Jaffa: Beautiful Cruelty?

Richie Benaud has been asked to date the first cricketing usage of the 'jaffa', an unplayable delivery that has left the dictionary editors stumped. In many cases, the OED is unable to tell how a word was invented. It is seeking assistance from people who might claim to have been present when the musical description 'ska' was introduced into british-Jamaican clubs. The dictionary is certain that gentlemen required 'something for the weekend' before 1990 but "finding documentary evidence has proved unusually difficult".

(The Times, 10 June 2005)
http://www.literacytrust.org.uk/Database/language.html#OED


Any one know what the results of this search were or what does OED have to say on it now.
Everything from oranges to cakes have been discussed.


John Hall mentioned that Trevor Bailey has used this term for a long time. What is the earliest known usage of this term in cricket or at least Bailey's earliest usage.


I would like to make a suggestion though this may be completely and utterly wrong and may easily be shown that way by the historical usage but it fits in very nicely and on the face of it sounds plausible (though historical facts may clearly show that this origin is impossible). So throwing out a wild suggestion (Only since other Urdu terms have come into usage in cricket). So with no shred of evidence here is the suggestion.


In Urdu jaffa means cruelty. In Urdu poetry it is commonly used in the sense of a "beautiful cruelty".

New ICC Snick Review Rules

The bat must come in contact with 85% of the ball for a snick decision to be overturned.

Umpiring Reviews: A Confused Approach

Whatever happened to that famed benefit of the doubt? Somehow LBW gets a special treatment. For a successful overturn on an LBW decision the batsman has to be "more than out". Two points are presented in favor of this approach. The first is the famed benefit of doubt must go to the batsman. The second, a modern innovation, is that "enough" of the ball must strike the wicket to dislodge the bails. Lets look at the second one first. Never mind that no such provision exists in the laws explicitly or implicitly it is also the fact that in at least the recorded history of cricket, at least international cricket, such an application has never been made. The law is quite clear: With all other aspects of the decision in favor of the bowler the umpire must decide whether the ball would have gone on to hit the stumps. Would we now ask the umpire to consider how much the ball would have turned after pitching into account when it strikes the pad before pitching? So let us dispense with that.

Now back to the benefit of the doubt. It is supposed to apply to all forms of out. In case the third umpire sees no conclusive evidence of out should he not rule a "not out"? Consider the case of an edge to the keeper. If all forms of technology have failed to conclusively show an edge is not a decision in favor of the batsman an appropriate response under the age old batsman's benefit?

Whom Does the Review System Favor?

Is it the bowlers?
Is it the batsmen?
Is it the run of play?
Is it fairness?

I think it is the umpires.

They are Finally Using Their Heads

The Pakistanis finally started using their heads while fielding. First Imran Farhat dropped a catch but used his head to make sure the ball wouldn't go for a four. Then Ajmal used his head to save may be a couple and finally Akmal used his head to stop the ball from going for four byes. One only wished that Gul too would have used his head and at least saved the six on the catch he had dropped.

Impressed, the New Zealand batsmen themselves used their heads a few times to play the bouncers thus ensuring that there were no catches. There was also an impressive use of the head when the ball jumped up of the leading edge and the batsman had the presence of mind to use his head to bring the ball quickly down before it could have looped for a catch.

Nothing New Under the Sun ... Including Rain and ICCs Inadequate Responses to Rain

Well they have gone and done it again. No reserve day even for the final. Having a precedent of a no results final years ago, one reasonably thought, would lead to some thinking and action over those years. Apparently It did; they asked for weather guarantees. So one must add that it should have resulted in some "reasonable" actions. Instead of asking for weather guarantees and such nonsense ICC would be well served to have an equitable way of producing results rather than these no results.

After the abysmal world cup this was turning into a nice little tournament. The middle of the pack teams really came out to play and gave the top pretenders the run for their money. There was going to be one match in the group stage between two of the top ranked teams. It has now rained out. Worse, teams can lose "free" points against West Indies if any of those games are rained out. With only three games at the group stage the impact of even one rain out is large.

The application of D/L is horrendous. The issues relating to power plays, overs per bowler and setting of the target per ball have be known and discussed ad nauseum. It is a reasonable method only when applied reasonably.

So who is to blame? If it is not ICC solely then it may also be the big four (or some of them) in insisting on such a schedule if they have done so.

Champions' Atrophy

South Africa, the original favorites, are out. Except for Australia of old everyone who has gotten to the top of the rankings has been pretty keen to slide down them at the first available opportunity. Next it will be up to India (and a little bit to Australia) to keep the musical chairs going or to leave the tournament.

The current odder

Australia 5/2
Pakistan 11/4
England 4/1
India 6/1
Sri Lanka 6/1
New Zealand 8/1

Despite the wins (and the only team to have reached the semis at this point) England seem to have not inspired too much confidence among the bettors.

Ranking Odds

The rankings look backwards while the odds look forwards ie ranking depends on what a team has done in the past while the odds are a measure of what people think will happen in the future.
The current ODI rankings clearly divide the teams in three categories with huge margins between the top three and the next four and between them and the West Indies.

The odds for the champions trophy show a somewhat different picture (granted that odds also take the format into account as well ie for example Aus, Ind, Pak cannot be all in the semis etc.).

According to the rankings there is little to separate the top three but when one looks at the odds the differences are larger. No doubt SA gets something extra for being the home team and being the maybe only 'strong" team in its group. India and Aus have pretty close odds.

Pakistan's odds no doubt take a hit from having two"strong" teams in its group. Yet they fare not too bad compared to Sri lankan odds. Perhaps the bettors taking into account that their ranking may be adversely affected because of the lack of games that they have seen. However, England and New Zeland seem to be unduly marginalized in the odds with respect to Sri lanka and the fact that there is only one strong team in their group. England takes a further hit compared to New Zealand perhaps because of their string of defeats against Australia even though rankings claim both England and New Zealand to be even.


Team Rating
South Africa 127
India 126
Australia 125
Pakistan 109
Sri Lanka 108
England 105
New Zealand 105
West Indies 78


Odds
South Africa 5/2
Australia 7/2
India 4/1
Sri Lanka 5/1
Pakistan 6/1
New Zealand 10/1
England 16/1
West Indies 33/1

MCC Issues a Coin

After its stamp and seal it was only a matter of time before we would see a coin.

The front is silver the back is bronze.

Shahjahanabad

Shahjahanabad

The Sovereign City in Mughal India 1639-1739

By Stephen P. Blake

After reading Shahjahanabad one starts to understand some of the military, economic, and governance problems that contributed to the decline of the Mughal Empire. Take the military for instance. While the individual soldiers practised their skills regularly and were skillful there was almost no concept of a thought out military exercise to the extent that Aurangzeb complained that he had not been taught how to lay a siege. Perhaps this character has been somewhat retained in even the current culture. Individual brilliance in team sports while exhibiting little team cohesion has been the hallmark of quite a few Subcontinental teams.

It is a small book (about 200 pages) that covers a lot of ground with a lot of references. Sometimes one feels that the references could have been discussed more but the purpose of the book is academic in that it is to provide the references while giving an overview and it does it well. There are some small errors that need to be corrected.

The only gripe I have against the author is in calling Bahadurshah Zafar an uninspired poet. The man himself may have been uninspired perhaps but his poetry certainly was not.

There were about a hundred men (The emperor, the great princes and the great amirs) who controlled the power, military and economic, at the center. This pyramid structure is even now true to a large extent. Even in very large countries and even now these powers are shared by a few hundred men.

