Finally!!!

New Delhi: In a huge embarrassment for the Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI), a court in Goa charged BCCI Vice President and a minister in Goa government, Dayanand G Narvekar, in connection with the fake ticket scam reported during a 2001 India-Australia One-Day match.

Narvekar and eight others were charged on Thursday under various sections of the Indian Penal Code. Judicial Magistrate First Class (JMFC), Margao (south Goa) Pooja Kavlekar has changed them with cheating, criminal conspiracy, and forgery.

Related Narvekar posts - here, here and here

For the Uncle

for making it to the Wisden Cricketer ( and for giving me an excuse to post this video clip:) )



Rock On!

Putting the Uncle's theory to test

Uncle J Rod , in his summation of the first session of the current Test between Australia and the West Indies, wrote

Then Michael Clarke did what Michael Clarke does, fails when he comes in and the score is under 150.

So, with a little help from Statsguru, I ran the numbers

Scores 50 and above

149/4 - 151
234/4 - 91
171/3 - 73
128/4 - 141
100/3 - 91
155/3 - 56
407/4 - 56
257/4 - 124
206/3 - 135*
216/3 - 145
285/3 - 71
139/3 - 73
117/3 - 81
241/3 - 118
199/3 - 110

Scores 25 and below

108/4 - 17
191/4 - 5
101/4 - 17
33/4 - 7
445/4 - 7
71/4 - 1
135/4 - 20
147/4 - 8
146/3 - 8
187/3 - 22
66/3 - 11
186/6 - 7
281/3 - 25
152/2 - 5
101/2 - 5
258/2 - 14*
257/2 - 5
50/3 - 19

5 out of 7 hundreds with the score reading 200 or more.No substantial score when the team score below 100.

The Uncle has a point!

The ICC Pitch and Outfield guidelines

found here

GUIDANCE FOR RATING TEST MATCH PITCHES
Categories and Criteria
ALL CRITERIA ARE BASED ON THE PREMISE THAT ALL PITCHES SHOULD BE
COMPLETELY DRY AT THE COMMENCEMENT OF THE MATCH. ALL PITCHES
WILL BE JUDGED SOLELY ON HOW THEY PLAY.
Very Good
Good carry, limited seam movement and consistent bounce throughout, little or no turn on the
first two days but natural wear sufficient to be responsive to spin later in the game.
Good
Average carry, limited seam movement, consistent bounce throughout, natural wear sufficient
to be responsive to spin later in the game, though not quite meeting the criteria for carry and
bounce for a “very good” pitch.
Above Average
Lacks carry, and/or bounce and/or occasional seam movement, but consistent in carry and
bounce. A degree of turn, but with average bounce for the spinner. Falling significantly short
of “very good” with respect to carry, bounce and turn.
Below Average
Either very little carry and/or bounce and/or more than occasional seam movement, or
occasional variable (but not excessive or dangerous) bounce and/or occasional variable carry.
If a pitch demonstrates these features, then the pitch can not be rated in a higher category
regardless of the amount of turn the pitch displays at any stage of the match.
Poor
If any of the following criteria apply, a pitch may be rated “poor”:
• The pitch offers excessive seam movement at any stage of the match
• The pitch displays excessive unevenness of bounce for any bowler at any stage of the
match
• The pitch offers excessive assistance to spin bowlers, especially early in the match
Unfit
If the following criterion applies, a pitch may be rated “unfit”:
• The pitch is dangerous

Clarifications
• Excessive means “too much”.
• It is recognised that a limited amount of seam movement is acceptable early in the match
and that a pitch may develop some unevenness of bounce for seam bowlers as the match
progresses. This is acceptable, but should not develop to a point where they would be
described as “excessive”.
• There is nothing wrong with a pitch that affords some degree of turn on the first day of a
match though anything more than occasional unevenness of bounce at this stage of the
match is not acceptable. It is to be expected that a pitch will turn steadily more as a
match progresses, and it is recognised that a greater degree of unevenness of bounce may
develop.
• It is impossible to quantify the amount that a ball is “allowed” to turn as bowlers will
turn the ball differing amounts. The type and identity of bowler shall be taken into
account when assessing this factor.
• In no circumstances should the pitch ‘explode’.
GUIDANCE FOR RATING ONE DAY MATCH PITCHES
Fulfilment of the lowest criteria will determine the overall rating for the pitch. For example,
if the pitch demonstrates no unevenness, is just lacking in carry and/or bounce and more than
occasional turn, then it must be rated “Below Average”.
Referees should take into account the nature and identity of spin bowlers when assessing the
amount of turn that the pitch has demonstrated.
Unevenness Seam Carry and/or Turn
Movement Bounce
Very Good Little or no Little or no Good Little or no
unevenness seam movement turn
Good Little or no Little or no Just lacking Little or no unevenness seam movement turn
Above Average Occasional Occasional Lacking Occasional
Below Average More than More than Minimal More than
occasional occasional occasional
Poor Excessive Excessive Very Minimal Excessive
Unfit A pitch and is rated unfit only if it is dangerous

