My two cents...

The last post

noreply@blogger.com (Homer) — Sun, 23 Aug 2009 19:24:00 +0000

It should have been this, and shown up here, but didn't. So here goes.

2-1 England and a prediction, revisited!

noreply@blogger.com (Homer) — Sun, 23 Aug 2009 17:22:00 +0000

On why England will win the Ashes

1. Ricky Ponting's reverse reverse psycho-babble

Starting from questioning the schedule pre Cardiff through to questioning Jonathan Trott's place before the Oval Test, the Prick had an opinion on everything.

2. Fast Bowling depth

3. Spin Bowling depth

Two stats

Number of 5+ wickets in an innings

England - 4
Australia - 2

Number of times the side took 20 wickets

England - 2
Australia - 1

So, despite taking 84 wickets to 71, Australia's inability to take 20 wickets in a game cost them. And while England could call on Harmison and Onions from the bench, Australia had no fall back. And Australia's inability to get thier bowling order right ( except for Headingley) cost them.

4. Lee and Clark will be coming of injuries

Lee never played a test. Nuff said!

5. Match practice -

England were outplayed. Just look at the stats. And yet, when the big moments came, it was England that was able to put one over the Australians. There is merit in playing the West Indies in Tests, however weak the opposition. And there is virtue in lasting beyond the first week in the World T20 competition. England were pushed in the T20 Cup, and thus tested. Australia werent.

Therein lies the difference.

6. Home field advantage - Ask Malcolm Conn!

7. Because it is the Ashes

And it showed!

Truth be told, I am glad its over.. A dull series enlivened by the propensity of both teams to out do each other in the ineptness stakes.. So unlike 2005.

The problem with WADA

noreply@blogger.com (Homer) — Wed, 19 Aug 2009 14:48:00 +0000

Many South African officials are still wary of speaking on the issue, given that it involves the powerful IPL, but the belief that Steyn was shabbily treated is clearly widespread. "He took a common headache medicine - Myprodol - containing codeine, which is not a prohibited substance. In certain people codeine can cause a high concentration of morphine in the urine. Anyone who has laboratory experience in analysing this situation knows that a slightly higher presence of morphine than otherwise permitted is totally acceptable where there is also this level of codeine," one CSA official said.

( A few days ago, I had an debate with Raja Bharadwaj on BCC! - here)

The ACSU makes its case

noreply@blogger.com (Homer) — Tue, 18 Aug 2009 14:42:00 +0000

The Australian team management has filed a report with the ICC's Anti-Corruption and Security Unit after a player was approached by a man suspected of links to illegal bookmaking. Cricinfo has learned the approach was made in the bar of the team's London hotel, the Royal Kensington Garden, following Australia's Ashes defeat at Lord's in July.

So let me understand this

There is a lot od chatter and rumor about the integrity of the IPL hosted in South Africa. Sufficient enough for the ACSU and, in turn the ICC, to be concerned.
Logic would dictate that more stringent measures would be put in place given the ICC concerns and the fact that it is a World Cup. But no, there is a report of players being approached by bookmakers during the World Twenty20 held in England.
Such things happen, but surely there is now a water tight case for the ACSU to put together measures to "provide a professional, permanent and secure infrastructure to act as a long term deterrent to conduct of a corrupt nature prejudicial to the interests of the game of cricket."
And yet, after the Lords Test, there is the report that an Australia player was approached by a bookie. In the team hotel no less.

Has there ever been a stronger case for organizational incompetence? And doesn't the BCCI stand vindicated in that it did not invest the $1.2 million in paying an organization that is incapable of executing even the role it was tasked for in the first place?

How effective is the ACSU?

noreply@blogger.com (Homer) — Mon, 17 Aug 2009 14:49:00 +0000

"We are aware of a number of approaches that were made to key players during the tournament, and they were reported to the Anti Corruption and Security Unit. We were provided with very helpful information," said the source, who added that none of the ICC Twenty20 matches had been fixed.

writes Scyld Berry.

"We didn't cover it [the second IPL] but, in terms of intelligence, the volume of rumours and noises raised concerns about its integrity. One of the most significant rumours was that a bookmaker seemed to have a surprising access to the players," the source said. "The second IPL should have been covered properly, and cricket has paid a price. It was a wake-up call that the game has taken too long to respond to."

So lets understand this

The ICC deems the IPL a domestic event and therefore cannot be granted a window, so what is the jurisdiction of any of the ICC affiliated bodies over a "domestic event" ?

As regards the coverage by the ACSU of the IPL2, the argument I had made was

I recruit an organization to implement a certain project. They provide consultants for the job, requiring me to hire a whole new set of people to implement the project. So far so good.

Then those consultants, and the people hired for the implementation, are a bit too over zealous with their tasks. ( Shahrukh not allowed in the KKR dug out!)Again, so far so good.

Then the head of the consulting firm bad mouths the project after the implementation despite me ceding control to his organization to oversee the said project.

Then, when I have to implement the same project all over again this year, the consulting firm quotes an exorbitant price for its services.

