THE DRAVID DISMISSAL DEBATE

After my previous post on The Dravid Selection Debate, this one is now on the 2nd innings dismissal of Rahul Dravid during the 4th Test at the Oval. It looks like Dravid debates are the fashion for this season! Already, this dismissal has been discussed and dissected all over Twitter and other cricket forums on the internet. Here are my thoughts for what they are worth!

First, let me state very clearly that I did not see the dismissal live and did not even manage to catch a replay till well after the end of day's play. When I did see the replay, I already knew that Dravid had admitted to have edged it. So whether I think there was an edge or not does not matter, because my eyes were always going to be prejudiced after that admission by Dravid. But here's what I do know:

1. Most English commentators and tweeters were of the opinion that they saw a slight deflection from a certain angle, and so Steve Davis was justified in ruling Dravid out.

2. Most Indian commentators and tweeters were of the opinion that they saw no conclusive evidence for Steve Davis to overrule the on-field decision. Since DRS over-ruling works on the basis of conclusive evidence, Davis was not justified.

3. Amongst the neutral, I don't recall many opinions. But I do recall Mike Haysman tweeting that he didn't think there was any conclusive evidence to rule Dravid out.

I think that based on these statements, we can assume that it was a marginal call either way.

Now what I am going to state here has been stated so often already that it's sounding more and more like a cliché, but it has to be mentioned nevertheless. So here it goes again - the DRS was meant to eliminate howlers, and not rule on marginal calls. Where marginal calls are involved, the ground umpire's decision should be taken as the final one. Only when there is overwhelming evidence against the ground umpire's ruling should that decision be overturned.

But while I state all this, lets not forget that the primary aim of the judiciary (and this includes the umpires as well as the technology that has been provided for their aid) is to come to the right decision. And in Dravid's case, the right decision was indeed reached, even though in a wrong way! I remember once an umpire (I think it was Simon Taufel, but I'm not sure!) stated that they would not want their walkie-talkie conversations ever recorded, because often they reach the right decisions in very wrong ways!

So what to make of this debate? Now that we have the benefit of hindsight, in my opinion and strictly in my opinion, I think that the right decision was made and Steve Davis was good to have spotted that faint edge and deviation. In his mind, he was must have been reasonably sure that the edge had been taken, however thin it may have been, and he relayed that decision back to the ground umpire. That's it!

But that's not the end of the story! What I have trouble comprehending is that why are umpires inconsistent in this matter. Some like Billy Bowden prefer to go exactly by the rule book and rule Ian Bell not out in the World Cup match against India even though the evidence overwhelmingly suggested that he should have been Yuvraj Singh's victim! And some like Steve Davis decide to use their initiative and overrule the foundation on which the DRS is based - i.e. the foundation of overwhelming evidence!

I know that the "Ian Bell - Yuvraj Singh - Billy Bowden" example is not quite an exact parallel to this one. And to be honest, I couldn't find any exact parallel. So I will give you the best I could find...

The following video shows the wickets and close calls during the Canada vs. Kenya match in the World Cup 2011. Watch this video from 5:02 onwards - the batsman is Kenyan Steve Tikolo, and the bowler is Canadian Rizwan Cheema.



Now, from what I see here, I think that the edge was clearer here on Steve Tikolo's bat than it was in case of Rahul Dravid at The Oval. I know that it may be a futile exercise to compare, since the situations were different and the umpires involved were different (Bruce Oxenford was the third umpire in the Steve Tikolo case). But the point I'm trying to make is that Oxenford saw it was a marginal call, and though some angles suggested an inside edge, he decided to rule it in favour of the on-field umpire's call. He saw no overwhelming evidence to overrule!

Here, I am not trying to blame Steve Davis in any way. I have already stated that with the benefit of hindsight, we can all agree that the correct decision was made. But the blame lies entirely with ICC's pathetic implementation of the DRS, and its use for marginal calls.

I understand that Bruce Oxenford may not have been as convinced as Steve Davis was to overrule the on-field call, but if I am allowed to judge the third umpires here, I am sure that neither Oxenford nor Davis could have been 100% sure about the edges. Even if Steve Davis was reasonably certain about the edge, I am prepared to bet that he could not have been a 100% confident about his call... simply because it indeed was a very marginal call and the replays could not have been deemed to be 100% conclusive. The varied opinions all over Twitter suggest nothing else.