The Short Sighted Led the Blind Nowhere

All countries have the right to refuse entry to anyone, as things currently stand. It is rather sad that having such a small planet to begin with man has found ways to restrict himself and his brethren to still smaller parts of it. We are not going to solve that one anytime soon so to begin again ...

All countries have the right to refuse entry to anyone. However, when they start to do so for sporting bodies the sports fraternity as a whole must object. Tennis did so against UAE. It threatened to remove Dubai from the calendar for removing Peer. England's recent record is something that should be of concern. It got Zimbabwe to remove itself from a world cup and now it has refused entry to a world cup winning team. In the first case there was no international sporting sanction and in the second only the border agents seem to have eyes that will see something. When things get to such a stage it must seriously be considered whether such xenophobia should lead to being excluded from hosting international events.

There is something troubling about pre-judging and doing it brazenly. This pre-emption bit is getting tiresome. It is almost as bad as some of the aircrew's fondness for their newly acquired powers in putting down anyone who doesn't show abject subjugation. Nor is it true that the British government's hands are tied by the recommendations of the border cops. When they wish a certain outcome all governments have plenty of tricks in the bag to achieve it ... or not.

But let us leave the governments and their workings aside for the moment. This was an issue where the self-appointed moral guardians of cricket, the MCC, could have taken a strong public stance in backing the blind cricketers for the name of the game is still cricket. This would have gone much further in making amends for its past rather than that trip to Afghanistan which was a rather shameful attempt to hog the limelight after the Afghan's success. Of course the fact that their players had benefited from playing in Pakistan's domestics and before embarking on their conquest a series of matches had been arranged by PCB for them got little coverage to begin with and almost none afterwards. Before that there were coaches and training that were provided by different figures in Pakistani cricket.

Also remiss were ICC, as the international cricket body, and ECB, as England's domestic body, in not raising their voices effectively for their brothers in the sport of cricket.

Now to return to the border cops. They do not seem to have a problem with a lot of politicians showing up in England when there is little doubt that many have come to stay for extremely long periods if not forever. Not only that they have a very hard time extraditing any of them. But then may be they have no say there against their government's wishes. Kick a few innocent students out but let's keep all the corrupt politicians collected from all over. The thing is that it is likely that it is the British government pulling the strings for other political reasons and the border guards are not as independent as claimed.

Also disturbing were the extent of guarantees asked of the cricketers. The cricketers may have been blind but it was the border guards who were short sighted.

http://groups.google.com/group/rec.sport.cricket/browse_frm/thread/5ef98e7a012e76a1/004ad36427f326a8?hl=en#004ad36427f326a8

The Drugs Conundrum

The WADA-BCCI face off puts in the limelight once again the issue of drugs in sports and questions on how it must be handled. To begin with WADA has had a confused history. Its goals ranging from the fight against drugs to ensuring fair competition. It has not helped that drug testing results have been inconsistent and rulings have been inconsistent not to mention that for the latest drugs there are not tests. Measurements between samples A and B have varied and athletes have escaped detection with designer drugs and recently Gasquet was let off the hook after testing positive for cocaine because he claimed that he had kissed someone who had done cocaine. Which brings us to the problem of recreational drugs. Is WADA in it for the fairness of competition or as a drug Czar. Considering how intrusive it wishes to be it stands to reason that recreational drugs should not be tested for. There is the argument that in many routine jobs drug testing is routine. But it is never as intrusive. Also many of the legal drugs that can be obtained above the counter and are used routinely by many people set alarm bells ringing at WADA because of the unfairness of competition. On the other hand all experts agree that only the accidental or naive users will get caught with outright off the charts numbers in pre-scheduled tests. So to even try to catch the real culprits WADA has to resort to very intrusive procedures. Even then it has been made to look silly where athletes used banned substances for decades before getting caught. There are bound to be many that never got caught.

The privacy is an issue. Other athletes have complained about it. This also shows the the power of the BCCI. It is not the governing body but the BCCI that has decided what will be done. In this case it does have some valid reasons for objection, however, it is also clear that it will do as it pleases as it has done in other cases and the ICC has no power to oppose it. In this sense the ICC has not been able to protect the rights of the other smaller boards against the might of the BCCI.

The Brash and the Frustrated

You did not have to watch the match or the series. All you had to do was look at the faces to know what had happened. Nasir Jamshaid wore the expression of a man who did not believe he should be out there. Aamer wore a layer of frustration on his face thicker than the sun screen he uses. Younis was irritated as was Naved. The only Pakistani who seemed to be having some fun in the stadium was Rameez who has been getting some swing and bounce from someone in the crowd and has dealt with it more deftly than the players have handled it from the Sri Lankan bowlers. By contrast, and surprisingly, Muralitharan was giving Afridi and co send offs and questioning overthrows. Sangakara too brashly told off Razzaq what was he doing running for overthrows when the ball had hit his bloody foot. Sportsmanship is all good and fair and it was fine to give back the run but Razzaq was almost sheepish.

Sigh No More Mendis

The Pakistanis are making Kulasekera and Thushera look like the second and third coming of McGrath. Apart from what they have done against Pakistan they have not done much. True that they are relatively new but it is hard to believe that lightening has struck twice at once. Only time will tell. At this point one has to bet on the side of this being another case of Balaji, Harris or Herath. For one the Pakistanis can't seem to bring down the bat straight and when they can manage a bit of stay, runouts are the order of the proceedings. Suddenly, Afridi and Razzaq lack the power to take the leather off the ball. The history of the Pakistani batsmen falling to mediocre bowlers while tackling the better ones with relative ease is long. One is reminded of Malik showing the way on handling Warne (Though Warne did wreak havoc against later sides) and even as weak as the Pakistani batting has been it has done reasonably against Muralitharan. So Mendis should not lose hope.

All Time XI for Pakistan

Well since cricinfo is doing these here it is for Pakistan. Well its actually more than eleven depending on the opposition, pitch and conditions (Tests).

Openers:
Saeed Anwar
Hanif Mohamad
There are really no other choices for openers.

The rest of the batsmen choose from
Zaheer Abbas (In English conditions),
Miandad
Wasim Raja (Against mostly pace attacks besides with the other players of spin and grafters in there one risky batsman may be ok. Liked a challenge and did well against pace and under trying conditions when others fell.)
Inzamam
Salim Malik
Mohamad Yousuf

If one wants to go with a four man pace attack this is as competitive as any with almost all having the ability to bowl long spells and covering a large variety of pace bowling.
Imran Khan
Wasim Akram
Waqar Younis
Fazal Mahmood

Wasim Bari (with the other batsmen and all rounders he can be in there purely for the keeping)

Spinners
Iqbal Qasim (Left arm)
Saqlain (Right arm)
Qadir
Mushtaq

For All the TV Umpires

Once they have actually seen the incident here are some guidelines to go by when judging a low catch.
1. Look for the bounce.
2. Look for the shadow.
3. Look for blades of grass in "front" of the ball.
4. Look at the position of all ten fingers.
5. Look for other markers in the video that may give a clue as to how low the ball is.

A ground level camera in the stumps facing the slips and the keeper would be nice to have.

My Very Brief Career as a Hand Model

Or foreshortening ...

Change the Ball Lads, Change the Ball

If at first it does not swing change the ball and try again. Replace and repeat is emerging as an effective strategy in the current series. Now only if Inzamam had thought this up at the Oval. Change the ball? No problem. We will be coming back with a request of our own soon ... if the ball does not do much. Imran once mentioned that Sarfraz had the ability to pick a new ball that more often than not would reverse. Which brings us to the question of ball manufacturing and what can be done to make balls more consistent. But first they will have to identify the features in a new ball that predict later behavior and oh before that ... make balls that don't go out of shape after 3 overs consistently.

