fierce deliveries of the likes of Marshall, Patterson, Gray, and Walsh, all with one hand in a cast and one holding the bat. This was truly dramatic, legendary, and heroic stuff, especially for an impressionable 10 year-old who had just recently become addicted to cricket (a certain Sharjah match a few months prior did it for me!).

Malik's presence at the crease allowed Wasim Akram to get his first test fifty, and stretch Pakistan's lead to a more comfortable 240. Incredibly, Malik remained not out, and scored 3 runs in an eventual partnership of 32.

Now, the West Indies were demolished in the second innings and were dismissed for just 53! (I think it was their lowest total at the time). Qadir with six and Imran with four were the chief destroyers.

It's tempting to say that Malik's heroics were unnecessary given the large margin of victory. But I like to think it was Malik's presence at the pitch that won the mental game for Pakistan, and the West Indies could not recover. I felt that way all those years ago, and I feel the same way today!

Thank you Saleem Malik for this memorable contribution, and so many other classic innings. Malik's contributions are often disregarded because of his unwise and dishonorable involvement in certain off-field activities. But the fact remains that he was a great player and contributed a lot to Pakistan with the bat (and, on occasion, with the ball as well!).

If true, this is not good, especially for Windies cricket:

The newspaper claims that Stanford decided on Tuesday to axe his so-called board of legends, whom he had recruited as brand ambassadors. It reported that he lost more than US$40 million on the inaugural Stanford 20/20 for 20 and failed to break into the lucrative US television market, which was one of his core objectives. [LINK]

Personally, I'm not sure why Stanford is looking to break the US market. Even soccer has appalling ratings, and it's been around for so long. Not to mention that the US is a half-decent team (qualified for five straight World Cups) and that it is the number one sport played in school. No harm in trying I guess, but betting loads of cash on it is a foolish and pointless idea, IMO.

A Stanford bailout would also confirm the fact that all roads to cricket riches go through the BCCI and Indian corporate sponsors. And that's not necessarily a bad thing at all (my only reservation being the banning of ICL players, but that's a separate issue for another time).

If someone ever asked me who the most intelligent people in cricket are, I would put Daniel Vettori up there on the list. Not only does he look professorial, his skill, acumen, and achievements warrant such accolades.

However, he has seriously damaged his credentials today in my eyes. Here's what he had to say after the end of the 1st Test against the Windies:

[Vettori] also proposed only one referral per team per innings instead of the three being used in the New Zealand-West Indies series. "What's happening a little bit is the 50-50 ones are coming into play and I don't think that's what it was invented for," Vettori told NZPA.

...

"If you look at it [the Flynn replay], you can see it's out but is that the reason it was brought in ... to decide on such a fine-line decision?" asked Vettori. "The premise of cricket is the batsman always gets the benefit of the doubt and I think you want to still keep that part of the game in." [LINK]

So the referral system is helping umpires make correct decisions, but you're not happy with that? You want the benefit of doubt to remain a part of the game, when there exists a pretty straightforward process to reduce it drastically?

Strange comments really. Not sure why players are so reluctant to embrace this system. And I like how these players use the diminished role of the on-field umpires as their cop-out. Uhhh...hello??? The third umpire is not a backup umpire - he's an integral part of the game. If he gets a bit more responsibility, what's wrong in that?

My biggest concern is the time factor. But so far I have seen little or no complaints about the time factor by the players, umpires, or analysts.

Bad decisions have been extremely costly to teams in the past, and that's why the referral system is a good idea. I'm disappointed that someone like Vettori is acting quite ignorant about the whole thing.