Come now, CMJ

Remember this gem from Andrew Miller on the Pawar nomination for ICC President-

With the Asian bloc unbreakable, all it would take for a Pawar victory would be a shifting of support of the African contingent, and then Pandora's Box really would be cracked open. For all his faults, Sonn remained a cricket-lover at heart, something that has not always been apparent at the fiscally obsessed BCCI. With Pawar installed at the head of the ICC, the way would be cleared for the takeover of the ICC that has long been threatened by the frustrated Indians, who represent 70% of the game's income and whose early exit from the World Cup conveniently distanced them from most - if not all - of the tournament's myriad failings.

Now, CMJ chimes in on Inderjit Singh Bindra's possible appointment as ICC Chief Executive

India's grip on world cricket would become more or less total if the 50-50 decision on who succeeds Malcolm Speed as chief executive of the ICC in June favours Inder Singh Bindra, one of the three most powerful men in the sport on the sub-continent. The four senior ICC figures charged with making the choice between Bindra and the rival preferred by two of them must be made soon, probably at the ICC's next meeting, on Monday and Tuesday of next week.

Makes you wonder where these profound reservations were when Malcolm Gray and Malcolm Speed (Australians both) were the President and Chief Executive of the ICC!

Noose reports!

International Cricket Council (ICC) is investigating Harbhajan Singh's reported outburst against Matthew Hayden and Adam Gilchrist to nip in the bud any open conflict between Indian Board and Cricket Australia, a media report has claimed.

According to 'The Australian', match referees Mike Procter and Jeff Crowe have asked India to reign in Harbhajan.

"We are aware of Harbhajan Singh's comments and are in dialogue with the two boards (Australia and India)," the newspaper quoted an ICC spokesman as saying.

Harbhajan could be charged with unbecoming conduct, which carries penalties, including suspension, the report added.

Just like they, or rather the ICC appointed match referee Jeff Crowe did, when there were unsubstantiated reports of Harbhajan doing the "monkey scratch" at the SCG

The Board of Control for Cricket in India will ask the ICC to investigate the actions of match referee Jeff Crowe, who pursued unauthenticated media reports against Harbhajan Singh.

Many newspaper reports in Australia accused off-spinner Harbhajan of making monkey gestures at sections of the crowd during the first Commonwealth Bank Series final between Australia and India in Sydney.

Following the reports, referee Crowe proceeded with an investigation into the alleged incident, but decided to take no action against Harbhajan after inspecting all the available evidence.

It is good to note that the ICC is taking cognizance of all media reports that come its way. So here are two more media reports for the ICC's perusal

A Herald Sun report said Australian supporters shouted "Show us your visas, show us your visas" at Indian fans, interviewed by their reporters. The visiting fans described the chant as "offensive, ugly and racist".

Even some Australian fans found the chants racist.

"That is racist," a home supporter, Heath Robbins, was quoted as saying.

"It is attacking a person's country and they should be kicked out of the ground as they should for any offensive behaviour to any other people," he said.

CA spokesman Peter Young said no action can be taken against those involved in the chant because it was not reported to the police or security.

"Police have confirmed the chant took place and conducted extensive interviews with both Indian and Australian supporters and they did not find anyone who was offended," Young said.

and

Witnesses said Harbhajan, who was last week branded an "obnoxious little weed" by Matthew Hayden, was retaliating to sustained crowd abuse during Australia's innings.

It was claimed some fans taunted the divisive spinner to "show us your knot" and "get a haircut" – both references to his Sikh roots.

And just in case the ICC honchos were not aware, here is the the Anti Racism write up on the ICC website

Anti Racism and Diversity

Across the world, cricket has a rich and diverse history and regularly demonstrates its capacity to break down boundaries and draw cultures together. There is a strong tradition of fans from rival teams enjoying matches side by side and the off-field camaraderie amongst players is a celebrated feature of the game.

Against this backdrop there is clearly no place for discriminaton so following an independent report from India's Solicitor General, Goolam Vahanvati, the ICC Anti-Racism Code was strengthened in November 2006.

This Code - one of the toughest in world sport - confirms a level of commitment from the ICC and its Members to promote and encourage participation at all levels regardless of race, colour, religion, national or ethnic origin and to ensure that there is no discrimination in the sport.