So what does the ICC have to state? Are the on-field calls to be over-ruled where the third umpires are just reasonably sure about the evidence on offer? Or are they to be over-ruled only when the third umpires are a 100% certain about the error in the on-field decision? Till the ICC does not answer this question clearly and decisively, we will continue to have such vagaries in decision-making even in the future. How this decision might affect the result of this match will be known only tomorrow (and even then, just speculatively), but what it did was that it ended a marathon effort by India's best batsman on this tour on a very sour note!

Well played, Rahul Dravid! Much respect!

INDIA VS. REST OF THE WORLD

NOTE: All the information on the cases mentioned in this blog post (except for the last one) comes from a singular source - this page on the official website of the International Cricket Council (ICC). Thank you to @HomerTweets for tweeting this link.

NOTE AGAIN: I have just quoted whatever information I deemed was relevant from the above-mentioned webpage. Whatever comments I wanted to make have been made after all the cases have been quoted.

So here goes...

Case 1: South Africa v India, 3rd Test, January 5, 2011, Cape Town

"Sreesanth kicked the boundary kicked the boundary rope after his two LBW appeals were turned down in the previous over. A charge was brought by Ian Gould and Simon Taufel of the Emirates Elite panel of ICC Umpires, third umpire Brian Jerling and fourth umpire Shaun George. Action: Sreesanth pleaded guilty to contravening Level 1 offence (Section 2.1.2) of the ICC Code of Conduct for Players and Team Officials which relates to "abuse of cricket equipment or clothing, ground equipment or fixtures and fittings". Sreesanth has been fined 10 per cent of his match fee.Sreesanth accepted the decision without contest, there was no need for a hearing."

Case 2: Australia v Zimbabwe, 21st Feb, Ahmedabad

"Roshan Mahanama of the Emirates Elite Panel of ICC Match Referees charged Australia captain Ricky Ponting after an incident was brought to the ICC's attention through the Board of Control for Cricket in India and the Gujarat Cricket Association. He was found to have breached clause 2.1.2 of the code which relates to "abuse of cricket equipment or clothing, ground equipment or fixtures and fittings during an international match". The charge was brought by the chairman of the Event Technical Committee David Richardson on behalf of the ICC Chief Executive, in accordance with the regulations. The incident occurred shortly after Ponting was run out in the match when he caused some damage to a television set in the team dressing room. The damage occurred when he threw down a piece of equipment which bounced off his kit bag and hit the corner of the television. Action: Ponting accepted the Level 1 charge and the proposed sanction. He was officially reprimanded. As Ponting accepted the offence and the proposed sanction, there was no need to convene a formal hearing. Level 1 offences carry penalties ranging from an official reprimand to 50 per cent of a player's match fee."

Case 3: India v England, 27th Feb, Bengaluru

"The incident took place on the last ball of the 49th over when Tim Bresnan, after he was clean bowled by Piyush Chawla, hit the stumps with his bat. Bresnan pleaded guilty to contravening Level 1 offence (Section 2.1.2) of the ICC Code of Conduct for Players and Team Officials which relates to "abuse of cricket equipment or clothing, ground equipment or fixtures and fittings". The charge was brought by on-field umpires Billy Bowden and Marais Erasmus, third umpire Rod Tucker and fourth umpire Aleem Dar who are all from the Emirates Elite panel of ICC Umpires. Action: As Bresnan accepted the decision without contest, there was no need for a hearing. All Level 1 breaches carry a minimum penalty of an official reprimand and/or a maximum penalty of the imposition of a fine up to 50 per cent of a player's match fee."

Case 4: Bangladesh v England, 12th Mar, Chittagong

"England off-spinner Graeme Swann was charged with a Level 1 offence under article 2.1.4 of the code which relates to, 'Using language or a gesture that is obscene, offensive or insulting during an international match.' The charge was brought by on-field umpires Rod Tucker and Daryl Harper and third umpire Aleem Dar, all from the Emirates Elite Panel of ICC Umpires. Action: Swann pleaded guilty to the charge and as such, under the provisions of the code, the matter was determined by Jeff Crowe of the Emirates Elite Panel of ICC Match Referees and so there was no requirement for a full hearing. Swann was charged with a Level 1 offence under article 2.1.4 of the code which relates to, 'Using language or a gesture that is obscene, offensive or insulting during an international match.' He was fined 10 per cent of his match fees."