So much for cricket paying the price. Anywho, the point of of creating the ACSU, per the ICC website is

ANTI-CORRUPTION

To assist the ICC Code of Conduct Commission ('the Commission') and the Members of ICC in the eradication of conduct of a corrupt nature prejudicial to the interests of the game of cricket; and to provide a professional, permanent and secure infrastructure to act as a long term deterrent to conduct of a corrupt nature prejudicial to the interests of the game of cricket.

SAFETY & SECURITY

To evaluate safety and security assessments and intelligence in order to provide advice to the ICC Chief Executive and/or the Executive Board of the ICC ('the Executive Board') in relation to: (a) any event or competition organised by the ICC; and (b) the provision of match officials for FTP commitments

Given that 9 years after it came into existence, players are still being approached by bookmakers speaks volumes of the efficacy of the ACSU to providing "a professional, permanent and secure infrastructure to act as a long term deterrent to conduct of a corrupt nature prejudicial to the interests of the game of cricket."

And given that the IPL is deemed a "domestic event" by the ICC, what is the locus standi of the ACSU given that its brief is "To evaluate safety and security assessments and intelligence in order to provide advice to the ICC Chief Executive and/or the Executive Board of the ICC ('the Executive Board') in relation to: (a) any event or competition organised by the ICC; and (b) the provision of match officials for FTP commitments "?

Isn't the "senior source at the International Cricket Council." protesting too much?And what is the ICC doing about such unsolicited leaks?

And what about the ACSU itself - other than being another level of bureaucracy in an already over crowded bureaucracy that is the ICC, how effective is it exactly ( other than arriving at the scene of the supposed crime after the fact, in true police fashion)?

PS:- "In keeping with ACSU protocols, no specifics will be discussed in relation to the investigation and no further comment will be made." - which begs the question - What action is the ICC going to take against the "senior source at the International Cricket Council."?

And the beat goes on... flip flop flip....

noreply@blogger.com (Homer) — Fri, 14 Aug 2009 17:30:00 +0000

Yesterday it was

And the thorny issue of whether Pakistan will be able to travel to India and play World Cup games there is yet to be resolved.
Butt said the final decision on whether Pakistani cricketers will be allowed to go to India will be taken by the government.
''It's for our government to decide about it,'' he said.
Last year, India refused to send its team to Pakistan after a terrorist attack in Mumbai in November.
Since then, both countries have suspended sporting ties though there have been a couple of minor breakthroughs with Pakistan sending its squash and table tennis colts across the border for international events earlier this summer.
When asked whether there are any contingency plans in case political situation in 2011 prevents his team to play on Indian soil, Butt said there will be no World Cup without Pakistan.
''Off course, there are contingency plans,'' Butt said.
''If there are security problems then the World Cup will go to Australia and New Zealand. But if by any chance Pakistan cannot take part in it, then there will be no World Cup,'' stressed Butt, a former Test cricketer.

Today it is

Well-placed sources in the Pakistan Cricket Board told PTI that ICC President David Morgan, during his talks with PCB chairman Ejaz Butt, had assured that he would try to convince the BCCI to play a series in England.
"Morgan has made no promises but has assured Pakistan he would use his good offices to try to organise such a series next year," a source said.
India have suspended bilateral cricket ties with Pakistan since last November's the Mumbai terror attacks.
"The proposal is for three Tests, three One-dayers and a couple of Twenty20 matches," the source said.
He said Morgan had assured Pakistan he would try to do everything to help them overcome the financial loss caused due to the sifting of the World Cup matches from here due to security reasons.
Pakistan is due to play Australia next year in England apart from a separate series against Andrew Strauss' men.
"If India agrees the series could be squeezed in at a time when both teams are free of international commitments," the source said.
The source said Butt told Morgan that the PCB would lose nearly $70 million from television rights deal with Dubai based Ten Sports network if India didn't play a bilateral series in Pakistan.

Based on his utterences, Ijaz Butt makes a solid case for administrators to be included in the WADA regime!

The last post

noreply@blogger.com (Homer) — Fri, 14 Aug 2009 16:49:00 +0000

Because I cannot be bothered anymore.

What point pontificating about the game when the outcome of a marquee series can be predicted so far in advance?

What point talking about the nuances and the vagaries of the game when the only nuance is the pitch being rolled twice instead of thrice and the only vagary is the wicket having four blades of grass instead of one?

Test Cricket is a joke, with anodyne wickets rolled out and semi skilled batsmen piling on runs like there is no tomorrow. And while it may provide enjoyment to some, I want no part of it.

"It's a fact of life that cricket can only survive and grow through finance, and much of that finance comes from revenue generated by broadcast and sponsorship revenue and attendances. So if matches don't run the distance, that ca n hit clubs and boards in the pocket."

"The ICC has not issued any such directive since my involvement with it began in 1999. It is also incorrect to say that the ICC wants to standardise pitches worldwide. Nothing is further from the truth. The preparation of pitches for all Test matches and ODIs is a matter entirely for each individual home board to manage when they are staging a match or a series under their control. "

When the ICC pitches manager makes the above comments with a straight face, no amount of pink balls and day night cricket and other fancy gimmicks is going to revive the game.

And thats fine by me.