The Savior of Test Cricket

The phrases praising test cricket and hailing the Pakistan-Sri Lanka matches as shining examples of this were reported more frequently on the cricinfo commentary than the wickets falling during a Pakistani collapse. It got somewhat annoying. Then there was Younis arguing the exact opposite; that in fact it was the lack of test cricket that had led to such misery. Both were somewhat off the mark. The Pakistanis have been doing this act for a few generations. Intikhab must have woken up in the middle of a night in a cold sweat believing the year to be 1973. To the fans of these matches I would say," C'est magnifique, mais ce n'est pas le test match cricket."

But if you are a believer then all the boards should be pencilling in PCB for as many dances as they can on their dance cards otherwise known as the FTP.

Foreshortening Doesn't Make the Ball Bounce on the Ground

Anyway without getting too much into it the solution is simple. Ideally it would be great to watch from below ground level whether the ball bounced but since we are not quite there yet the next best thing would be to put wide angle cameras at the base of the stumps facing the keeper and slips. Of course there is also the side on view that does not cause any "foreshortening".

Strauss may make himself believe that he caught the ball but in this case it was pretty clear he did not, foreshortening or not. He is almost picking it up off the ground being almost careful not to touch the ground as he does so.

There is no way the umpires could have judged it in real time. It was stubbornness or idiocy not to refer it not to mention inconsistency. All the while the proponent of the fielders' word was not so sure about the fielders' word.

Consider the Dilshan

Before the helmet ...

http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=A5IQAAAAIBAJ&sjid=2ZADAAAAIBAJ&pg=2601,185950

Deja vu for Alam

Before there was the internet :)

http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1300&dat=19730104&id=BJIQAAAAIBAJ&sjid=2ZADAAAAIBAJ&pg=5494,478377

And an Alam did his part this time around too.
And opening still a problem.
And the runouts.

Hair to the Rescue

Umpire Hair take a look.
You always know who's the crook.

This is the glove that Jimmy wore.
That's a juice mark not his gore.
Was it a spill or did he pour?

Can you please let us know:
Should we kill or let 'im go?

PCBs Bad Idea

Well its not even PCBs original idea but why would you want to run cricket with a quota based selection committee. There is enough evidence presently available to indicate it is not such a good idea to begin with.
http://www.espnstar.com/cricket/international-cricket/news/detail/item288870/Hanif-writes-to-President-Zardari/

http://www.cricinfo.com/pakistan/content/current/story/414057.html

At least Iqbal Qasim, Jaffer and Iyas are there but quota based systems lead to more divisiveness. There were no ethnic problems in Pakistan cricket so why introduce it? There is no sense in it.

An Innings Reminescent of Miandad

Alam paced his innings really well and scored at a healthy rate without relying on the boundaries in any substantial way and he did it in a pressure filled situation from a position that was not his own. Plus a century on debut.

The morning sessions have been devastating in this match as well as in the first test. Pakistan better be careful in the morning.

This is how the odds fluctuated as the match went on.

1. Pakistan 14/0 second innings
Sri Lanka 2/9 = 0.818
Pakistan 3/1 = 0.25
Draw 16/1 = 0.059
Total = 1.127

Normalized
SL = 0.726
P = 0.222
D = 0.052

2. At tea 61/0
Sri Lanka 8/13 = 0.619
Pakistan 6/4 = 0.4
Draw 10/1 = 0.091

Total = 1.110
Normalized
SL = 0.558
P = 0.360
D = 0.082

3. After over 26 (first wicket down)
Sri Lanka 4/7
Pakistan 7/4
Draw 8/1

4. After 36 overs
Sri Lanka 8/11
Pakistan 6/4
Draw 7/1

5. scores even
Sri Lanka 5/4
Pakistan evens
Draw 5/1
Pakistan moves ahead on the odds.

6. end of day 2
Sri Lanka 13/8
Pakistan evens
Draw 7/2

Doe Lakrharay

BCCI Preparations

How the world cup was won ... and almost lost

quotes from Shahryar and Shashi Tharoor book:
The deadline to submit the required data to the International Cricket Council was in March 2006 but it had to be extended to April 21 as four Asian nations India, Pakistan, Sri Lanka and Bangladesh were still to be ready with their documents.
"...in January 2006, the four Asian representatives gathered in New Delhi to finalise our joint bid for the 2011 World Cup. The last date for the bid was a few days after our New Delhi meeting. To my horror, the BCCI had not completed its preparation for our joint bid which entailed filling detailed and copious forms that ICC had sent out to all the countries bidding for the World Cup," he wrote in the 'Shadows across the playing field', co-authored by United Nations Under-Secretary-General Shashi Tharoor.
"There was consternation in ranks when we -- Sri Lanka, Bangladesh and Pakistan -- pointed out that our joint bid was bound to hit the rocks because India had not remotely completed the data required by the ICC," he said.
Mr. Shaharyar noted that the then newly appointed BCCI President Sharad Pawar ordered Board Secretary Niranjan Shah to complete the work by keeping him awake a whole night.
"Sharad Pawar was naturally deeply upset to learn of this potential disaster and ordered his secretary Niranjan Shah to sit up all night with his South Asian colleagues to complete the data."
But the task could not be completed, Mr. Shaharyar was told by his chief executive Saleem Altaf when inquired.
"We sat up with Niranjan Shah till 3 am but then the effort collapsed because Indian Board simply did not have the factual data at hand. I am afraid our bid will be found non-compliant in Dubai," Altaf told Mr. Shaharyar.
The 75-year-old former army man said Asia's prestige was at stake because of India's tardiness, which he blamed on the absence of a proper BCCI office and paid staffs.
"This was a serious blow and was certain to affect Asia's prestige in the cricket word individually and collectively.
"India's non-compliance was, in my opinion, due to the fact that the BCCI had no permanent headquarters, no secretariat and no paid officials performing BCCI's daily work. This was a stage omission... for the most powerful cricketing nation in the world not to have this basic structure seemed bizarre," he said.
Mr. Shaharyar also revealed how the co-bidders bought time from the ICC by stating failure of previous BCCI regime led by Jagmohan Dalmiya in not passing on the required documents.
"Our presentation was almost certainly going to be found non-compliant leaving the field to Australia-New Zealand. I suggested that at the board meeting we plead for a brief extension on the grounds that India's new board had recently taken over and had not been conveyed the documentation by the previous board for the proper compilation of the Asia's bid," he said.
"Sharad Pawar moved immediately to prepare the ground...he went up to Ray Mali and Peter Chingoka and engaged them in deep conversation... At the Executive Board meeting, he made a persuasive plea to be allowed a brief extension," he added.
The former PCB President explained how India and Pakistan, which unfortunately will not host any 2011 WC matches owing to the unrest in the country, then combined to turn things in their favour.
"India and Pakistan had declined to take part (in Twenty20 World Cup)... but one month later Sharad Pawar and I decided to withdraw our objection, especially as South Africa was to host the championships. It led to firming up of African and West Indian commitment to Asia holding the World Cup in 2011, with Australia and New Zealand being alloted the 2015 World Cup," he said.
"This diplomatic exercises had led to India and Pakistan closely co-ordinating their strategy to gain the World Cup 2011," he added.

http://www.hindu.com/thehindu/holnus/007200907091452.htm

Show me your cause

An excerpt from the PCB FAQ ...

Q. What is the fravorite pastime of PCB officials?
A. Sending each other Show Cause Notices.

BCCI Cowers

No it was not the ICC or any court it was that other powerful cricketing force the Shiv Sena. The Deodhar trophy is back on courtesy of Shiv Sena.
http://cricketnext.in.com/news/deodhar-back-on-dates-to-be-out-soon/42238-13.html

BCCI says it was done to avoid the dissolution of concept ... the concept being the IPL. At least this time the concept is concrete.