GUIDANCE FOR RATING OUTFIELDS
Very Good
Well grassed, even covering, no bare patches, no irregularity of bounce, fast pace.
Good
No bare patches, no irregularity of bounce, medium/fast pace.
Average
Predominantly well grassed, even covering, occasional irregularity of bounce, medium pace.
Poor
Excessive bare patches, excessive irregular bounce, slow (heavy) pace.
Unfit
Dangerous to fielders.
---

The ICC even has forms to tabulate pitch behavior :)..

Maybe it is just me, but doesn't it strike you as odd that batsmen friendly wickets are being deemed very good by the ICC while bowler friendly wickets fall under the category of Below Average or Poor?

The Prick speaks

"I just think Test cricket is probably not as exciting anymore because of the wickets that we're playing on," Ponting said. "People would rather watch a game in Perth as they would in Antigua. There's much more happening. There's more bouncers, more batsmen ducking and weaving and sometimes falling on their backsides, more catches behind the wicket, more hook shots. That's the sort of Test cricket that we all grew up watching and enjoying.

"I've said it for a number of years now that some of the wickets we play on a round the world are just too flat, too placid. That's what I would be saying to all the authorities around the world: Let's just try and do something with the wickets. If it means digging them up and relaying them then let's try it. It's obviously not working too well at the moment."

About Perth - how quickly Mr New Hairhat forgets

"We probably misread the conditions a bit," the Australian skipper said. "Anyone who looked at the pitch before this game would have thought it had a lot more pace and bounce in it than it did.

And talking of pitches,

Disappointing. It's fair to say that the wicket was nowhere near even being close to Test-match standard: that's pretty obvious given what we've seen over the last two days. 40 wickets falling in just over two days of a Test is pretty much unheard of. It's disappointing that the series has ended this way. It's been such a fantastic series, from the first ball bowled till the start of this match. It puts a bit of a sour taste in the mouth.

can you please make up your mind

Captain Ricky Ponting returned to the Australia side and told his players to stop complaining about pitch quality.

Ponting will lead Australia in the second Test against Sri Lanka this Friday after missing the Darwin match following the death of his aunt.

The hosts won the first Test, but with 40 wickets falling in eight sessions the pitch came in for harsh criticism.

Ponting said: "You don't want drawn Tests. We need players who can adapt and play to different conditions."

Riding the Tiger

To counter the "900 lb gorilla in the room", the ECB and Sir Allen Stanford have announced a series of 5 games between England and a Stanford All-Stars XI.

A deal will mean that if England win, each of the XI will receive US$1 million, the rest of the squad share US$1 million, and the management team splits another US$1 million. The remaining US$7 million will be shared between the ECB and the West Indies Cricket Board, regardless of the outcome of the match itself.

Also announced was a 5 year deal worth almost $50 million for

five annual quadrangular events to be held in England from next year. England and West Indies will always be involved in these.

So far, so good.

And then there is the Champions League

The inaugural Champions League tournament, involving the domestic Twenty20 finalists from England, Australia, South Africa and the IPL, will take place over a 10-day period in late September and early October with US$5 million on offer for the winners.

And, to top it all off, there are the "Test bonuses"

The England board has increased the win bonuses on offer to the players to £2million in a bid to keep them happy in the light of the money on offer from the Indian Premier League.

From an English player point of view, life has never been so rosy.

Or has it?

For starters, the Stanford prize is heavily skewed in favor of the playing XI. The bench warmers only get to share a million dollars amongst themselves. Look forward to major issues with team selection here.

And since there is no provision whatsoever for the non Twenty20 specialists ( step forward the Test and ODI players), expect more selection problems here. ( "Yeah Colly, thanks for not making me a part of the Stanford bonanza. This, after you got an MBE for making 7 piddly runs, courtesy my good offices").

And the selection headaches wont stop here.

With $5 million riding on the "Champions League", how many of the counties will be willing ( or able) to release their best Twenty20 players for the Stanford extravaganza?

And how many of them will be willing to risk injuries to their players ( with $20 million at stake, wont Kevin P want a piece of the pie even if he is nursing a bad hammy, which in turn keeps him out of Hampshire's Championship run?).