I am content watching ODIs. Or Twenty 20 cricket. Because atleast then the expectations are clear - flat wicket, bowler's graveyard, batsmen swinging across the line. And the monotony lasts a few hours, not a few days.

When I first started analyzing Test series, it was in early 2003. India was to tour Australia and the Willow package cost $149.99. And conventional wisdom was that India would repeat its 1999 showing, if not a 4-0 mauling. With 150 bucks on the line, a cost benefit exercise was necessary. And I went ahead and bought the package, hoping against hope that India would turn out a credible performance and not get humiliated. They did better that expected.

By the time the South Africa series came around, it was much easier. It was simply a question of juxtaposing the strength of schedule, quality wins and player match ups. Because player match ups mattered then.

Shiraz prices led to an assessment of how India would fare in Australia but by the time the return series happened, the assessment was not even a challenge.

Ditto the South Africa tour to Australia. And now, the Ashes.

The one that got away was the return series in South Africa. But that was more to do with not factoring the South Africans not playing competitive cricket than an assessment of strengths and weaknesses.

So, what point assessing a series when the outcome of marquee series can be predicted based on who has the greater number of bowlers and the more variety in their bowling stocks and the stamina to bowl on dead, unresponsive wickets?

The joy of analysis for me is to be proven wrong in the analysis. Because that helps me re-evaluate and come up with more robust analyses. But given the way Test cricket is shaping up, its good bye to all that.

I would much rather focus on the domestic scene, where new and exiting talent is on display all the time. And where the expectations are lower and correspondingly, the disappointments.

And if that ceases to excite me, I will be content just watching him play-

With an unorthodox batting stance and the right team colors and with a seam position like this, whats not to like?

And in conclusion, I want to that each and every one of you who took time off their busy schedules to indulge me on the blog. Your readership was a huge motivation for sustaining the blog for over 2 and a half years. And to all of you who commented, a big thank you. Your insights have helped broaden my horizons and have helped me have a better understanding of the various facets and nuances of the game. But for you, my understanding of the game would have been limited.You have helped me stretch the boundaries of my limitations.

The tamasha will go on, but the dopaisekatamasha ends here.

Cheers.

Steps in the right direction

noreply@blogger.com (Homer) — Fri, 14 Aug 2009 16:45:00 +0000

The BCCI has already disbursed Rs. 4 crore to each of the 25 State units as advance against TV subsidy
The BCCI increased the 2009-10 Ranji Trophy winner’s prize from Rs. 60 lakh to Rs. 2 crore

Mumbai: The Board of Control for Cricket in India at the working committee meeting here on Thursday said that its 25 State units would receive around Rs. 20 crore each for fiscal year 2008-09 as their share from the annual television subsidy and money earmarked from the IPL-II held in South Africa.

They were also informed that should all the international engagements be held in the 2009-10 fiscal year, the associations were likely to receive between Rs. 24 and Rs. 28 crore.

The BCCI has already disbursed Rs. 100 crore (Rs. 4 crore to each of the 25 State units) as advance against TV subsidy. In the coming months and after its 80th AGM there in the last week of September, the BCCI will remit the balance amount of around Rs. 500 crore.

“The sum would have been much more, but there was a revenue shortfall of Rs.59 crore because of the cancellation of the Pakistan tour and the curtailment of the England tour,” said Rajiv Shukla, Chairman of the Finance Committee, BCCI. The Champions League T20 was also cancelled after the terrorist attack in Mumbai.

Last year the 25-member units received a sum between Rs. 14 and 18 crore from the TV subsidy alone, with Karnataka State Cricket Association (KSCA) receiving a maximum of Rs. 18.60 crore. In addition they received around. Rs.8 crore each from the IPL-I revenue.

First class players

The BCCI did not disappoint the first class players in the country. At its Working Committee meeting the BCCI increased the 2009-10 Ranji Trophy winner’s prize from Rs. 60 lakh to Rs. 2 crore.

It also earmarked Rs. 1 crore for the runner-up and Rs. 50 lakh each for the losing semifinalists.

With the increase in prize money for the national championship winner, an Elite Group cricketer who would play 11 or 10 matches league and knock out matches and goes on to be part of the Ranji Trophy winning team would take home around Rs. 19 lakh or Rs. 18 lakh.

And a Plate League cricketer who would play a maximum of eight league and knock out matches would take home around Rs. 13 lakh. In addition a cricketer who plays an additional 25 days of senior tournaments in the Duleep Trophy, Irani Cup and the inter-State one-day tournaments will take another Rs. 10 lakh, even should the BCCI maintain Rs. 40,000 match fee per day.

There was good news for women cricketers too, but they may be somewhat disappointed with the Rs. one lakh fee per player for each tour the national team undertakes. But they receive the same daily allowance of around $70, which is what the men receive.

The BCCI also announced a bonus of Rs. one lakh to each player and support staff of the Emerging Players’ team that won a limited overs tournament in Brisbane recently.

The BCCI also revised the domestic match-fee (IPL not included) of the umpires from the 2009-10 season. An umpire will receive Rs. 7,500 per match day out of which Rs. 3,750 per match-day will go towards the Benevolent Fund. The umpires and Match Referees (IPL excepted) will receive Rs. 10,000 per match-day.

