Bans and Just-a-few-no-balls

Hello and welcome back to my blog

Monday was Justin Vaughan’s birthday and I can’t imagine he enjoyed it very much. On the one hand the top team under his watch just managed to lose a tournament they looked secure in; simultaneously wasting an opportunity to test new players and gain useful time in important conditions (for the World Cup next year). On the other hand, the team that will be the only international tour in New Zealand this summer was exposed as a sham, full of players indebted to match fixers. Now the Pakistan team is under investigation, arrests have been made, phones confiscated and a former ICC president made a hasty call to ban the team completely. Then in New Zealand you have hack TV presenters suggesting that ‘just a couple of no-balls’ doesn’t represent a huge problem. Where to start?
Just a quick timeline then:

• January 3rd-6th – Australia record a seemingly remarkable 36 run victory when Pakistan collapsed to be 139 all out
• After that series several players were given bans or fines after tales of infighting and poor performance were uncovered. Many of the penalties were lessened by the time the team came to play in England this winter
• July and August – The test series between England and Pakistan began well enough with batting collapses and reverse swing attracting little attention (in comparison to previous encounters)
• August 26th – the fourth test at Lords began in style with England collapsing to 7-102 before recovering and then proceeding to a giant score of 446
• August 28th – Pakistan made just 74 in reply and then 4-41 before being hurried away from the ground just 20 minutes after play ended for the day. News of the World releases allegations surrounding Asif, Amir and Salman Butt after a match fixer admits to having several players in his pocket.
• They were able to correctly predict that specific deliveries would be no-balls
• August 29th – while being booed and talked about all over the world, the Pakistan team crashed to their worst ever test defeat and now a shadow hangs over the rest of that tour if not the team’s future in the sport

There are plenty of opinions flying around as I type this but there are two contrasting points I want to concentrate on here:
The first is the call to ban the Pakistan team from international cricket. I will admit this did cross my mind. Mainly because this appears to be an irretrievable situation - particularly if players as young as Amir (18) are involved – how can that team continue to function if their recent and future results are now suspicious? Plus the inclusion of the teenager hints at deep levels of corruption. However this reaction is simply that and it is ultimately unfair to ban a nation from playing in this way. Even though the excuse ‘but their player’s are talented’ is nonsense and can be dismissed immediately, it would not be wise to simply ban the team. With such a precedent, the ICC would leave itself open to banning Essex and Australia just to name a few. Plus there is no way to know just how prevalent this problem is in other teams; did anyone ask the question when New Zealand lost by 105 runs against India this week? Should we have? There is also some kind of racist or partisan tone to simply banning Pakistan from cricket, as if by banning ‘that’ team that always has problems the sport is clean again. This element appears most clearly when people speak as if the players are greedy by nature and that match and spot fixing is simply a matter of saying NO. You can always route out the pundits that don’t know what they’re talking about when they fall back on this, the simple truth is that players are often tricked into this situation (accuse them of naivety or stupidity if you must) and violence is threatened if they try to escape. The first answer is to set up a tight network for players to use when they are approached; probably more difficult in practice than in words. Thus our judgemental eyes must swiftly swing away from the players and fix squarely on the PCB and ask if their private interests and power struggles are worth the damage it is causing their national team
The second issue appeared more locally (although I imagine media in other countries would include reports of a similar tone), and that is the dismissal of this matter as insignificant; after all it was just a couple of no-balls. Mark Richardson of The Crowd Goes Wild (Prime Television) and Sky Sports expressed this view last night and should have known better – he played the game for heaven’s sake. The incident in question was perhaps more low key than those in the 1990s when whole matches were being decided by bags of money but Richardson’s comments are just as reactionary as the view expressed by Malcolm Speed (mentioned above) and miss the point and certainly the finer points. It is not the no-balls that destabilises the sport its: first the notion that multiple players are in on this and second that to what extent would they agree to spot fix (or match fix?). The corollary becomes how many games have been effected and how many will be in the future? The former question currently occupies most of the Australian press after the Sydney test in January and the latter worries the rest of us – particularly those where Pakistan are going to tour next. If elements or even results of games are predetermined, then what is the point? This is what the fans will ask and the answer is there isn’t any and they will not watch it. Furthermore, the reports about the no-balls also included warnings that perhaps TWO of the ODIs between England and Pakistan WILL be England wins by arrangement – a point that Geoffrey Boycott was good enough to highlight during Test Match Special.
No Mr. Richardson, it isn’t just a couple of no-balls, it’s the integrity of the sport and for anyone who might hastily, nervously state ‘but it’s just Pakistan, not our boys’ would do well to consider how sure of that they are. That is the effect of this situation and for New Zealand Cricket, December just got closer so how will Justin Vaughan answer these questions? I wish him luck but at least he won’t be as foolish as some of the people mentioned here