And then there is the 2 million Pound reward sitting on top of everything, for Test performances.Will the ECB choose to risk Test victories for the Twenty20 prize ( the ultimate sellout by a body that holds Test cricket sacrosanct) or will Test cricketers get more money ( in a bid to level the differences in remuneration) or can the ECB be content with the guaranteed $3.5 million it will get every year for the next 5 years?

And then there is the ICL - a go to tournament for all disgruntled Pom cricketers.

And how will the ECB handle the Kolpak issue, especially if the Kolpak players are the top performers in the domestic Twenty20 Championships? Will the process to integrate them into the mainstream be speeded up?And then, what about Ashley Giles' complaint?

And what about Television? Sky has the TV rights until 2009, ESPN has forked a fortune for beaming County cricket to Asia. Who gets the TV rights for the Stanford extravaganza and what will be the revenue sharing model?

Also, what about that Holy Grail of English Cricket - the Ashes? The current England itinerary looks like this

June - 5 ODIs v/s New Zealand
July/August - South Africa tour of England ( 4 Tests, 5 ODIs, 1T20)
September - ICC Champions Trophy (Pakistan)
November - Stanford T20
November/December - Tour of India ( 2 Tests, 7 ODIs)
Jan/April 2009 - Tour of West Indies (4 Tests, 5 ODIs)
June 2009 - ICC T20 World Championship
June/September 2009 - The Ashes (+7 ODIs)
November/Dec 2009 - Tour of South Africa ( 4 Test, 5 ODIs)

Somewhere in this time frame, the ECB will need to fit in the quadrangular tournament and also the second installment of the Stanford T20 ( probably to be played in Antigua, again ( with the black graphite coated bats in use, I doubt if Lords will be very welcoming) ).

How fit ( physically and match wise) will the English team be ( for both the Ashes and the Stanford Quadrangular?) or will the players be allowed to pick and choose tours between now and the time of the Ashes?

How is the ECB going to reconcile all the issues and the contradictions that it is going to face in the next 5 years, courtesy the big money flowing in?

Interesting times.

The silly season

is upon us..

Following the commercial success of the IPL, all talk has now veered towards the "Champions League" to be held this September/October ( in India or the Middle East, as the news reports inform us).

Now, for a little backgrounder -

The whole idea of the Champions League is not a new one

The Board of Control for Cricket in India has announced plans for a new Twenty20 tournament in October 2008.

The Champions Twenty20 League will feature two teams from India, competing against two each from England, Australia and South Africa.

and Vic Marks had this to say

But next season a new set of priorities will be in force. The most startling aspect of the Twenty 20 competition heralded in Delhi last week is the level of prize-money: a pot of £2.5million, of which £1m goes to the winners. These are unprecedented rewards, so how will the counties, many of whom now have chairmen with a keen commercial eye, react to this project? The format is that two English clubs - the finalists of next summer's Twenty20 competition - will go to India in October to compete in the'Champions League'.

David Collier, the chief executive of the ECB, says that the competition 'provides a new and exciting pinnacle for our county champions [in Twenty20 cricket]'. So it does, but it is not quite as simple as that.The logical response of the counties will be to throw all their resources at Twenty20 cricket, for there lies riches and salvation. Now the overseas signing will have to be a brilliant Twenty20 man - it may be that Andrew Symonds's stock has risen appreciably over the past week.

So, first off, this is not something that has come from left field - the concept had been unveiled over 9 months ago by India.

Between then and now, something changed and we had this news report

Cricinfo has learnt England have been offered the chance to host the tournament, which is likely to be held between the ICC Champions Trophy - which ends on September 28 - and the first Test between India and Australia, starting October 9.
....

Details of the Champions League have been informally firmed up over the last few weeks during discussions between top BCCI officials and those from Cricket Australia, Cricket South Africa, Pakistan Cricket Board and crucially, the England and Wales Cricket Board, a senior official who is close to the negotiations, said.

Considering the time constraints and the urgency to get the event off the ground this year itself, the officials were apparently keen that the event be wrapped up in nine days with eight matches and a final, ideally, at Lord's.

And then, something more changed too - from being an India-centric, India run tournament, it became

Cricket Australia chief executive James Sutherland said that he was excited by the tournament.

He and chairman Creagh O'Connor have been in discussions during the past week with the ECB, South African cricket and the Board of Control for Cricket in India and have reached an agreement in principle.

Unlike the IPL, which is a subsidiary of the BCCI, the champions league is owned evenly by the four competing countries and all will share in the revenue.

So, unlike the IPL where the BCCI had staked its all, the Champions League is not something that the BCCI has too much invested in - there are 4 different Boards that are equally responsible for the success or failure of the tournament.

Which bring me to the crux of this post, or more specifically, Neil Manthrop's rant

Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely.