It requires ICC Members to impose punishments on spectators found guilty of racial abuse, from ejection from the venue to a life ban, and deliver preventative measures at international matches.

To assist Members with the adoption of the new Code, the ICC introduced an implementation template and check list shortly after the Code was adopted and since the start of 2007 it has begun to monitor the application of these measures around the cricket world.

Members failing to uphold the Code face penalties if racist incidents happen at a venue under their control. These penalties range from warnings through to fines and the possible withdrawal of international status from a venue.

The ICC's commitment to ensuring the diversity of the sport is respected by its participants is also enshrined in the Code of Conduct for Players and Officials where on-field racism is considered one of the most serious acts that can be committed, with the possibility of a life ban for anyone found guilty of such an offence.

At the ICC World Twenty20 2007, the ICC celebrated its inaugural Diversity Day with events involving both the South Africa and Pakistan teams and young people from racially diverse communities.

Given their penchant for acting on newspaper/media reports, will the ICC act now?

Bull!

TEST all-rounder Andrew Symonds is at odds with Cricket Australia bosses - but he's not allowed to tell you why.

His column filed for today's The Sunday Mail attacked administrators, who last night pulled the article.

Under Cricket Australia rules, all players writing newspaper columns must have their material read then approved by CA media director Peter Young.

Young last night told The Sunday Mail: "There are inaccuracies in the column – Andrew does not understand the full story.

"I cannot provide approval for publication. He needs to be briefed on the situation. There will be a player briefing next week."

----

ANDREW Symonds' column will no longer appear in The Sunday Telegraph.

After twice being gagged by Cricket Australia, Symonds has been bullied into believing the only way to do a column with this paper is to have it ghost-written by cricket officials.

This paper had no interest in running a column that is not only vetted by Cricket Australia but also written by its employees.

---
Does this mean that when Symonds wrote this

INDIA is never an easy place to tour, but I am surprised at how hostile it has been.

There has been quite a bit of feeling between the two sides, and now that it has started, I can't see things changing greatly. We certainly won't be taking a backward step.

The feeling has come from the carry-on that surrounded India's World Twenty20 win. When we got here, it was just everywhere.

Our blokes thought it was over the top. Some of the things their players have been given and the way they are treated, it's like they are rock stars and princes.

The Indian Government gave them a heap of money. Yuvraj Singh got a Porsche. Blokes are getting houses and blocks of land.

It was all over the papers and even the Indian hockey team blew up. Two days before our first game, the Indian players didn't train because their guys were shooting commercials.

It's been irritating because it's been in our face. We see them on television every day.

and ostensibly said this

"The thing is, we've only been playing them for five minutes," Symonds said.

"They're saying they've built up this new Indian team, but we'll see how much they've changed at the end of our summer.

"OK, they've beaten us in a Twenty20 game and one one-dayer in four years. You can't gauge much on that, but we'll see how this so-called new Indian team goes on our soil."

The Indians have won just one Test in 26 years in Australia - a four-wicket win in Adelaide in 2003.

"You don't become a great player overnight and it's the same as a team: you need sustained success to be respected.

"When other sides say you're a great side, that's when you're a great side," Symonds said.

"They've got some world-class players but it's how they gel together. As soon as we spot one sign of weakness or selfishness, that's when we go in for the kill."

the CA was onside?

Whatever happened to the CA knowtowing to every Indian whim and fancy?

Gangs and the Wall

John has, in his post, raised a pertinent question - How do they put 20000 runs to pasture gracefully?

I have put in a longish comment which I plan to elaborate on here.

India's immediate need is not its ODI team or its Twenty20 team. Our immediate needs are to find a couple of quality spinners who can take over the mantle from Anil Kumble and to find steady replacements for the greatest middle order the Indian team has had.

While the quality of what we will lose cannot be compensated,a move away from the super bats era to a more total-cricket era will be more than welcome.

India's strength in the longer form of the game is its bowling - the depth and the variety we possess is second to none.

If we can compliment this depth in bowling with a batting lineup that is steady, if not spectacular, and one that gives the bowling line up enough runs and enough time to take 20 wickets, our cricket will be well served in the near and medium term.

The trick is - how? How do we jettison what we have and bring in the untried and the untested and expect to maintain similar, if not the same, standards?

This is where the comment I made on John's blog comes into play. I reproduce it, in full.