Well that’s it from here and I hope you join me again

It’s good bye for now

Mistaken identity

Hello and welcome back to my blog

If there is one thing I have learnt in the last month or so is that Test Cricket is both feasible and important to the survival of the sport. A test match is designed to allow for a contest that swings between both teams and where the conditions of day 1 are remarkably different from those on day 5. In the end a test match should examine every aspect of a player's technique, mental and physical, and this is far more entertaining and inspiring than a 20 over slog fest. This is why traditionalists talk of the 'pure' form of the game.

If test matches provide a reasonably balanced battle between bat&ball then people will and do come to watch. The recent tests in England were wonderful examples of test cricket near its best with steady-to-very good crowds at the various venues. Even the Australia/Pakistan series was well attended. However on the other side of the world India and Sri Lanka played on a pitch so flat that by Tea on day 1 my blind grandmother could tell there wouldn't be a result. With so many pitches like this in the subcontinent it is easy to see how the myth about poor attendence at test cricket came about. Tests in New Zealand against Australia and England witnessed packed grounds over the last few seasons and plenty of interest in the more even contests provided by Pakistan and the West Indies tours.
The boring draws in Asia do not deserve the name Test Match and should not be mistaken as such. If test cricket is left to become such, then it will die out very quickly. The consequence of that will be the kind of appalling technique on show last night from an under strength Indian team playing on a pitch that wasn't as flat as usual. Without test cricket the sport is doomed to the brief entertainment of 2020 because neither team will have the developed talent to survive for any longer than that. The recent success of proper test cricket (not the villain masquerading as it in Sri Lanka recently) suggests that 2020 dominance at the expense of cricket's purest form is not inevitable

NEWS

• New Zealand’s tour of Bangladesh will now be split into two series: 5 ODIs this October and 2 tests in April next year (after the World Cup)
• The ICC nominations for its awards have been released and initially did not include either an Englishman or a Pakistani much to the surprise of those of us who remembered that Swann and Asif were the leading wicket takers for the period in question. Swann was hastily included the following day. I suppose, what can you expect from a selection panel that included Matthew Hayden
• Geoffrey Boycott, in answer to a fine question (i.e. mine) on his radio show, suggests that McCullum’s dropping of the wicket keeping gloves is a risky move. The main issue being that a keeper is able to bat more freely knowing that he contributes in another way and giving that up will put extra pressure on him to score runs. He used the example of Clyde Walcott (WI 1948-1960) who gave up the gloves after 15 tests, although this was due to injury of the back (he was 6ft 2ins) where as McCullum has cited knee problems and a waining enthusiasm for the job.

http://www.cricinfo.com/ci/content/video_audio/473134.html?genre=21;
Follow this link to hear the radio show in question

RECENT RESULTS

• PAK won at The Oval in a thrilling test match and now will look to win at Lords this week to draw the series
• SRL have moved into the final of their ODI tri-series against NZ and IND after beating both teams. The final will be this weekend

ARTICLE OF INTEREST
http://www.cricinfo.com/page2/content/story/470606.html
Yorkshire ban twitter! An amusing piece from a few weeks back that is even funnier now that the ECB is seriously considering banning their players (in their 2010/11 contract) from 'tweeting' while on tour