BCCI Positions

BCCIs recent spate of decisions and comments have thrown some light on where it wishes to take the game and what are the factors that influence it. It would be instructive to take a look at five of its recent policy statements or actions.

1. Flouts the ICC by not inviting PCB to the world cup organizing committee meetings. This is after it forced its agenda through at the ICC. It is not even following the ICCs (own) decision.

2. Turns protectionist by recommending that foreign players be eliminated from its domestic cricket.

http://www.cricinfo.com/india/content/story/413286.html

3. While it may dictate ICC positions and still not listen to ICC it is all ears to Shiv Sena. Would this be termed giving into terrorism?

http://cricket.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/BCCI-to-reconsider-Deodhar-Trophys-fate-after-Sena-threats/articleshow/4738283.cms

http://www.stabroeknews.com/2009/sports/07/04/indian-party-threatens-ipl-games-over-domestic-event/

Bal Thakaray was able to stop games in India before by threatening BCCI with dire consequences for holding them. If this is what the BCCI gives in to how does it expect to hold the world cup matches if certain elements from within might not want it to hold certain games.

4. Does not include Pakistan or Bangladesh on its FTP draft in essence taking a stance harder than any of the two governments involved. Indo-Pak relations go through their ups and downs but the governments have not banned the "other side" from visiting and even when they have restricted their own teams it is on a case by case basis. The relationship has its swings but even the governments have never gone on to plan the exclusion of the other side over decades which is essentially what the BCCIs FTP draft effectively plans to do. No this has more to do with the BCCIs monopolistic attitude than its stated excuse of the deteriorating relationship between the two governments. It has more to do with keeping what it considers its satellite boards in orbit around it.

5. The level of discourse it has shown by coming up with the dilution of concept. Who is the great thinker who suffered the great pangs of the dilation of conception for this masterpiece?

Points 2 and 4 together infact show that BCCI is not interested in the expansion of the game which is the one of the stated ambitions of the ICC. It is a continuation of the MCC thinking of the past. It seeks to monoplize power at the expense of expansion.

This is a contest of the haves and have-nots or what the PCB calls the cartel of the big four against the smaller boards. I had written in January that this is where things are headed.
http://voiceandview.blogspot.com/2009/01/new-old-fashioned-divide.html

On the Fourth Day Pakistan Created Collapse

continues from
http://voiceandview.blogspot.com/2009/07/match-so-far.html


To continue ...

13. Day 4: Pakistan could do little right. Sri Lankan bowlers stuck to excellent lines and made the ball do just enough and not too much. McGrathish I suppose but certainly did not look as devastating as the batsmen made it look. The way they went on playing and missing it looked like even another five batsmen would not be enough. Yousuf's was a curious out. Almost as if he was seeing the ball where it was not. Can't blame Butt for trying to take pressure off by scoring but again what he can be blamed for is his shot selection. Misbah was the worst. He yet again found a way to get out unnecessarily. He is starting to get a bit of a reputation for these in tight spots. However, the way he was playing and missing it probably took him out of his misery.
14. If Muralitharan is fit Sri Lanka will have a selection dilemma on their hands ... well maybe not until we see the pitch.
15. Pakistan's opening and batting brittleness remain the problems. It will be hard to fix either through selection since they have no other openers on tour and probably the current guys should get the rest of the series to make a claim but things seem to be opening up for the second coming of Imran Nazir.
16. Pakistan's attack did well but it will be too much to expect from a 17 year old to perform consistently at a very high level. The rest of the attack is too new as well. Gul will have to show up if Pakistan are to have a chance to make some reverses.
17. Things to ponder for Younis. The weaknesses were the transition game. At certain points the Pakistanis did not have a clear idea of what they should be aiming for. This led to not being able to drive the advantage through at key moments. Fielding is a problem but it always has been and its not going to be fixed in the next few days. Above all it will test him as a leader of men. He has been a clever tactician on the field and has been strategically sound and has developed his plans well but such a loss can devastate you long enough for the series to be over. He has to get his team back on its feet. He should also give up that line about being slow starters. First in this case it made no sense. Second it starts to sound like an excuse and losing early starts to be an expectation which may be fine for the fans but not the players themselves. It would be interesting if he makes any changes but one looks very unlikely given that he has no other openers out there and rest of the batsmen all did something in the first innings and nothing in the second except of course for himself. In tests it is highly unlikely that he would open with Akmal and opt to drop an opener since it is too much burden for the keeper. It would however give him an option to try Alam down the order. Unlikely though that he will go that far. Depending on the wicket Kaneria may or may not come into it at the cost of Rauf but again probably unlikely. He may choose to show confidence in the players and stick to his team here.

Pakistan Unfirl Another Fast Bowler

Younis Khan.
18 of the twenty wickets fell to four bowlers who had combined to take 2 wickets in test cricket prior to this match. So in that sense Younis was the most experienced bowler of the set.
To boot played night watchmen in both innings, once successfully.

The Match so Far

Interesting match so far ...
1. Younis takes the brave route of batting second on a subcontinental pitch but a very good pitch for anywhere.
2. Pakistan start strongly by getting a couple of early wickets.
3. They give up the early gains by a couple of lousy attempts at catching. The drop by Akmal was specially horrendous.
4. Younis springs a surprise by bringing himself on and regaining the momentum.
5. The momentum is somewhat dissipated by the continued attempts at catching but not catching.
6. Pakistan do well to restrict Sri Lanka to a reasonable score. the check on extras conceded was impressive.
7. Their openers give it up before the day is done (specially Butt). And that was just the first day. 8. Pakistan overhaul the Sri Lankan score with some batting left (5 wickets were down but one was a night watchman).
9. They give up the advantage with two run outs when they could have pushed the advantage through.
10. The only thing which seems up to this point that was in Sri Lanka's control (and where they faltered) was the extras they conceded. A fair portion of the lead came from them.
11. Day 3 Pakistan did little wrong. Somewhat worrying would be Gul's loss of rhythm and Younis's batting. For SL batting is the worry. So Pakistan have set themselves up well. Can they make the final push without faltering this time? This has been their weakness in this match (and in recent years; letting opportunities slide when in control. Hopefully other pitches will be similar.
12. The umpiring has been questionable (some good decisions too). It hasn't been an issue because the teams are on good terms with each other; the bad decisions have gone both ways and probably affected both sides similarly; the match has not gone into a real tight situation yet.

The Tale of Two Loggers

PCB Implosions

With the sacking of the selectors and internal investigations and infighting it will be very hard for PCB to keep its focus on the worldcup issue. Further Butt seems to be dealing with everything. They should get some other people out on the ground. With money issues compounding factors it looks like a bumpy ride even if the bridge is not already out.

ICC Must Ensure Complete Transparency and Impartiality

ICC must ensure the neutrality of the Disputes Resolution Committee and the process should be transparent in who is on the committee, how they got there, What is the scope of their juridiction (is it very limited or broad), What did they consider and what was the ruling.

Next Stop: Disputes Resolution Committee

http://www.hindustantimes.com/StoryPage/StoryPage.aspx?sectionName=Cricket&id=19538a73-8b75-4ad0-a923-85924618d163&Headline=PCB+pins+hope+on+ICC+committee+to+get+WC+hosting+rights



I was trying to find out about the ICC Disputes Resolution Committee and who is on it but the ICC Committees page (http://icc-cricket.yahoo.net/the-icc/about_the_organisation/icc_committees.php) does not list this committee.



May be it is only constituted when a dispute arises.