John,

I think this senior junior thingie is the wrong debate - what has been evident in the Oz tour has been the acceptance of an horses for courses policy.

The presence of SRT or RD or SCG is required because of their experience - the been there done that thingie.

Now, of the three, SRT has been known to be the go to guy for all matters of issues cricketing - even when SCG or RD or MA were captains. He, therefore, lends himself well a s the obvious choice for the mentor role with the team.

RD and SCG do not bring the mentorship capacity to the table - what they have is their primary skills as batsmen and the baggage of being ex-India captains.

Do we need pure batsmen or batsmen bowlers in the team- there are enough candidates who can fill that role.

Do we need ex-India captains and their baggage and their ability to form alternate power centers?

If the GC experience has taught us anything, it is the fact that multiple power centers is detrimental to the team as a whole.

There will be cases when we may still need to play all three in the same team. Just that those cases may be few and far in between.

At the same time, pensioning them off is not necessarily a smart thing because, with the IPL money, if they decide to say good bye to Test Cricket also, we are in a deep hole as we do not have people who can readily slot into the role that RD and SG have played thus far.

I think it is more prudent to keep RD and SG in the fray, getting them to play the odd ODI over the next year or so, while utilizing their services in Test cricket as we groom their successors in the longer form of the game ( by having a policy of rotation - 2 seniors + 1 junior in the middle order always for the next 20 Tests).

Assuming we do have a rotation policy in place,we are giving the new kids enough time and latitude to find their feet in test cricket.

Not only will they have the luxury of fitting into their batting positions, they will have the luxury of playing under the shadow of two/three senior players - as good a safety net as any.

And there are 10 odd tests to assess their ability - an important factor so that we do not all come out feeling short changed.

Given age and ability, the policy can also be modified so that the person anointed to take Ganguly's place, for example, is given a greater number of opportunities right off the bat, assuming Ganguly is the first of the Fab 4 to retire.

Can it work? The proof of the pudding...

19.10

Now you know why you are bargain basement price Pricky.

Homecoming

The World Champions are home!

Done and Dusted

We won.Its over. Come back home.

Ban or no ban Mr Atherton?

The furore that has followed his rather too frequent use of the beamer is easier to justify. The beamer is the hardest ball for a batsman to pick up precisely because it pitches (or doesn't pitch) so far from where the batsman expects. If it is bowled on target, as Lee's invariably is, then it can be lethal. Lee was visibly sheepish after his latest beamer at Marcus Trescothick during the NatWest Series final. After taking Andrew Strauss's wicket shortly afterwards he remained head bowed rather than celebrating in his usual fist-pumping fashion.

His visible embarrassment and immediate fulsome apology convinces me that Lee's beamers are unintentional, although other international bowlers doubt that such a quality performer can be so far out of kilter. The other reason for giving Lee the benefit of the doubt is that he is such a demonstrably decent fellow. His popularity among team-mates, current and former, is legend. Michael Slater, one of the few Australian pundits prepared to speak frankly about former team-mates, says "he's just a champion".

---

Rather an apology than nothing, but it seems to me that the apology is irrelevant. The damage could have been severe. A batsman is conditioned to look for the ball on a downward trajectory out of the bowler's hand, and therefore will not necessarily pick it up. (The only other time I've seen one bowled in a Test match, by Glenn McGrath, it stuck straight in Mark Ramprakash's grille without the batsman flinching).

Moreover, an apology doesn't necessarily mean it is sincere. With match referees on the prowl, any bowler with an ounce of survival instinct is bound to apologise, deliberately bowled or not. And the batsman/batting side has no option but to accept it, for if it is not accepted then the moral high ground shifts in favour of the bowler, whose integrity is suddenly in question.

....

If bowled deliberately there cannot be a more cowardly action on a cricket field; if bowled accidentally it is still potentially lethal. Either way it should incur an immediate one-match ban. (Only obvious extenuating circumstances, such as a one-day game played in the rain, should save the bowler from such a penalty).

----

40.1	Lee to Tendulkar, 1 no ball, spears in the full toss, a no-ball which appeared to crash into his helmet
That seemed to slip out, it hit him on the shoulder in fact. Tendulkar is typically sanguine and accepted the apology readily, the umpires are having a word with Ponting now

When ignorance is bliss,

He is part of a caste system in a country whose tiered society benefits only those at its pinnacle. The Indian spinner definitely does not sit at the bottom of such a system.

it is folly to be wise Ms Wilson!