Upon hearing this news I immediately created a Twitter account entitled ENGcricketteam and I plan to provide ridiculous updates during their matches for the next year or so (to simulate what the players themselves might say). Look for links on my blog each week to this account like this:
http://twitter.com/engcricketteam

Well that's it from here and I hope you join me again
It's good bye for now

Not quite eating my hat

Hello and welcome back to my blog

After my criticism last week of the Pakistan Cricket Board's chop'n'change policy between the first and second tests last week, I was as surprised as anyone to see the replacements perform well; new wicket keeper Zulqarnain Haider gave the England bowlers as much trouble as he did the commentary team trying to pronounce his name with an excellent, fighting 88 (200 balls) and spinner Ajmal took 5-82 and then made 50. Although Pakistan still lost the match by 9 wickets I must admit I had to stop and challenge my own judgements of 48 hours before - had I been too hasty?
I realised that, no I had not. My key complaint of the PCB policy is one of principle and not limited to this instance. The dropping of the two worst players in the first test is not softened by the success of their replacements in my mind. The decision was clearly a knee-jerk reaction under pressure and a short sighted one at that; if they felt it necessary to change the team at least take a moment to make a better informed decision. If they had they would realise first that the issue was the batting not the bowling - just look at this break down of their top 6:

• Imran Farhat: 28 years, average almost halves outside the subcontinent
• Salman Butt: 25 years, average of 22 in England
• Azhar Ali: 25 years and NO experience in England
• Shoaib Malik: 28 years and NO experience in England
• Umar Akmal: 20 years and NO experience in England
• Umar Amin: 20 years and NO experience in England

How is that line-up to conquer an attack that regained The Ashes last year in their home conditions? The corollary issue is why did they place such heavy bans on their players WITH English experience right before a tour of England?

No, the only conclusion one can make after the success of Haidar and Ajmal is that the PCB is a lucky, rather than a visionary body

It is an old piece of advice about cricket captaincy that you don't simply move a fielder to wear the edge went through or the boundary was hit because you are forever chasing the ball. This is my criticism of the PCB and others may temper their critiques after the second test but I will not.

Well that's it from here and I hope you join me again
It's good bye for now

Never Again

Hello and welcome back to my blog

This week the Pakistan Cricket Board and selectors continued their ruthless approach to team selection after the team was smashed in the first tests against England. Wicket keeper Kamran Akmal was culled after getting a pair and dropping important catches in that match while Kaneria was ousted to make way for off-spinner Saeed Ajmal. In one sweeping movement, the team was stripped of its only remaining players of any great experience save Salman Butt himself, but he is the captain after all - he will get cut after the second test. These actions at once appear reactionary and completely lacking in forward thinking - how is the team to develop without senior players?
The Pakistan cricket team has always suffered from internal politics, mirroring the nation itself, but this must surely be the final folly of that caustic environment. The backstage drama of the team has always been overshadowed by the success of some of the game's greatest players on the field but now that balance, for lack of a better word, has been destroyed. Now the team will not even have that to save face with.
In contrast the ACB confirmed that they are standing by Marcus North, their beleaguered number 6 batsman despite poor form for the left hander in recent months. This patience may bare fruit in The Ashes this summer and the point will be made.
For a more local example of the stupidity of the Pakistan selection policy consider the surprise retirement of Blackcap Nathan Astle who found it too hard to focus and enjoy his cricket with the Bracewell regime of pure-performance based selection criteria. If reports are to be believed the retirements of McMillan and Cairns were results of the same thing.
Selectors need to be more thoughtful with their work and ignore external pressures to cut this player or that. The PCB may soon learn this when their team stagnates and falls to the bottom of the world rankings but by then it may be too late. The only thing that might prevent this is ironlcally the volatile nature of Pakistan cricket - namely the way the partisan selector gives up his hard nose for a week spines

Well that's it from here and I hope you join me again
It's good bye for now

Fighting Words

Hello and welcome back to my blog

Well the controversy over the ICC Presidency appears to have abated - for now. Australia and New Zealand have agreed to put forward NZC Chairman Alan Isaac in the wake of the refusal by the Asian and African cricket boards to allow Oceania to select its own candidate (John Howard). The move should please all the parties with obvious connection to cricket that Isaac has and the disconnection from any notion of politics (some in the ranks of New Zealand cricket may laugh at that but everything is relative; there isn't enough money in NZC for politics - although check out the NEWS section below).