Under the ICC Departments page (http://icc-cricket.yahoo.net/the-icc/about_the_organisation/icc_departments.php) it says that The Legal Department handles dispute resolution. I don't know whether it is the same thing.



A search for the Disputes Resolution Committee on the ICC page leads to icc-cricket.yahoo.net/pdfs/disputes-resolution-committee.pdf but for now this page is not working.

Dramatis Personae

The BCCI The Dark Lord Sauron
The MCC Saruman the White
PCB The Hobbits
Lalit Modi Gollum (My precious)
ICC Nasquool
Mani Gandalf the Gray
Ejaz Butt Samwise
Younis Khan Aragorn
Afridi Legolas
Pawar The Orc commander
Mohammad Aamer Frodo

Conversations With BCCI Supporters ... if you can call them that

You may find these interesting

http://groups.google.com/group/rec.sport.cricket/browse_frm/thread/b63c0d74dc8919a4/86f05d73a41dc889?hl=en#86f05d73a41dc889

http://groups.google.com/group/rec.sport.cricket/browse_frm/thread/a736b572e11b4670/2ff440ed2e284022?hl=en#2ff440ed2e284022

http://groups.google.com/group/rec.sport.cricket/browse_frm/thread/f8daa5d14a413228/4475084be6dc0b3e?hl=en#4475084be6dc0b3e

The Tale of Two Loggers: The Graphic Novel

A work in progress

Fans of BCCI and Experts on Contracts a Query for You

Can you tell us how those of you who support the BCCI position on the world cup justify the IPL contract position of the franchises and the BCCI. Now the ICC has given governments unilateral power to act to stop players but the boards do not have such power. What was written in these IPL contracts that allowed the franchises first of all to on an ad hoc basis cancel or suspend the contracts. Second what were the rights granted to the franchises to act unilaterally in the contracts. Third if the basis of the suspensions and cancellations was that the matches will be in India then once the matches moved why did those suspensions and cancellations not become nullified. The issue is that no player can take on the BCCI in the courts. It will financially finish them off since no one can litigate as long as the BCCI and knowing its vindictive nature players who resort to legal measures will not be awarded any further contracts. Even the ICL, which had a lot of money, could not sustain a battle against the BCCI. That does not make BCCIs position correct. It just makes it a monster.

Next is the removal of the PCB team from the Champions League again on an ad hoc basis without consultation of any of the other partners. This was not purely invitational. BCCI got the votes against ICL and got the ICL players banned on the basis that these teams will play in the Champions League. As soon as the votes were in and ICL broken the PCB team was excluded from the Champions League. Let us even consider the case that this was purely invitational even then once invited PCB vacated that period of time on the calendar for the benefit of BCCI. It could have had other activities during that time but some of those opportunities were lost. This should result in the BCCI having to pay compensatory damages but again it is so big and a ghunda that it becomes very hard to counter it.

A Children's Tale

The BCCI supporters main argument now seems to be that the four countries were tasked by the ICC to hold the world cup matches and therefore legally (contractually) if PCB cannot hold the matches in Pakistan it should forfeit its rights and a fifth country should not be allowed because of the wording of the contract (Not that anyone has yet seen the contract or whatever document is being used). The BCCI held its IPL tournament in South Africa due to security concerns so why isn't this valid for the PCB? Because they say its contractually so and if the other boards (meaning BCCI) do not wish it so then contractually it cannot be done (again never mind that we have not yet seen this piece of paper).

For the moment let us grant them this position that this line is present in the contract. I would like to tell you a children's story that I wrote and I think would make a fabulous children's book, if I say so myself, with a few nice illustrations. So here we go ...

The Tale of Two Loggers
(Doe Lakrharay: That is the Urdu version)

There were once two loggers Ghatia and Barhia.
They were hired by a log cabin builder, Thali Ka Baingan, to deliver logs to his new cabin site. Ghatia had many yellow trucks and Barhia had a Green truck.
"Deliver the logs in five days in your trucks", said Thali Ka Baingan, "and I will give you each a thousand dollars."
Four days before the delivery Barhia's truck broke down.
He went to his friend Mudadgar and asked him if he could borrow his truck to deliver the logs.
Mudadgar was happy to help Barhia.
When Ghatia found out about this his greedy eyes lit up. He had thought up a way to get Barhia's share of 1000 dollars.
He told Barhia that Thali Ka Baingan had told them to use their trucks. "You cannot use Mudadgar's truck.", said Ghatia, "I will use another one of my trucks and I will rent it to you for eight hundred dollars."
"But what's wrong if I use Mudadgar's Truck?", said Barhia dismayed, "He is not charging me anything."
"No you cannot do that it will cause dilution of concept.", said Ghatia.

Author's aside: At this point in the story invariably some kid gets up and asks, "uncle what is dilution of concept?" Unable to handle the big words it usually comes out sounding something like what George Bush might say: The lotion of constipation. You have to shush the child and tell him he will find out in due course. Ok, back to the story.

"I am going to use Mudadgar's truck and I will let Baingan know that I will arrive in his truck.", said Barhia.

Now Ghatia had already talked with Thali Ka Baingan and told him to tell Barhia to use the Ghatia Truck Company. He threatened Baingan, "I control most of the trucks. If you do not do as I say you will not be able to build another cabin."

Therefore when Barhia came to talk with Baingan he was ready. Said Baingan, "I explicitly said use your trucks. You cannot use anyone else's trucks but we will let you have two hundred dollars for doing nothing."

Barhia was angry and went to the judge. The judge called in everyone and listened to Barhia's complaint. After Barhia had finished the judge said to Thali Ka Baingan, "If Barhia uses Mudadgar's truck will all your logs be delivered on time?"
"Yes.", said Thali Ka Baingan.
The judge then turned to Ghatia and asked, "If Barhia uses Mudadgar's truck would it cut into your original share?"
"No.", said Ghatia.
The judge was perplexed. "So why wouldn't you two let Barhia use Mudadgar's truck."
Thali Ka Baingan kept quiet but Ghatia said, "It will dilute our concept."
"What is that?", asked the judge.
"Well Thali Ka Baingan had specifically stated that we use our trucks. The concept of "our trucks" would be diluted.", said Ghatia.
The judge looked at Thali Ka Baingan and asked him whether he agreed.
Baingan mumbled something about that he had used the words their trucks.
Now kids if you are the judge what do you decide. Do you let Barhia use Mudadgar's truck or would you let Ghatia go forward with his plan?

For the adults who still do not get it they can read that play by Shakespeare which said something about a pound of flesh.

Thuggery or the Art of Twisting Arms

For those who think there is anyone else other than BCCI behind the move to take the games away from PCB the following article from The Telegraph (India) might be instructional. Also note Morgan's words

“A fifth country? The board considered that but it has decided the 14 matches originally allocated to Pakistan should take place in the three other Indian subcontinent countries of the full members,”



Compare that to less than a week earlier,

"There are already four host nations. There could be a fifth country hosting matches."

Also note he does not give any reason. Certainly not the dilution of concept. Infact now there is no reason. It is just that we want it so.