The international cricket community is getting a taste of that old saying with India's current domination of the administrative and financial decision-making processes which govern the way the game is played. But what is 'power'? The answer, in sport at least, is unequivocal - power is money.

What gives IPL commissioner Lalit Modi the right to dictate which teams Michael Hussey and Albie Morkel play for in the forthcoming Twenty20 Champions League?

So, what did IPL Commisioner Lalit Modi say-

Franchises from the Indian Premier League will get first priority over players for the proposed Champions League, and any team that fields a cricketer from the unofficial Indian Cricket League will be automatically disqualified from the international Twenty20 competition, Lalit Modi, the chairman of IPL, has said.

However, Modi told Cricinfo that the Champions League was "still a long way away" and what has been agreed upon by various boards so far is "only an in-principle agreement" to host such an event. "The venues have not been decided, the dates are still open and we are trying to host the event this year," Modi said.

and

Asked about the Champions League's regulations, Modi, who is also a vice-president of the BCCI, said that "it had been clearly resolved earlier" that the IPL franchises would get priority over cricketers in their team. But the franchises will have to pay a "relieving fees" to the player's state team if both have qualified for the event, he said.

As Commisioner of the IPL, it is Mr Modi's responsibility to take care of the interests of the IPL ( and the franchises). It therefore follows that Mr Modi will make a strong case for the IPL franchises that are going to be involved in the "Champions League". Hence the first priority over players. ( This is a dichotomy that the English Counties will face also, given the number of Kolpak and overseas players ( two per team per last count) present in the 18 Counties. How they intend to resolve this is yet to be determined).

Whether this is viable and will come to fruition is a whole different story altogether, but Mr Modi would be doing the IPL and the franchises a dis-service if he said anything otherwise ( to the detriment of the IPL franchises).

Then there is the question of the ICL players -the IPL ( and the BCCI) had taken a hardline against the ICL and I don't see why that would change for the Champions League.

Additionally, he is quoted as saying that the Champions League is still a long way to go - an important point, but one that will be drowned in all the other noise. And it is important because, unlike the IPL which was the BCCI's baby all the way, the Champions League is the joint venture of 4 Cricket Boards, each with a different style of working and different priorities..

The odds of the Champions League taking off the ground this year, given the differences in attitudes and the not so friendly rapport shared by the Board officials are, in Mr Modi's words "still a long way off".

And then there is the matter of the "receiving fees" -

Dodemaide said he and other states expected "significant compensation" should IPL teams demand rights over its players.

Now, from the Royals or the Super Kings vantage, the Champions Trophy is a dud because it is an unbudgeted expense - player salaries have been negotiated for a three year period for the duration of the IPL and any additional games played by the players for the franchise are a cost whose returns are not accounted for.

And to top that, there are the "receiving fees". How the IPL or the BCCI or the 3 other Boards plan to reconcile this with the franchise owners remains to be seen.

But that does not deter Mr Manthrop from ranting ( and I expect a lot more along the same lines in the various news media over the coming days)

So what does give Modi the right? Money. It is almost of no consequence to the IPL, at least not the insignificant amounts which the Titans would take seriously. So Modi has graciously announced that IPL teams with players contracted to other teams will pay compensation - or what he has oddly labelled 'receiving fees.'

In theory the Titans could say 'no' and insist on Morkel's services in the push for $5 million. But it is only theory - in reality all Modi has to do is offer an amount the Titans could not afford to do without. A million rand should do it which, at around $150,000, is the kind of money the IPL budgets for snacks in their Franchise owners corporate boxes. Per match. Besides, Morkel would be ill-advised to upset the SuperKings who now pay him over ten times what the Titans can afford.

Allen Stanford's money will have a say on the future landscape of the international game and the England Cricket Board can sway opinion to small degree, but Lalit Modi has gripped the game by the balls and the rest of the world, unsurprisingly, is finding it very hard to move without fear or pain.

Perhaps Modi and the rest of the India's big chiefs genuinely don't care about the welfare of New Zealand, West Indian and South African cricket. Maybe it is irrelevant to them whether the game survives in other countries, let alone prospers or grows.

If they don't, however, then India will become to cricket what America is to gridiron and Australia to Aussie Rules. International cricket will eventually cease to exist in any meaningful sense.

Maybe that's the plan! Having taken control of the game and killed it off everywhere else, then India could play 180 IPL matches per year and call it the World Series, just like the Americans do!

And finally, clinching proof that we are in silly season

England's Test cricketers are to be offered bonus payments of up to £2m a year in an attempt to check the cash-driven shift towards Twenty20 as cricket's predominant format.

The move follows the announcement of another massive jackpot for the shorter version of the game when the first Champions League takes place in October, with a £2.5m prize for the winning team.