Case 5: England v Sri Lanka, 2-6 June, Lord's

"England wicketkeeper Matt Prior was reprimanded for breaching the ICC Code of Conduct during his team's Test match against Sri Lanka at Lord's. He was found to have breached clause 2.1.2 of the code which relates to "abuse of cricket equipment or clothing, ground equipment or fixtures and fittings during an international match". The charge was brought by on-field umpires Billy Doctrove and Rod Tucker as well as third umpire Aleem Dar and fourth official Richard Illingworth. The incident occurred shortly after Prior was run out in the match when his actions caused the window to break. Action: Prior accepted the Level 1 charge and the proposed sanction from Javagal Srinath of the Emirates Elite Panel of ICC Match Referees after an incident where a window was broken in the England team dressingroom. As Prior accepted the offence and the proposed sanction, there was no need to convene a formal hearing. Level 1 offences carry penalties ranging from an official reprimand to 50 per cent of a player's match fee."

Case 6: West Indies v India, 20-24 June, Kingston, Jamaica

"India spinner Amit Mishra has been fined 10 per cent of his match fee for a Level 1 breach of the ICC Code of Conduct during his team's first Test against the West Indies in Jamaica. Mishra was found to have breached Article 2.1.3 of the code which relates to "showing dissent at an umpire's decision by action or verbal abuse". The charge was brought by on-field umpires Ian Gould and Daryl Harper as well as third umpire Norman Malcolm. Action: After play concluded on day two, the player accepted the proposed sanction offered to him by Jeff Crowe of the Emirates Elite Panel of ICC Match Referees. All Level 1 breaches carry a minimum penalty of an official reprimand and a maximum penalty of 50 per cent of a player's match fee."

Case 7: England v India, 29 July-2 August, Nottingham

"India bowler Praveen Kumar has been fined 20 per cent of his match fee after pleading guilty to a Level 1 breach of the ICC Code of Conduct during England's innings on the first day of the second Test at Trent Bridge, Nottingham. The charge related to an incident at the end of the 18th over of the day during which Kumar had an appeal for leg before wicket against England batsman Kevin Pietersen turned down and at the end of the over he then engaged in a debate with umpire Marais Erasmus about the decision. Action: Kumar was found to have breached Article 2.1.3 of the code which relates to arguing or entering into a prolonged discussion with the umpire about his decision. After play concluded for the day, the player admitted the offence and accepted the proposed sanction offered to him by Ranjan Madugalle the chief referee of the Emirates Elite Panel of ICC Match Referees. As such, there was no need for a formal hearing. The charge had been laid by the on-field umpires Asad Rauf and Marais Erasmus and third umpire Billy Bowden of the Emirates Elite Panel of ICC Umpires as well as fourth umpire Tim Robinson."

Case 8: England v India, 29 July-2 August, Nottingham (Source)

"Graeme Swann has been reprimanded for a level one breach of the ICC Code of Conduct during the second day of the second Test match between England and India at Trent Bridge. Swann was found to have breached Article 2.1.2 of the code which relates to abuse of cricket equipment or clothing, ground equipment or fixtures and fittings during an international match. After play concluded, the player admitted the offence and accepted the proposed sanction offered to him by Ranjan Madugalle, the chief referee of the Emirates elite panel of ICC match referees. As such, there was no need for a formal hearing. The charge had been laid by the on-field umpires, Asad Rauf and Marais Erasmus, as well as third umpire Billy Bowden, of the Emirates elite panel of ICC umpires, and fourth umpire Tim Robinson. The charge related to an incident at the end of the 80th over of the India innings when the England bowler kicked the stumps in frustration and dislodged the bails. He immediately apologised to the on-field umpires for his actions."

Now, here are a few points to note:

1. Sreesanth (Case 1), Ponting (Case 2), Bresnan (Case 3), Prior (Case 5) and Swann (Case 8) were all pulled up for the same offence, i.e. "abuse of cricket equipment or clothing, ground equipment or fixtures and fittings during an international match". Ponting, Bresnan, Prior and Swann were reprimanded. Sreesanth was fined 10% of his match fees. And though this isn't necessary, I should mention that kicking a boundary rope does not result in as much monetary damage as breaking a television or a window.