A STAFF REPORTER
Calcutta: The International Cricket Council (ICC) has ruled out shifting Pakistan’s share of the 2011 World Cup matches to a neutral venue, reaffirming that the games taken away from the troubled nation on security grounds will be held in the other three co-host countries.
At the board meeting in London, the ICC refused to give back Pakistan its share of 14 matches, besides ruling out the possibility of involving any other country.
One learns there was considerable arm twisting by the BCCI to ensure that Pakistan did not get back its matches and Sri Lanka and Bangladesh fell in line. Some of the other boards also supported the BCCI.
“The ICC World Cup 2011 Central Organising Committee has been asked to meet as soon as possible and recommend to the ICC board, venues within the other three host countries for the 14 matches originally set for Pakistan,” the ICC said in a statement.
ICC president David Morgan said the neutral venue option, floated by the Pakistan Cricket Board itself, was discussed at the meeting but was eventually ruled out.
“A fifth country? The board considered that but it has decided the 14 matches originally allocated to Pakistan should take place in the three other Indian subcontinent countries of the full members,” Morgan said.
“We need a recommendation from those four host nations, including Pakistan. They will come forward with the location of those matches to the commercial board of the ICC,” he added.
The ICC’s commercial board also reiterated that Lahore would no longer be the World Cup administrative headquarters, which has been shifted to Mumbai.
Meanwhile, the PCB accepted the ICC board’s offer of a task team to help ensure Pakistan retains its position in international cricket. No country is willing to tour the strife-torn nation.
In another decision, the ICC has shifted the under-19 World Cup from Kenya to New Zealand after the African nation was found to be underprepared for hosting the event in February.



http://www.telegraphindia.com/1090627/jsp/sports/story_11163855.jsp

Arguments from the BCCI Supporters

Well if you wish to read the kind of arguments that are coming from the BCCI supporters these days on the issue of the PCBs games in Dubai here is a sample:

"What is Pakistan's standing to demand that games be played in Dubai? If there was any agreement in force between the various parties hosting the 2011 World Cup (and if they had sought legal advice) or if the ICC had agreed terms with the putative host nations, it seems likely that such agreement would have included either an implicit or explicit force majeure clause. These clauses typically state that if the circumstances assumed at the time the agreement was made change so drastically that the contract cannot be performed, it will be varied or cancelled entirely (on defined or undefined terms).

"Clearly the Lahore attacks seem to present a force majeure. Clearly, also, there is a simple solution: remove the games which were to be hosted in Pakistan. Any compensatory damages would be the subject of the initial agreement. To be honest, I'm not sure that damages from the ICC are the right remedy for the PCB. There's a fairly strong case that instead, they should seek recompense from their own government for failing to maintain security at a level where the games could continue.

"It falls to the ICC or to the other subcontinental countries (depending on which agreement gave Pakistan the right to host matches - I suspect that it is some combination of the two) either to vary or to cancel the initial agreement entirely. Why the PCB - which is the subject of the change in circumstances and seems to be receiving more than adequate compensation for no longer hosting the games. At that point, their opinion should not really matter, and the reallocation of the games becomes a matter for the remaining parties to the hosting agreement. The onus is on Pakistan to show why, on top of compensation, it has any contractual right to demand that matches be played in the UAE in addition to receiving compensation. Beyond statements suggesting that they would like this to be the case and shifting the onus to the other boards to argue why the games should not be played in the UAE, they have done nothing of the sort."

I should add that this is not the BCCIs argument itself which has been limited to the dilution of concept.

My response essentially has been:

"Now an unusual circumstance has occurred. The affected party is providing a solution which in no way affects the financial status of the other parties as was agreed. The affected party is trying to find the solution that best serves its financial interests while changing nothing for the other parties involved. Why is the BCCI so damn greedy? At least explain this dilution of concept reasonably enough. Note that Morgan didn't use this term."

and

"BCCI or its supporters are telling us how they will have to to do all this extra work and on top of that will have to pay PCB for doing nothing. PCB is saying please do us no favors. We will do our administrative part. We will not cut into any money that you are going to get and let us handle our part. Now BCCI itself has only claimed this dilution of concept. Why doesn't it clearly define it and tell us how much money it will lose because of this dilution. Also why doesn't it publish how much it will stand to gain(or what it will gain) by getting the extra matches. In a contract it is not majority rule in every sense that oh the majority thinks you shouldn't have anything so you the fourth partner will have nothing. That is why I think things should go to court and we will know greater detail of the contract and what each party is hoping to really accomplish. But as a general over arching rule if one party is able to fulfil its obligations without affecting what others are getting the court will ask the question: What is your problem? And they better have a good answer. This dilution of concept does not look good. "


If you wish to follow the whole discussion you can go to the link below. Oh and ignore Jane while you are there :)

http://groups.google.com/group/rec.sport.cricket/browse_frm/thread/f464eedd1ff61694/e362739928d08336?hl=en#e362739928d08336

Butt Shows Mettle

Butt has in the past sometimes sounded almost petulant. But he has come out with a very measured response to the ICCs statement yet sticking to his guns (http://www.cricinfo.com/wc2011/content/current/story/410550.html). He dispelled any cloudiness on the issue.

As I wrote earlier that BCCIs history shows that it would never agree to anything willingly and that ICC (with a very large number of BCCI-related employees) will just be its rubber stamp. The real question was whether the PCB will fold. Can Butt hold the fort?

Life is Funny that Way

Or BCCIs guide to How to Kick a Friend When He's Down: A Case Study

"It's a miracle that we were able to finally file the Compliance Bid on April 20, a day before the final deadline. After being informed by the Pakistan board officials about presenting the joint bid, we came to know that we were utterly lacking in completing the formalities. Then February 28 was the last date to file the bid. I along with Srinivasan and Niranjan Shah [Indian Board officials] flew down to Dubai for filing of documents. We spent two days in ICC office trying to understand the formalities to be completed."
Bindra said they had sought time from Ehsan Mani, the ICC president, and pleaded at the meeting of the ICC board that due to the regime change of the Indian Board a lot of things were still in transition, due to which lot of time had been consumed. "In between taking permissions from the highest Governmental levels and not talking about the problems we faced with Bangalore and Kolkata associations, we finally filed the bid on April 20."


http://www.cricinfo.com/india/content/story/246390.html

Judge, Jury, Executioner or the Justice of the ICC and BCCI

Yesterday ICC came out with the statement:

"The ICC President David Morgan reported to the ICC’s commercial board (IDI) following recent discussions concerning the issues the Pakistan Cricket Board (PCB) has in relation to the hosting of matches in the ICC Cricket World Cup 2011.

"The IDI Board reaffirmed the decisions it took at its previous meetings (17 and 18 April in Dubai), that Pakistan would no longer be a host location for the tournament and that Lahore would be removed as the tournament’s administrative headquarters."

For the full statement see
http://icc-cricket.yahoo.net/media-release/2009/june/media-release20090626-59.html

So one naturally wonders who is on this commercial board. While that may be hard to locate but let us look at the Commercial affairs committee that reports to this IDI entity. From the ICCs website:

ICC FINANCE AND COMMERCIAL AFFAIRS COMMITTEE
The Finance and Commercial Affairs Committee was established to report to the IDI Board on all matters relating to Finance. This includes ICC Events, Financial Results, Budget & Planning, Commercial Matters and Business Partner Program, Investment Program, tax planning, sponsorships and sale of commercial rights.


Chairman
Sharad Pawar
Members
Giles Clarke

Haroon Lorgat

David Morgan OBE

Neil Speight

Lalit Modi

Alan Isaac

http://icc-cricket.yahoo.net/about-icc/executive.html

moved to http://icc-cricket.yahoo.net/the-icc/about_the_organisation/icc_committees.php


If you are not yet laughing or crying that is probably due to the fact you have no clue who these gentlemen are. It seems when Morgan and Lorgat sit and talk about the decisions being handed down by the IDIs commercial arm they are in fact talking about themselves in third person. To top it off the chairman Sharad Pawar is the head of the Indian board with whom the dispute needs to be resolved and of course there is the ever present Mr. Modi of the "ad hoc IPL rules to exclude the PCB team." But we are not done yet. The supposed neutral mediator that the ICC has appointed to "help" Pakistan remain in the cricket community (whatever that means) , Giles Clarke, is also a member of this esteemed body.

http://icc-cricket.yahoo.net/about-icc/executive.html

I was Going to Write a Tragicomedy but ...