As the dust clears Australia will appear defeated and many on this side of the Tasman will, quietly or otherwise, rejoice in having their own man at the top of cricket in two years. This attitude must be culled from our minds as quickly as a Pakistan team captain loses his job. This was an exercise in control and whether Oceania has any when it comes to cricket governance; those who have feared the growing dominance of the BCCI and its lackeys have been proven right.

The battle over whether John Howard would be labelled a racist, cricket-mad, glory-seeking politician of an ICC President or the best administrative leader the ICC could ever have (and all the adjectives in between) was robust but, in my humble opinion, ultimately irrelevant. Australia was rife with angered pundits after Howard was blocked and their feelings were further fueled by Malcom Speed's assertion that Asian cricket boards were simply keeping the status quo from changing against them. Then every cricinfo writer suddenly became an expert on Australian history & politics while churning out critiques of his administration's policies - as if this would have any influence on his work for the ICC (in a position of little real power) - these commentators possibly forget that democracy and party politics rules Australia not the regime of a dictator.

Whether Howard would prove to be divisive or not doesn't concern me as much as the obvious bullying by the Asian and African cricket boards in this matter. Yes there were better candidates that could have been chosen but Howard was not the worst and therefore the whole exercise becomes one of who is in control. The BCCI led coalition (which can include the boards of Sri Lanka and South Africa (and as a result Zimbabwe) decided to make this a test case for that question and won a resounding victory (Note the idea of racism suddenly being important says more about the character of these cricket boards than Howard's). With so much money tied up in that group of nations this battle will continue and Oceania (and England for that matter) would do well to make things easier for themselves by putting a tad more thought into their selections.

Looking forward, it will be interesting to see if any token resistance will be offered against Isaac; I doubt it but if there isn't, the next skirmish will simply be delayed in this unavoidable contest

NEWS

• Brendon McCullum has released a book which includes confessions about almost turning his back on New Zealand cricket for the IPL. The book also mentions the decision for top players to remain in the IPL while the rest of the team was warming up in England (2008) and the wave of criticism that caused
• Jesse Ryder will miss the ODI tri-series in Sri Lanka this month while rebuilding the mobility in his arm. It does worry me a little that our top batsman seems to be injured so much - NZC has had to deal with bowlers like this but a batsman may provide new problems
• Kyle Mills will be the vice-captain to Ross Taylor for the series
• Speaking of the stand-in captain, Taylor came out in support of ODI cricket recently (a stance I agree with) but appears to defend traditional cricket with one and hand while attacking it with the other as there is speculation over which team he will play for in the Champions League: Central Districts or Bangalore
• Canterbury and Otago were disappointed by having so little representation in the Top 20 central contracts announced last week. The former team has no players in this group (what a change that is from 10 years ago!) but accusations of politics have been few
• Muttiah Muralitharan reached 800 wickets in his last test (he took 8 in total) and will retire without regret and go down as Sri Lanka's best player and one of top spin bowlers in the game's history

RECENT RESULTS

• PAK beat AUS 2-0 in the 2020s before drawing the test series 1-1...
• ...But got smashed by ENG in the first test this week at Trent Bridge where James Anderson's best bowling of 11-71 was too much for their weak batting line-up

ARTICLE OF INTEREST
http://www.cricinfo.com/magazine/content/story/464231.html
Very funny article set many years in the future where Test Cricket is the only form of the game: the grounds have been nationalised, the ticket prices capped, the pitches made green and matches can be extended into the 6th day if need be. All wishful thinking really but worth a read

Well that's it from here and I hope you join me again
It's good bye for now