Goodbye Dizzy

Prem Panicker, in a different context, on Jason Gillespie-

Hold off on the celebrations for just a second -- and with everything you've got, applaud a man with a brittle body and a heart bigger than the stadium he performed prodigies in today.

Jason Gillespie was incredible -- and you use that word only because you can't find a stronger one. India needing 155 to win, 70 overs to get it in, and a batting lineup that had, in its two previous innings, batted over five sessions and scored at speed.

Glen McGrath, the more visible face of Australian fast bowling, was good in his first spell, but never threatening. Colin Miller at first change seemed to be bowling his off spin on a different pitch from the one on which Harbhajan, yet again, performed brilliantly. Shane Warne -- the spearhead, the man expected to flatten India with the backing of two quality seamers -- was smashed out of the attack. And despite two wickets against the run of play, India was running away with the game.

Or would have, except for one man who just did not know how to give up.

Long after everything else about this series is forgotten, one image will remain evergreen -- a tall, lanky young man, walking back as slowly as possible to the top of his bowling mark, trying to use every extra second to give his body some rest, talking to himself every step of the way. Turning. Facing the batsman. Pausing -- and visibly gathering himself for yet another supreme effort, then bursting out of the blocks to send down yet another sizzling delivery.

Jason Gillespie single-handedly lifted his team. The other ten seemed to realise, suddenly, that there was something special happening in their midst, got a second wind, and lifted their own game.

An Australian reader, in mail day before yesterday, said: "This Test is looking for a hero." Today, it found one -- and as so often happens, that hero happened to be part of the team that lost.

A hero indeed!

Blasphemous

This article, highlighted below, in today's The Australian..

Warning shot no answer to hand grenade

• Font Size: Decrease Increase
• Print Page: Print

Patrick Smith | February 29, 2008

MATTHEW HAYDEN made a glib response to the finding of the Cricket Australia's code of conduct hearing. He said by calling Harbhajan Singh "an obnoxious little weed" he did not denigrate anybody.

He did, of course. Himself and Harbhajan for starters. And Australian cricket. That the code of conduct commissioner Ron Beazley only handed the opening batsman a reprimand is astonishing. Cricket has utterly lost its way.

This has been a summer of bullying, compromise and timid management. It began with the decision not to find Yuvraj Singh guilty of dissent when he stood his ground after being dismissed in the first Test.

Match referee Mike Procter inexplicably accepted Yuvraj's defence that the batsman was merely shocked with the decision. Procter also cited "cultural differences". Dissent is dissent in Melbourne or Timbuktu.

Then there was the diluted reaction to Andrew Symonds' claim that he was racially vilified by Harbhajan when he called him "a monkey". Initially banned for three Tests, the racial vilification charge was downgraded on appeal to one of using abusive language. Harbhajan was fined and talk of the tour being abandoned put on hold.

Since then the crossfire between the Indian and Australian cricketers has been regular and spiteful. But it has mostly been kept to the field with one side accusing the other of inappropriate behaviour. It seems both sides are prepared to chip away but resent it when the retaliation comes flying back.

Australia has ruled the word both mentally and physically for decades. It stands atop the Test and one-day tables because it plays tough but inventive cricket. Part of its strategy is to intimidate the opposition. The players sledge even though they say they adhere to their spirit of cricket code.

Australians prickle when somebody does not put up with their insults. There are slurs and allegations but nothing is heard clearly. Did he say mad boy or bad boy? Did he say monkey or some other word? Each side has a different story and version, making adjudication almost impossible. One sledger's word against another.

The Australians are angry because they believe Cricket Australia has been meek when it should have been strong. Symonds and Ricky Ponting are still seething that Harbhajan's charge was downgraded. They fancy CA cut a deal. Symonds' frustration bubbles over with Ishant Sharma and the India fast bowler sends him on his way.

If Harbhajan has a reputation then so does Hayden. It is just that Hayden has decided to go on record. His interview on Brisbane radio was mean-spirited and ill-timed. India has every right to feel perplexed. Just as the tour crawls to its end, Hayden throws a hand grenade.

The solution to Hayden's problem should have been clear cut for there were finally no allegations, no "he said this" and "he said that". Not one man's word against another. Hayden went public. Went on the record.