Other decisions taken at the Working Committee were (1) to make the former ICL players eligible for the IPL-III with a franchise asked pay a minimum fee of Rs. 8 lakh and a maximum of Rs. 20 lakh (2) to retain Amish Saheba and nominate Shavir Tarapore in the ICC International Panel and Sanjay Hazare as the ICC International TV panel (3) to establish specialised coaching centres at Mumbai (batting), Mohali (bowling) and Chennai (spinners and wicketkeepers), (4) to appoint specialist coaches on an annual retainership (5) to establish an Umpire’s Academy (6) reject KSCA’s request to hire outstation players in the Karnataka Premier League (KPL).

The BCCI President Shashank Manohar released the NCA coaching manual at the meeting. Present at the release function was Dav Whatmore, Direct Operations, National Cricket Academy.

East v West

noreply@blogger.com (Homer) — Thu, 13 Aug 2009 20:12:00 +0000

or when "magical wrists" meet "sweaty brows"!

The case for isolation

noreply@blogger.com (Homer) — Mon, 10 Aug 2009 15:57:00 +0000

Does India need International Cricket?

I say that the costs outweigh the benefits and that channeling our attention and energies towards domestic cricket will do India a world of good.

Ideally, I would like the Indian domestic scene to be structured like the NFL. And like the NFL, the game will be played on our terms, devoid of any outside interference, including the ICC.

As the two editions of the IPL showed, the BCCI has the capacity to organize and to market the game like no one else does.

And given the narrative of the Ranji Trophy over the last 4 seasons, there is a ready product available for the BCCI to exploit if they can only get themselves interested.

No more having to kow tow to all and sundry within the ICC, no more being held hostage to the whims and fancies or Pakistan, Sri Lanka, Australia or anyone else who wants to take a pot shot at us for the heck of it, no more of having to comply with rules and officials despite our reservations.

No more trying to shore up the ICC by contributing up to 70% of its monies while having to incur all the opprobrium for its inadequacies.

We have the talent, and the visible talent is but the tip of the iceberg. We have the fan base, we have the infrastructure. More can be done and should be done, but on our terms alone.

Our game, our terms, our way.That's all.

Faster is better

noreply@blogger.com (Homer) — Mon, 10 Aug 2009 15:40:00 +0000

Batsmen’s strike rates were once not collected; now they are an integral part of the game. Cricket’s attitudes towards its fielding statistics needs rethinking, especially since fielding, in every sensible cricket fan’s mind, has changed dramatically, and for the better, in the course of the last twenty years.

Test 4 Day 2

noreply@blogger.com (Homer) — Sat, 08 Aug 2009 17:25:00 +0000

Signed in about half an hour ago, saw England collapse from 58/0 to 78/5 and the question is - can my local league team play England? We have been on a bit of a skid recently and beating an international team will do our morale a world of good!

On a wicket on which Australia managed 445, it takes a special level of skill to first score 102 and then to lose 5 wickets for 20 runs.

Brilliant!

Test 4 Day 1

noreply@blogger.com (Homer) — Fri, 07 Aug 2009 17:39:00 +0000

One thing differentiated the two sides on Day 1 of the Headingley Test - Discipline. Australia displayed oodles of discipline while England were all over the shop floor.

Like Edgbaston, England were slow on sussing up the bowling conditions. And when they did, they reaped immediate rewards.

Like Peter Siddle. And Stuart Clark. Whose lines were immaculate.

There is a special thrill that comes with seeing a bowler make a batsman look like an idiot. Doesn't happen all the time, and is much rarer these days with dead wickets, but when it happens, the joy! Oh the joy!!

And both Siddle and Clark delivered. It was exemplary bowling, marrying discipline with immaculate lengths. And it was brave. Having lost the toss, the Australian bowlers could just as easily have lost the plot by bowling too full or too short. That they did not is a tribute to the bowling.

England batted sloppily and bowled equally badly.

And yet, at the end of the day, England are still in with a chance if they can restrict Australia's lead to 150 or less.

If it seams, it will spin. And Australia have to bat last. With time no longer a factor in the game, England will have to emulate the Australians tomorrow by bowling much tighter. And then bat, remembering that this is a test match and not some charity match. Do that and we have a contest. A real contest.

Finally, the Ashes seems to be delivering on the hype!

Test 4 Prelude

noreply@blogger.com (Homer) — Thu, 06 Aug 2009 22:31:00 +0000

England's mantra going into this test should be - bat first.For a multitude of reasons, some of which are listed below

It will force Australia to take 20 English wickets to win the test, something they have not done in the previous 3 tests.
Batsmen get offered the light - if atmospherics on the first 3 days transpire as the Met Office predicts, there will be opportunities for bad light. And England will be in control.
If batting conditions are hostile, it may seem a gamble but it is still upto Australia to get the right bowling combination and then to exploit the conditions. If conditions are not hostile, then Australia should be made to toil.
If England falter in the first innings, Australia will have to set the pace. And factor in time as they would not want a repeat of Cardiff. That in turn can lead to mis steps.
Australia have to bat last. With the Ashes on the line, pressure can do strange things to the best of them.