2. Mishra (Case 6) and Kumar (Case 7) were fined 10% and 20% of their match fees respectively for breaching Article 2.1.3. The Article 2.1.3 includes (pdf):

"(a) excessive, obvious disappointment with an Umpire’s decision; (b) an obvious delay in resuming play or leaving the wicket; (c) shaking the head; (d) pointing or looking at the inside edge when given out lbw; (e) pointing to the pad or rubbing the shoulder when caught behind; (f) snatching the cap from the Umpire; (g) requesting a referral to the TV Umpire (other than in the context of a legitimate request for a referral as may be permitted in such International Match); and (h) arguing or entering into a prolonged discussion with the Umpire about his decision. It shall not be a defence to any charge brought under this Article to show that the Umpire might have, or in fact did, get any decision wrong."

Given what Stuart Broad did on Day 5 of the 1st Test of this series at Lord's, I wonder why that was not classified in clauses (a) and (h) of the above-mentioned Article. Sitting on haunches after an appeal is turned down should easily classify as "excessive, obvious disappointment with an Umpire’s decision" and slipping in a word to the umpire at the end of that over / start of next over about that decision should classify as "arguing or entering into a prolonged discussion with the Umpire about his decision". Broad might want to argue that it was not an argument or a prolonged discussion, but if he is talking more than the umpire (for his lips seemed to move more than Billy Bowden's), it is "arguing"; and if that discussion continues at the end of the over, it is a "prolonged discussion".

3. As per Article 7.3 of the ICC Code of Conduct (pdf), if a Level 1 Offence is committed for the second time within a span of 12 months, then the penalty shall be "the imposition of a fine of between 50-100% of the applicable Match Fee and/or two (2) Suspension Points."

Swann was charged of a Level 1 offence (Case 4) on 12th March 2011. Only 4 months and 18 days have passed since that occasion and Swann has been charged with another Level 1 offence (Case 8). So why was he just reprimanded and not fined 50% of his match fees, which is the minimum penalty to be imposed.

And if my aforesaid argument of Broad's behaviour in the 1st Test holds good, then he too should have faced strict sanctions since he has already been pulled up and fined 50% of his match fees for a Level 2 offence on 1st July 2011, merely 29 days ago! Given that the earlier offence was Level 2, I daresay that he should have missed the current Test match at Nottingham!

THE OTHER TIER BATTLE BEGINS

It's not quite Test cricket... but it's the closest a lot of cricketers who deserve to play Test cricket will get to Test cricket!

The ICC Intercontinental Cup is about to begin in less than an hour from now (weather permitting) at Aberdeen, as hosts Scotland will try to overcome a stern challenge of the Netherlands. Scotland finished as the runners-up, losing to Afghanistan in the finals, in previous season (2009-10) of this tournament, which is the only place where the players from Associate and Affiliate nations of the ICC get to play First Class cricket as a part of their national team.The limited-overs leg of the tournament will also run alongside the First Class matches in the 2011-13 season. The first round fixtures are:

I would like to see more teams, in further rounds, do what Kenya and UAE have done - that is, schedule the Limited Overs leg before the four-day First Class match. It will be beneficial for the away team this way. But more than anything else, I am most interested in seeing how Afghanistan copes up with the pressure of expectations this time round.

Afghanistan had a dream run last time, winning 5 matches and drawing 1 to a Zimbabwe XI. They started with a draw against the Zimbabwe XI, and then had a close 1 wicket win over the Netherlands. It was more convincing after that as the three-time defending champions Ireland was beaten by 7 wickets, followed by a 6 wicket win over Canada. Former champions Scotland was then thrashed by 229 runs, and then Kenya too was thrashed by 167 runs. In the finals against the Scots, they prevailed again by 7 wickets, despite being 41 runs in the deficit after the end of the 1st innings in a low-scoring game.

They are on a 6-match winning streak at the moment, and it will be interesting to see if they manage to extend it against Canada early in August. Afghanistan came in playing their first Intercontinental Cup in the last season, and ended up winning it. They were, to an extent, a surprise package last time. But the teams will be better prepared to face them this season, and if any team had made the mistake of taking them lightly last time, it will not happen again!

I hope there is some good quality cricket played in this season of the Intercontinental Cup, and I will definitely be keeping an eye on all the matches and results. If anyone knows where I can get the streamings or the video highlights of these matches, please do let me know.

