Dear Mandarins at the ICC,
So you decided to alter the FTP to accommodate an extra Test in the ongoing England tour of the West Indies.
And you, in your infinite wisdom, decided that since the technology could not be made available for the referrals, to do away with referrals for this test. Ths altering the previously agreed upon playing conditions.
And yet, there seems to be an interminable delay in questioning the WICB over the debacle at the Sir IVA Richards stadium. Till date ( 5 days after the said debacle), the match referee is yet to file his report, and there seems to be no urgency to do so. Unlike Kanpur.
Also, the ARG has displayed variable bounce from Day 1. Some balls have been taken by the wicketkeeper above head height while others have snaked along the ground. And the variety in the bounce is getting more pronounced with every passing day.
Now, per your own guidelines on what constitutes a good pitch, this would be considered poor.
And yet, there is not a peep - either from the officialdom at the ground or the mandarins at Mt Dubai.
So, what gives?
Tuesday, February 17, 2009
What gives?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
13 comments:
I maybe wrong here.. but I feel maybe the fact that the Sir IVA Richards stadium is in Windies and not India has something to do with this...
maybe..
;-)
Leela,
maybe..... :)
Cheers,
will BCCI act up and force ICC to do smthin ?
Sam_2,
Its not the BCCI's job - the ICC has set precedents and must now act on those precedents.
Cheers,
Unfair to blame the ARG pitch when it had just a day for the preparations.
RGB,
The only reason the Test was held in the first place was to placate the traveling English support.
And if the Test is held, it must adhere to the standards that the ICC prescribes.
Or, dont give it official status.
If it is official, why make an exception for the rules?
Cheers,
The rating of the pitch is submitted after the match is finished. Maybe there will be a bad rating given and the WICB sanctioned, although I agree with RGB that this would be unfair. (Mind you, that probably means they will do it.) The Kanpur pitch was "due to inadequate preparation". In this case, ICC officials were part of the decision to schedule a Test on a pitch that couldn't possibly have adequate preparation. As Homer suggests, they have lifted the rules in advance. (Otherwise, they should sanction themselves ;)
The WICB deserves sanctions only for the original ground. Do we know whether the match referee has submitted his report, or is he too busy getting on with the replacement Test? It's worth remembering that in the Kanpur case, they waite for the BCCI response and took nearly a month to come to a decision.
Watchout, they'll take you off their blog roll...
http://www.catchthespirit.com/blog/blog_landing.aspx
JOnathan,
There has been no news anywhere on the match referee submitting a report.
And yes, the ICC should sanction itself - matches have been abandoned before (ODIs, to boot) without rescheduling of any sort. So why this new precedent?
Cheers,
lol UJ.. Thanks for the link... Now I will have to be extra extra careful :)
Cheers,
Homer, c'mon. There's always one rule for Asia and one otherwise. Windies havent fully thrown themselves behind the so-called Asian bloc so they will sometimes get these special treatment - not always, mind, since they havent thrown themselves behind the other bloc either.
Remember the golden rule, only Asian countries make bad pitches, if a pitch behaves badly in Oz or Eng or NZ, then ICC will redefine 'poor pitch'.
And remember, ICC is dominated by India - anything India wants gets done so maybe, Indian board wanted to sanction itself for Kanpur :-)
(P.S: Just read that last line - that is clear proof against stupid bloggers from certain countries who claim that India flexes its muscles in the ICC - if they did, why they do get sanctions for poor pitches while no one else does? In fact, it should be the other way around? Yet, we'll have sainted Gillies and his friends whining that India dominates the ICC)
The match ref will have to submit report for the 2nd Test at some point, like any other. There could be many reason why the details haven't made the news yet. When it does go through, a response much more harsh than in the Kanpur case must be considered, which should take more time, not less time. It's much too early to say the precedent hasn't been followed.
As for rescheduling, a decision had to be made, and while it depends on the priorities used, in theory I don't see it as inconsistent with having higher standards in normal circumstances. (I don't see what was actually wrong with the Kanpur pitch, but that's a separate issue.)
I'm not sure about the comparison with abandoned ODIs, but it's interesting that the first ODI was a resheduled abandoned Test match...
If the logistics and schedule permit, abandoned tests should be replayed lest it set a counter precedent.
The ARG played out quite well in the end. Exception can be made in this case considering the circumtances.
Post a Comment