Bowling wise, England needs to think about what bowling combination gives them the best opportunity to take 20 Australian wickets.That should be the basis of naming their XI. If 5 bowlers is the way to go, Flintoff or Bopara must give way for Broad. If 4 bowlers is the norm, Broad must make way.

So, my line ups will be

With 5 bowlers

Strauss
Cook
Bopara
Bell
Collingwood
Prior
Broad
Swann
Sidebottom
Anderson
Harmison

And with 4 bowlers

Strauss
Cook
Bopara
Bell
Collingwood
Prior
Flintoff
Swann
Sidebottom
Anderson
Harmison

England has to do what India did in 2002 - play to their strengths and weather be damned.

An alternate view

noreply@blogger.com (Homer) — Wed, 05 Aug 2009 16:52:00 +0000

Cricket journalism is dying if not dead and buried already. The new generation of cricket writers are not a patch on Harsha Bhogle and Rohit Brijnath. And they cannot hold a candle to Raju Bharatan and Rajan Bala.

Who amongst the new crop can marry music, anecdotes and cricket as beautifully as Bharatan did?

And who amongst the new crop can intoxicate the senses with words and transport you to a happy place the way Brijnath does?

Heck, they cannot even put a proper sentence together. All this generation does is blog and Twitter.

Condensing a thought to 140 characters or less, can there be anything more preposterous than twittering? No form, no rhythm, no narrative - even the grammar leaves a lot to be desired.

Imagine that!

Whatever happened to mellifluous prose, the gentle narrative of bat hitting ball, of building up the narrative till it reached a crescendo, of art and form?

And when they are not twittering, you can find them preening around like peacocks on Facebook. So much for the legacy of Cardus and James!

Sounds familiar? It is.

How practical?

noreply@blogger.com (Homer) — Tue, 04 Aug 2009 15:02:00 +0000

From the WADA Athletes Whereabouts Guidelines

3.3 The overriding principle is that it is the responsibility of the Athlete to make him/herself available for Testing. In particular, if the Athlete specifies a location for the 60-minute time-slot where it is not easy to find him/her, and/or he/she does not remain at that location for the full 60-minute time-slot, he/she risks a Missed Test.

3.4 Residence: The Athlete must provide, for each day in the following quarter, the full address of the place where he/she will be residing (i.e., sleeping overnight). (See IST clause 11.3.1(d)). Usually, that address would be expected to be in the same vicinity as the location specified for the 60-minute time-slot for that day, unless the Athlete will be travelling to another city or town during the day and wishes to specify a location at his/her destination for the 60-minute time-slot. If circumstances change so that the Athlete will be residing at a different place on one or more nights, he/she should update his/her Whereabouts Filing

3.5.2 If the Athlete’s regular schedule changes during the quarter, he/she should update his/her Whereabouts Filing to reflect the change. For example, if he/she changes schedule so that instead of going to the gym every morning from 10 am to noon, he/she goes every afternoon from 2pm to 4pm, then he/she should update his/her Whereabouts Filing to reflect that change.

3.5.3 On the other hand, if the Athlete simply departs from his/her regular schedule on a one-off basis, he/she does not need to update his/her Whereabouts Filing to reflect that. For example, if he/she usually goes to the gym every morning from 10 am to noon, but on one particular day in the quarter he/she goes to the gym not between 10 am and noon but instead between 3 pm and 4 pm, no update is necessary to reflect that.

3.6 60 minute timeslot: The Athlete must provide, for each day during the following quarter, one specific 60-minute time-slot between 6 am and 11 pm each day where the Athlete will be available and accessible for Testing at a specific location. (See IST clause 11.3.2). If circumstances change so that the Athlete will no longer be at that location at that time, he/she should update his/her Whereabouts Filing

3.7 As the comment to IST 11.3.3 states, if an Athlete does not know, at the beginning of the quarter, precisely what his/her whereabouts will be for each day in the quarter, he/she must provide his/her best information, based on where he/she expects to be at the relevant time(s), and then update that information as necessary in accordance with IST clause 11.4.2.

3.8 The Responsible ADO should monitor Whereabouts Filings for patterns of behaviour that may indicate an attempt to evade Sample collection or otherwise to undermine or hinder the Doping Control process. For example, if an Athlete is constantly updating his/her Whereabouts Filings to change the time and/or location for his/her 60-minute time-slot at the last minute, the Responsible ADOshould consider whether this may reflect a concerted effort to undermine attempts to locate him/her for Testing. Such a pattern of last-minute updates should be investigated as a possible anti-doping rule violation under Code Article 2.5 (Tampering or Attempted Tampering) or 2.3 (evasion of Sample collection).

Now, all of us travel. By planes, trains and by road. And we all have had to deal with missed flights, delayed departures and arrivals, traffic jams, fender benders and such like. And we all know that all of these take time to sort out.

Most, if not all, of us have encountered cell phone dead zones. And the odd flaky internet connection.