Now I can just lift the dialogue right out of ICC and BCCI officials mouths ...

David Morgan: There are already four host nations. There could be a fifth country hosting matches. (The ICC President, July 15th)

Haroon Lorgat: There is no question of a fifth country. The board has considered that and decided that 14 matches that were allocated to Pakistan should take place in the other three host countries - India, Sri Lanka and Bangladesh. (The ICC Cheif Excutive, July 20th)

Source: Initially when Butt met ICC President David Morgan and vice-President Sharad Pawar in London, the latter had assured him things would be resolved.

Sharad Pawar: I can do nothing if the Indian board does not want the matches to be held at neutral venues. (In a later meeting to decide the venue question)


What is the pretext for avoiding the neutral venue? You guessed it: Dilution of concept (see http://voiceandview.blogspot.com/2009/06/whats-this-dilution-of-concept-that.html if you are unclear on the concept). One wonders if Mr. Morgan spent some time trying to understand this dilution. Any cricket journalist out there care to ask of this so oft repeated phrase that it is now a cliche.

Now one must remember Mr. Morgan is the same person who after ascendancy to the presidency actively campaigned for the Oval Test decision to be overturned and the match awarded to England (rather than remaining a neutral force as president whatever his personal feelings).

After his initial statement he seems now to be now firmly behind his cheif executive's skirt afraid of the wrath BCCI or Sharad Pawar may inflict on him. Infact he is telling us how PCB has accepted the decision.

Sources:
http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5gtErc1Ip8ha7MJ2Qs-OQcdePniqw

http://www.cricinfo.com/ci/content/current/story/410516.html

http://www.hindustantimes.com/StoryPage/StoryPage.aspx?sectionName=Cricket&id=687b700c-20bf-49e3-b059-949ff3a639dc&Headline=PCB+unhappy+with+BCCI

Winning the World Cup was Easy

Now comes the true David vs Goliath in the form of the the PCB vs the BCCI. Not only is it that the BCCI have all the money and clout and the PCB have none but right now it is has been cast out by its fellow Politburo members awaiting the fate of the cast out Politburo members. To top that off BCCI is run by battle hardened politicians and businessmen while the PCB is essentially run by a bunch of amateurs. Not only is Goliath big it also has David's sling in its hand. That custodian of morality in cricket, the MCC, is firmly in the right moral corner with assigning current BCCI players only to its cricket committee and busily arranging IPL games on its ground. No, not a peep will be heard from them or anyone else for that matter. It is truly sad that the republican age of the ICC lasted all but a decade. Yet once the MCC was the ICC and there was one little board that chose to question its unquestioned bluster. It took a long time to rest the ICC from the MCC. The new usurper stands even more menacing and is still gaining strength but the little hobbit must travel to Mordor ... not to restore a king but to save the republic.

It's Going to get Very Very Nasty

http://www.cricketnirvana.com/news/international/2009/june/news-20090623-437.html

http://www.cricinfo.com/pakistan/content/story/409953.html

http://www.dnaindia.com/sport/report_mohammad-yousuf-faces-bcci-swrath_1267924

http://www.cricdb.com/archive/international/news/detail.php?nid=1926

But none of the opposing boards have really explained why they are against the neutral venue but that they are most definitely against it.

The BCCI Agenda

Let's put this dilution of concept nonsense behind us and look at the real reasons behind the BCCIs lack of enthusiasm for Pakistan's proposal for its games to be played in Dubai. The reasons are fourfold.
1. Since the late eighties BCCI has been averse to Dubai and has tried to keep the cricket there to a minimum. The reasons for this are basically financial. In the early days Dubai's cricket organizers made a lot of money (for that time) by primarily holding Pakistan and India games. BCCI realized the potential and also saw Dubai as a threat to its dominance. If there was a lot of money to be made why shouldn't it be the one to do so? Why share it when it controlled the team? The betting and other issues have been smoke screens. The BCCI does not like to share. This is also apparent in its treatment of the ICL. The ICC wanted the BCCI to come to terms with ICL but it refused. And it wanted BCCI to come to terms because legally it was in a vulnerable spot. Even now most elements in the ICC do not have a problem with the PCB playing its games in Dubai but they dare not upset the BCCI. BCCI, if past history is something to go by, will not relent on this by itself. The only thing that may compel the ICC to force a resolution is the threat of the lawsuit. Even then it is hard to see the BCCI relent. Dubai is a viable market that the BCCI feels cuts into its market (because of demographics). It wants to keep the venue unviable.

2. Its the money. While they will pay out hosting fees there is other money involved. On one hand PCB is accused of getting free money for doing nothing. They are shouted down by slogans such as taking the tournament hostage and blackmailers but when they try to go out and participate and find their own solution they are accused of breaking the code of the brotherhood. After all they are not taking any money that would have originally gone to the other hosts. Financially they are trying to find the best deal for them which also makes sense tournament-wise and also gives them a hand in the organization of the tournament. There is all this talk of standing shoulder to shoulder in the fight against terrorism and here the countries of the ICC have a choice to allow the PCB to do what it can in Dubai but most of them are silent in fear of the wrath of the BCCI.
3. Its payback for the IPL ban. There are at least two other actions that support this line of conduct. One, removing the PCB team from the Champions League without any notification or talks on an ad hoc basis where rules were virtually created out of nothing to suit the BCCI agenda. There is also currently a cessation of the BCCI-PCB tours. Its a way to force PCB to play in India while not playing in Pakistan. Two, when Ranatunga was threatening IPL participation of Sri Lanka's players the BCCI went to the Sri Lankan government behaving like the East India Company. After the BCCI tour to Pakistan had been cancelled PCB had arranged a tour with Sri Lanka. BCCI went to Sri Lanka offering games instead resulting in the modified tour.

4. BCCI does not need PCB anymore. BCCI already got the votes and support it needed against the PCBs ICL players which were the most threat to it since they were closest to the current international players that the ICL had. With all the money now involved the other big boards are now willing to get into bed with BCCI rather enthusiastically as observed in SA during the IPL when all CSA could think of was how to get the IPL again and MCCs overtures for games at its ground. They all have now teams in the Champions League. Champions League will become an instrument of keeping the smaller boards in line. Anyone who does not act in a way that the BCCI feels is proper will find itself cutoff.

What's This Dilution of Concept That BCCI Officials Keep Talking About

A conversation
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.sport.cricket/browse_frm/thread/0fd38acde2c7c706?hl=en#

Can someone at BCCI explain what the dilution will be?

Break the Bank, Bring Down the House, and Leave the Building

Younis Khan has manged to do all three ending it all on almost a perfect note. The sixty-four thousand dollar question is of course who gets the captaincy? Names of Akmal, Misbah, and Afridi have been thrown about. Misbah was the last designated vice captain and probably for continuity should take over. Two things that may go against him are his age (He is thirty-five) and Afridi's recent success. In Pakistan cricket the recency effect is usually over pronounced. Unless there is widespread descent against him Misbah should take over the reigns with maybe Afridi as the captain-in-training (He does wish to be the captain). In two years time at thirty-seven Misbah would probably be ready to retire and Afridi can take over if things have gone smoothly. Besides there are likely to be not too many international twenty20 matches except in the world cups.

The Unsung

Who is the best cricket coach around these days?
1. He has led three teams to world championships.
2. Most of his charges were young.
3. His bowling units were the outstanding feature. So at least probably the best bowling coach.
4. Also was part of a world cup champion team as a bowler.