"It's been a bit of a long road with Harbhajan, the first time I met him he was the same obnoxious little weed that he is now," he told Brisbane radio.

There was no need for any second guessing by commissioner Beazley. There was a spiteful comment about an opposition player. It was on radio and in print. Hayden's penalty should have been swift and harsh. He had to be suspended for one match.

Cricket will soon become unplayable if players are free to sledge their opponents so rudely and so vigorously in public.

Harbhajan has already responded, saying: "I don't want it to be a slanging match but you only need to speak to international cricketers and international teams to know in what opinion they hold Hayden."

This is hardly about free speech or being playful in an interview - it is provocative and bad-mannered. Hayden cannot be punished for what we don't hear on the field, but he should have been suspended for what we heard him say off it.

India is playing with a new aggression and confidence. It knows that its board controls world cricket. That new and powerful status is reflected in the way the players no longer take a backward step.

Australia has long been the bully boy of world cricket. Just because opponents are no longer in awe of the Australians does not mean opposition players don't respect them. They just won't lick their boots like they used to. Now that some of Ricky Ponting's men have been challenged they have failed to respond with any dignity at all.

As always, Australia likes to bowl bouncers and is offended when the opposition doesn't bowl half-volleys in return.

Only God can now save us from the wrath of the Conn .. And what will Peter Lalor do??

Hell hath no fury...

No extra webbing?

Also, check out

Puma Atomic 4000 Gel Wicket Keeping Gloves

Puma Ballistic 5000 Wicket Keeping Gloves

Kookaburra Silver Wicket Keeping Gloves

Gray Nicolls Viper Wicket Keeping Gloves

Puma Atomic 3000 Wicket Keeping Gloves

Gray Nicolls Predator Wicket Keeping Gloves

Garry

Here, here, here and here

The obnoxious little "Cricinfo staff"

Matthew Hayden has stirred already troubled waters by calling Harbhajan Singh an "obnoxious weed", a comment that will only serve to further deepen the animosity between the two sides which has surfaced during India's current tour.

Speaking on a Brisbane radio station, Hayden said: "It's been a bit of a long battle with Harbhajan, the first time I ever met him he was the same little obnoxious weed that he is now. His record speaks for itself in cricket.

---

MATTHEW Hayden labelled Harbhajan Singh an "obnoxious little weed" yesterday and India were told to shut up and stop whingeing as cricket's hostile summer erupted again.

Hayden unleashed his stinging verbal attack on Harbhajan on the same day that former Test firebrand Rodney Hogg demanded that India stop moaning about trivial on-field clashes.

The "Cricinfo staff" strike - again!

Munaf

Watching Munaf Patel bowl in his first Test match at Mohali was a bit like reading the first page of a novel that hinted at greatness. It wasn't that India hadn't produced fast bowlers before him, but here was a young man taking his first steps on the big stage as though he belonged there.
---
“I’m very happy that I’m playing international cricket again. There was never an issue about my bowling, it was my fitness, and now that I am fit everything else is sorted out. I’m happy with the way I am going and hitting the seam and have been hitting consistently in the late 130kmphs,” Munaf said.

His utmost priority is to a go through an injury-free season and for that, he said, he's bowling well within himself.
---
In a chat with The Indian Express after practice at the SCG nets, the lanky Maharashtra seamer said he was feeling better than ever with his international comeback and said his bowling gave him greater confidence to once again get into reckoning with the speed gun. “I’ve just made a comeback into the team after battling from injuries previously and I am steadily getting there. For me to bowl fast again is not a problem, I can again crack the 140s easily. Woh to mera natural cheez hai, who kaise chhutega? Tez toh mein waapas dalunga. I don’t want to rush into the speed race straightaway,” he says.
---
So what is the truth then ?

Are we dealing with a man who, after battling injuries, fitness issues and lost telephone numbers, is finding his feet back into International cricket and is bowling well within himself or a bowler who Mr Premachandran describes as

Watch him bowl less than two years on, and you find it hard to believe you're not watching an impostor. The pace is gone, the yorkers are nowhere to be seen, and the only movement on view is the swing of the batsman's bat before the ball disappears. Apart from one over where he had Kumar Sangakkara edging over slip and then inside-edging just short of the 'keeper, Munaf's spell was an exercise in listlessness.