Now, imagine athlete A. A signatory to the Athlete whereabouts program. Now it is not outside of the realm of imagination that the said athlete will be better placed to detail his/her exact whereabouts ( including the 60 minute slot that is mandatorily required) on a day to day basis as compared to a week to week and month to month basis. Say the athlete makes a commitment to be available at a particular place at a particular time.Say too that the athlete has to drive from point A to point B to be at the particular place at the particular time. Given that the athlete in question is diligent, say that he/she provides enough buffer time to be at the said place at the said time. And then a fender bender occurs.

Now, per the provisions of the WADA ruling, if the athlete is not at the required location in the required time slot, he/she stands in violation of the program. And if the athlete reschedules the Whereabouts Filing, that too is a red flag. Strike 1.

Now assume that our athlete is vacationing abroad, and traveling the local train system. And assume that his/her wallet/purse get stolen at a station that is some distance from his/her place of residence. And he/she does not speak the local language. Happens to the best of us, so why should athletes be exempt. But our athlete has diligently filled out the location and the time when he/she will be available for testing on the Whereabouts form. And his her cellphone is stolen/ he/she does not have a calling plan for the country in question/the battery on the phone is dead. Strike 2.

So finally, our athlete in question is flying from Mumbai to New York. And the flight is delayed at Mumbai because of "technical reasons". So our athlete updates the Whereabouts form following proper procedure. Excepts that he/she goofs up when calculating the correct time difference by not accounting for daylight savings. For the athlete, all is well with the world... Except it is not. And if there is a problem getting a gate at New York because the slot was taken by some other airline ( because of the delayed take off) which adds to the overall delay, what then? As it is our athlete is in hot water because of the mis calculation of time and is therefore not present at the location he/she is supposed to be at the appointed time. Strike 3 and that's a two year ban for our athlete.

Shit happens. All the time.

The whole IRTP is a code put together by bureaucrats. And one thing that is true of bureaucrats is that they lack imagination. As the provisions show. And the other thing about bureaucrats is that they are rigid.If someone can come up with a set of rules that demand an athlete present his/her itinerary for a full quarter in advance, what is to prevent the said entity from flagging the slightest deviation from the norm as a strike?

And then there is the ICC.

10.1 Disqualification of Individual Results in an ICC Event During Which an Anti-Doping Rule Violation occurs Subject to Article 10.1.1, where a Cricketer is found to have committed an anti-doping rule violation during or in connection with an International Match in an ICC Event where the Cricketer also participated in other International Matches (for example, the anti-doping rule violation was committed during or in connection with the final of an ICC Event and the Cricketer had participated in earlier rounds of the ICC Event), then in addition to the consequences set out at Article 9 (in relation to the Disqualification of results obtained in the particular International Match during or in connection with which the anti-doping rule violation was committed), the anti-doping rule violation will also lead to Disqualification of all of the individual results and performance statistics obtained by the Cricketer in the other International Matches that he/she participated in
during the ICC Event in question with all resulting consequences, including forfeiture of any individual medals, individual ranking points, individual prizes obtained in those International Matches and the non-inclusion of his/her performance statistics in those International Matches towards any official individual averages and/or records, except as provided in Article 10.1.1.
10.1.1 If the Cricketer establishes that he/she bears No Fault or Negligence for the
violation, the Cricketer’s individual results in the International Matches other than
the International Match during or in connection with which the anti-doping rule
violation occurred shall not be Disqualified unless the ICC establishes that the
Cricketer’s results in the other International Matches were likely to have been
affected by his/her anti-doping rule violation.

So if I understand this correctly, I can dope myself up, carry my team to the finals of an ICC tournament, and if I get caught, my records will be disqualified but my team will still legitimately contest the finals?

And then there is this

10.2 Imposition of a Period of Ineligibility for the Presence, Use or Attempted Use, or
Possession of Prohibited Substances and Prohibited Methods
The period of Ineligibility imposed for a violation of Article 2.1 (presence of Prohibited Substance or its Metabolites or Markers in a Sample), Article 2.2 (Use or Attempted Use of Prohibited Substance or Prohibited Method) or Article 2.6 (Possession of Prohibited Substances and Methods) that is the Cricketer or Cricketer Support Personnel’s first offence shall be two years, unless the conditions for eliminating or reducing the period of Ineligibility (as provided in Articles 10.4 and 10.5) or the conditions for increasing the period of Ineligibility (as provided in Article 10.6) are met.

and this

10.3.2 For a violation of Article 2.4 (Filing Failures and/or Missed Tests) that is the Cricketer’s first offence, the period of Ineligibility imposed shall be at a minimum one year and at a maximum two years, depending upon the Cricketer’s degree of fault.

So, if I understand this correctly,if I do drugs and get caught the first time, I stand to lose two years. But if I am lax in filling in my forms, but don't do any drugs, I still stand to lose an year?

And people have actually signed up to this nonsense? Oh and there is more - in the case of filing failures or missed tests, the burden of proof lies with the athlete while in the case of an actual dope test, the burden of proof lies with the ICC. how fair is that?

England's problem

noreply@blogger.com (Homer) — Tue, 04 Aug 2009 12:03:00 +0000

is not Andrew Flintoff's dodgy knee. But Stuart Broad's bowling form. And Ravi Bopara's batting form.

If Ravi Bopara had shown any semblance of grinding it out there in the three tests thus far, Flintoff the batsman would not be needed to add teeth to the batting line up.