Aaquib Javed.
Currently Pakistan's assistant coach but the primary skills coach. Alam, who mostly handled the personnel, had his second success in a world cup as a coach.

Return of the Old Gaurd

If the 2007 Twenty20 World Cup led to the discovery and rise of Misbah and Tanveer then the 2009 version was the return of the old guard. To be sure there was a newer generation on display as well but it was Razzaq and Afridi who came in from the cold. Razzaq had been dropped before the last Twenty20 Cup and was put in the deep freeze after the BCCIs insistence on banning ICL players. Afridi too was drifting in the nether regions for some time though his bowling had improved over the last year. But this was a new Afridi his final innings more reminiscent of Miandad's perfect pacing of the innings than the Afridi of old.
Miandad on the eve of the match said that there are a hundred and twenty balls and if you take a single every ball you have a 120 runs. Wasim Akram backed them to win it all when not many were willing to give them a chance. Gul, who finally installed himself as the premiere limited overs fast bowler, was in constant contact with Akram, Younis and Akhtar who helped him out. Afridi has already mentioned that Qadir had helped him out with his bowling. It was a coming together of the generations.
The team could not have asked more of the next generation of players in the final. Aamer, his action still somewhat flailing, bounced out the man of the tournament and performed credibly in the semifinal. It is hard to see Shahzaib remain in the openers slot and I don't think it was his position to begin with but he finally gave Pakistan the start they had been lacking all along. It was nothing spectacular but for the first time the next batsman went in with considerably less pressure.

Shoaib Malik returned to his old versatile self and being the ultimate team man. His bowling did not click his batting form was mercurial but he stuck it out and got the job done. In some sense he was the link between the last Cup and this one. If he had led Pakistan and took them to the final then he was fighting in the trenches this time. One man who probably did not get so much attention but performed a vital Gilchrist-like role at the top of the order was Akmal. With the bind Pakistan was in at the opening spot he shored up one end and produced some quick runs. Then there was the erstwhile journeyman Ajmal who came able and willing to play with the big boys.

The team was undercooked and Younis made some critical tactical mistakes and media gaffes but he brought together the resources he had at hand, which were less than ideal mostly due to the ICL drops, and produced one of the most important results for Pakistan cricket.

This Is Not the End

One of the worst, if not the worst, scenarios for cricket in Pakistan played itself out. The most grievous error in judgment was not to provide the highest level of security to the one team that was willing to tour. There seem to be three basic causes for this: First incompetence and then the falsely held perception that westerners are the likely targets. Lastly the current politics for government forming in Punjab must also have been a distraction as police and administration officials were jostled around.

If the security arrangements had been sufficient even then an attack would have led to the cancellation of the tour but perhaps the attackers would not have come in such close proximity to the players and officials. However, there is some chance that the attackers may have opted out if there was more security. This has some legs because these were not suicide bombers and were relying on getting away. Now the new wrong perception being perpetuated is that this is a Mumbai like attack. This is completely different: First in Mumbai though the locations targeted were specific but the people were targeted indiscriminately. Here there was a very specific target: The Sri Lankan team convoy. The Mumbai attackers were trying to maximize casualties while the Lahore attackers were very specific in their targeting. Second the Mumbai attackers were in it to death while the Lahore attackers wanted to and (for now at least) did get away. This is another question which will have to be asked: Why were all fourteen able to get away? Certainly they had put some thought into it. Their objectives too remain unclear. Were they trying to inflict casualties on the Sri Lankan team or did they want to kidnap them (which some have suggested) or was it just that they wanted to create an incident to show instability. While certainly they had no regard for life at this point the third option seems to be the more probable reason for their actions.

At this moment the setback is large. However, some of the initial comments and reactions of despair in the press not withstanding this is not the end. There will be fallout. Go back and fix what needs to be fixed.

The New Old Fashioned Divide

The twenty over game has finally brought BCCI on top of the cricket administrative ladder. Even though India had the revenues when it came to international cricket England still held sway until recently. It had the MCC, the tradition, the counties where players from all over the world still come to play for the experience and the money. It also had the votes when it came to most issues at the ICC. Australia has been mostly happy playing second fiddle to the MCC first and then the ECB. West Indies was always a weak and mismanaged board always reliant on outside stimuli and mostly siding with the MCC and ECB. New Zealand though better managed had neither the players nor the market to match and was also usually compliant to the MCC and ECB wishes.
For all its cruelty towards ICL the BCCI must thank it for finally forcing it to implement the IPL. For the first time players from all over the world wished to play in a league outside England. Of course players from outside have played in Australian and other domestics but comparatively these numbers have been low. CA had no problems in assuming a secondary role here as they were used to it. The ECB on the other hand panicked at the sight of its supremacy being challenged. It negotiated itself out of the Champions League organization trying to come up with a rival league. Slowly it is coming to terms with the fact that it may have to treat BCCI at least as an equal. It probably also found some solace in the fact that still after all as far as the first class and list A cricket is concerned the counties are where most of the international players still show up. Will this interest lessen if for a few days of IPL players can make enough to not be tempted by it? No the conditions are at least not ripe for that to happen yet.
The losers in all this have been the smaller boards. While BCCI, CA and CSA joined hands for the Champions League and ECB made its arrangements with Stanford the others were at a loss. West Indies which had inducted Stanford into cricket were severely criticised by him for their mismanagement and may see reversals in that relationship with Stanford eyeing the English game more seriously (The ECB is yet at odds with itself and the MCC here. Everyone wants the Stanford money but not his influence). West Indies for the foreseeable future will become even more dependent on outside influences and will remain a very weak force.
Ranatunga tried to get Sri Lanka at least a piece of what the hegemony was going to divide amongst itself. He had to walk a fine line. In part he appeared strong in part autocratic. His players certainly did not wish to lose out on the IPL money and the government also seems inclined that the Sri Lankan cricket administrators remain mostly compliant to the BCCI as long as they can have at least a little bit of the money from the BCCIs coffers. Ranatunga may have done better if he had taken his players and the government (since the board comes directly under its control for now) into confidence and tried a more comprehensive approach. With him being sidelined it is clear that the Sri Lankan board will play the role of a satellite.
New Zealand's subjugation was obvious with the ban on Bond. This after they themselves had granted him the permission to play in the ICL. It has been a perennially weak force and nothing on the horizon appears to change that.
Zimbabwe of course has become a pariah to some and the decline in its cricket standards has left it as a non-member member. As for Bangladesh the boards constituting the hegemony are already trying to come up with ways on how not to invite them. In the weak position that they are there is no choice for Zimbabwe but to be fully in line with BCCI. Bangladesh may be a little put off by the BCCI suggestion that they should only stick to home series but what choice do they have. They will get some invitations from Sri Lanka and Pakistan.
That leaves PCB. With the problem of non-visiting sides it is turning into a non-entity if it was not already so for the last few years. It has no stake in the Champions League and its players positions in the IPL are under threat.
The hegemony will be fine. ECB and BCCI will come to an understanding. With the Australian team in the rebuilding phase CA will be even more subdued and busy with its own problems. The divide will be along the haves and have nots. West Indies cricket has already suffered because of it. New Zealand cricket will continue with its mostly mediocre existence and for the time being Zimbawe will fall further back. Bangladesh is so far behind that it can only improve and for now probably the only thing worrisome for them right now is not being invited by the hegemony boards. That leaves Sri Lanka and Pakistan. Two teams that do have enough in player resources to compete for now but they have to find a way to solve their financial issues independently to remain viable in the long term. Ranatunga's experiment to that end failed in Sri lanka and the PCB has not come up with any radically new ideas.