And if Stuart Broad had bowled half as well as he is capable of, Flintoff the bowler would not be needed as cover.

Instead, now England are faced with the dilemma of a weakened batting and bowling line up in Flintoff's absence.

Like for like, Sidebottom or Harmison could do the job of Flintoff the bowler and probably with better results. But playing either weakens the batting line up. And England love to bat deep. And with the middle order not showing any signs of solidity ( bar Collingwood at Cardiff), playing 5 bowlers is a high risk strategy for a team that finds itself in the lead in the series.

The problem England have with Flintoff playing is that he can barely get through one day with his knee being dodgy. And with Broad not bowling well, England are effectively a 3 bowler team - which is exactly what Australia want, with thier superior batting.

Had Broad shown some semblance of form at Edgbaston, this would have been a non issue. But no team can afford to carry one, let alone three passengers with the series still open. And had Bopara scored a 50 in all of his outings thus far, again England could have carried Broad and drafted in Harmison or Sidebottom.

Left to me, I would play Flintoff as a pure batsman and go in with Sidebottom for Broad. 7 batsmen, 4 bowlers with the added variety of a left arm swing bowler. And I will bring in Harmison for Onions. Harsh, I know, but I would rather have atleast one hit the deck bowler for the variety that gives me.

Test 3 Day 5

noreply@blogger.com (Homer) — Mon, 03 Aug 2009 16:59:00 +0000

In the end, Australia did what was required of them. They played time and more importantly, they played for runs. 84 overs and 287 runs for the loss of 3 wickets is a fair return for a team that found itself under the hammer.

It showed intent and I believe the Australian dressing room will be the happier one going into Headingley on Friday.

About the Test match itself, what should have been an engrossing Test match despite the rain turned out to be another of those dead Tests that are going to kill Test Cricket.

5 sessions were lost to the weather. 25 wickets fell in the remaining 9 odd sessions. Of which 7 fell in one sensational session on Day 2.

More proof that T20 is killing Test cricket! Now we can all go home happy.

Test 3 Day 4

noreply@blogger.com (Homer) — Sun, 02 Aug 2009 23:48:00 +0000

So far so good. The test has panned out the way I expected it to thus far.Starting with the toss until England's surprising counter attack in the middle session of the day, the Test was playing along expected lines.

But what the England counterattack and the two Australian wickets ( including probably the over of the day, by Swann to Ponting) have achieved is to put Australia firmly on the back foot.

Conventional wisdom will hold that Australia play for time tomorrow. Prolong the innings long enough to eke out a draw and regroup for Headingley.

It may work, but it is a move fraught with risks.Playing for time generally translates to not searching for runs. And with the early start and the atmospherics forecast, there is always the chance that the batsmen will offer one, earlier in their innings than later. And as the second day showed, it does not take too long for the team to unravel, especially when England have bowlers who can get more from the wicket than the Australians could.

88/2 in 28 overs is indicative of that mindset.

If ever there was a time now for Australia to rediscover what made them the most dominant force in world cricket for well over 15 years, it will be tomorrow.

I am not advocating recklessness, but I am definitely not advocating a 300 ball century for Mike Hussey. Australia have to look for runs and they have to show intent that they are looking for runs.And runs dont mean boundaries. Whatever happened to tip and run and those sharply run singles that used to make the fielding look ragged and would make the bowlers potty?

It is imperative that Australia maintain a scoring rate of atleast 3.5 in the first session of play. As the runs pile up, the lead will grow. And as the lead grows, English shoulders will sag ( think back to Lords on Day 4). And as the lead grows, time becomes of essence.

And if it is England that offers the draw, thats a huge morale boost for the Australian camp that is desperately looking for some good news.

Now, what I think wil happen is that there will be more of the same from the Australians. Hussey and Watson will see off the initial hour before the ball starts doing something ( as evidenced in both innings). And as when things start happening, England will attack- with Swann getting purchase, Strauss can actually rotate his fast bowlers from one end while giving Swann an extended spell from the other.

Which in turn will leave Australia in a rather awkward position of whether to attack or to defend. And as is the case most times of trying to straddle two stools, bad things will happen!

Slow news day? Definately India's fault

noreply@blogger.com (Homer) — Sun, 02 Aug 2009 16:01:00 +0000

India, cricket's money magnet, only cares about umpiring when it thinks it has been dudded.
It's always someone else's fault, like in Sydney 18 months ago, and the umpires are an easy target.
Just ask Steve Bucknor about the support, or lack of it, that umpires receive when India spits the dummy.
Bucknor, who like Koertzen stayed in the game about a decade too long, failed to give Andrew Symonds out caught behind in Sydney during the New Year's Test in 2007. India lost, India whinged, moaned and complained, Bucknor got sacked and the ICC and Cricket Australia let the caravan roll on. Who cares about principles when there's millions at stake?
It comes as no surprise then that India, which has more resources than the rest of the cricket world combined, is the only major Test nation without an umpire on the dozen-strong international panel.

Test 3 Day 2

noreply@blogger.com (Homer) — Fri, 31 Jul 2009 17:43:00 +0000

The day panned as expected.

England bowled better lines and lengths, Australia capitulated. England then worked themselves into a fairly decent position before taking the light ( a move that I have never quite endorsed but in the context of the game, pardonable).

Day 3 beckons with Australia having to do all the running. An early start and a ball that is 36 overs old means that Australia are more or less in the same position England were in at the end of Day 1. But while England were guilty of bad bowling, the same cannot be said of Australia. Australia has to think wickets, not containment , if they have to stay in the game. And they have to do this despite Rudi Koetzen.

Which brings me to this - should 100 tests be the cut off for the life of a Test umpire? Steve Bucknor was one who went over a 100 tests and the less said about his umpiring, the better. Ditto Koetzen. And with technology becoming more integral in the game today, is it time for the ICC to expand its Elite panel by compulsorily forcing each test playing nation to volunteer atleast two Test umpires?

On Cricinfo

noreply@blogger.com (Homer) — Fri, 31 Jul 2009 04:04:00 +0000

my comment in response to Sambit Bal's article

Make Test cricket more elitist and still Test cricket will wither and die if they continue to play the game on the roads that masquerade as wickets these days.

If I have to watch a game on a road, I would rather waste 3 hours of my life watching a game with a definite result instead of spending 30 hours watching a bore fest.

And that is what Test cricket these days is.. Administrators want to maximize revenues ( gate, TV etc) and so would much rather the Test go the distance. Heck, the administrators at Cardiff did not even try to hide this fact when talking of the type of wicket that would be rolled.

And then there is the ICC with its own "blue print" for what is a good wicket. The Kanpur wicket gets called for having "excessive turn" when what we witnessed was a tight 3 day contest.

Deny people a contest and they will divert thier attention to something else.

T20 gives them a contest in an abbreviated time span. Test Cricket doesnt.

Good luck then saving Test cricket!

Brilliant!

noreply@blogger.com (Homer) — Fri, 31 Jul 2009 00:20:00 +0000

"If I get hit out there, make sure you stop mum from jumping over the fence."

Test 3 Day 1

noreply@blogger.com (Homer) — Thu, 30 Jul 2009 18:39:00 +0000

In my previous post, I had alluded to Ponting's decision to bat first a mistake. 126/1 in 30 overs later, I see no reason to change my opinion on that call.

the reasons I would have bowled first are fairly simple

1. The pitch has been under the covers and sweating.

2. The outfield was impacted by the rain and therefore, slow.

3. A shortened session meant that the bowlers could always regroup if things went wrong for them while the batsmen would have to start from scratch.

Also, this gave Australia the opportunity to get Johnson back in the swing of things. With Watson coming as cover, Australia have more depth in their bowling resources. This would then have allowed Ponting to attack from the get go.

Also, if I were captain, I would look at the England team sheet and see Bopara and Bell at numbers 3 and 4. If my bowlers got the early break through, I had two batsmen, both low on confidence, to contend with. And if I did not make the early break through, I still could control the tempo of the game by shutting shop and along with it, the flow of runs. And I could always come back tomorrow and rethink the game plan.

Also, with a make shift opening pair, the odds of the shoe being on the other foot are high. Had two marginal LBW calls ( one each against Watson and Katich) gone the other way, it would be I who would have to play the waiting game.

And finally this - Australia have to take 20 England wickets to win the match. With rain becoming a factor, time is of paramount importance. So, by batting first, Australia have to set themselves to batting only once, batting big and batting fast to give themselves enough time to force a result. But with the weather forecast being what it is, it is the Australian batsmen who will have to face the start stop start situation - not ideal when you are trying to bat fast.

Having said all that, England looked at Ponting's gift and decided to up the charity stakes. If Australia could be charitable to let the England bowlers first under helpful conditions, England would repay in full by bowling too short or too full. Thereby squandering all advantage accrued.

Plus with Strauss unwilling to stem the flow of runs and England unable to take wickets, the end result was that Australia ended with 126/1 with Watson scoring a 50 at the top of the order.

For England now, the priority is to slow the run flow. If they can choke off the free flow of runs, Australia will be compelled to play outside of their comfort zone because they will have to force the pace. And when that happens, the risk increases. And with increased risk comes the opportunity to take wickets. However, if England continue to play they have on the first day, they can forget competing in this test.

For Australia, more of the same please. Coupled with not losing wickets. The longer each partnership plays at a fair clip, the more pressure Strauss will face because he will have to contend with time no longer being an ally. And if England have to play 2 innings on the back foot, odds that they will fold under the pressure increase.

Now, if I were the batting captain, I would write this match off. Instead I would set stall to bat all 5 days. The reason is simple really - with back to back tests, it is in my interest that England's bowlers bowl for as long as possible. And with Flintoff nursing a bad knee, it is definitely in my interest to render him hors de combat before Headingley. And what better way to achieve that than by having him bowl in excess of 50 overs for the match!

A mistake

noreply@blogger.com (Homer) — Thu, 30 Jul 2009 15:59:00 +0000

A new opening pair, a truncated session,a ground soaked by rain, a heavy outfield, the pitch under covers and therefore sweating, and Ricky Ponting elects to bat first.

Nice!