THE ARCHITECTS OF THE WIN

I have been planning this blog for a week now, but just did not get the time to do it because of a distraction in the form of ICC's stupid decision to shut the Associates / Affiliates out of the 2015 World Cup. While that is a ridiculous decision, I will not be focusing any more on that. Instead, I will be talking in brief about the 5 men who, in my opinion, formed the backbone of India's win at the World Cup 2011.

I have listed these men in the order of importance, in my opinion:

1. Zaheer Khan
2. Yuvraj Singh
3. Gautam Gambhir
4. Sachin Tendulkar
5. Mahendra Singh Dhoni

Here are a few thoughts about each one of these men:

ZAHEER KHAN

In my view, Zaheer Khan is the reason India stood a chance of winning the World Cup, and actually won it! The joint-leading wicket-taker at 21 wickets in the World Cup with Pakistani skipper Shahid Afridi, Zak did not have a single 4- or 5-wicket haul in the World Cup. What does this tell you about him? He was consistent.

Indeed, amongst the bowlers who took 15 or more wickets in the World Cup, only Zaheer Khan and Tim Southee took at least 1 wicket in each match they played. To analyse further, Zak took at least 2 wickets in 8 of the 9 matches he played in - the only one in which he got only 1 wicket was the only match that India lost - against South Africa (though I do feel the urge to mention here that that wicket was of his bunny Graeme Smith)!

He held India's bowling together, and got wickets almost whenever the match seemed to be getting away from India's grip. His slower knuckle ball was almost impossible to read and was very effective against the left-handed batsmen. And not to forget, his reverse swing was phenomenal - that pinpoint reverse swinging yorker to nail Andrew Strauss LBW allowed India to come back and earn a tie in that match, which seemed to have completely gone out of hand.

An average of 18.76 and an economy rate of 4.83, accompanied by 4 maidens (3 of which came in his first spell of the World Cup Finals) tell a tale of a champion bowler. Given that he achieved all this on tracks that first assisted batsmen, then spinners and then pacers, those figures just glow brighter! He may have been a little expensive in the three knock out matches, but the value of that brilliant start in the Finals against the most prolific opening partnership of the World Cup just cannot be understated. A fast bowler, whose new-ball spell figures in a World Cup Finals read 5 overs - 3 maidens - 6 runs - 1 wicket, is someone special!

India could have won this World Cup with one batsman less, one spinner less, maybe even one man in the XI less... but never with one Zaheer Khan less!

YUVRAJ SINGH

Man of the Tournament! This cricketer was struggling for form, fitness and possibly even inspiration for the better part of 2010. He lost his place in the Indian squad in both forms of the game, fell prey to injuries, and was criticised by almost everyone, myself included. But despite this criticism, I am happy to say that I never lost faith in his match-winning abilities. I still have in record on my Google Buzz the reply I had written to a friend who had asked me why I though Yuvraj Singh was so important to India's World Cup cause long before the World Cup had begun (I think it was even before the South Africa tour, not sure)!

On pure potential alone, he is arguably amongst India's finest match-winners in the limited overs version of the game. And this was with the bat alone! But the way his bowling came along in this World Cup eased India's bowling worries in a HUGE manner. Out of his 15 wickets, the first 7 came against the non-Test playing Ireland and Netherlands, but the next 8 came against all former World Champions - 2 each against West Indies (Chennai), Australia (Ahmedabad), Pakistan (Mohali) and Sri Lanka (Mumbai).

Batting-wise, he started the tournament cautiously and acknowledged as such (when he won the Man of the Match against Ireland) that he was still not finding the fluency to be able to score at run-a-ball. But it came good and at its best over the past 2 years in a do-or-die knock out run chase in the Quarter Finals against Australia, where he guided India to a win in a tricky run chase.

To me, the most heartening aspect of his knock there was the way he guided Suresh Raina in that unbroken partnership, which started when the hopes had again started dwindling. Raina was looking nervous when he entered... he was sledged a bit by Shaun Tait... and attacked with bouncers at ferocious pace. And unnoticed by a lot of people, Yuvraj Singh kept on talking to Suresh Rania whenever he looked edgy, and it was almost a kind-of reminder to the Chennai Test of 2008 against England, where Tendulkar had played the elder-brother role to Yuvraj Singh in a difficult, yet successful, run chase (given that he had been 'sledged out' in the first innings).

This was clearly Yuvraj 2.0, a newer and more mature version, who gathered 4 Man of the Match trophies, and broke down when it dawned on him that India had won the World Cup. When Harbhajan Singh cried in the finals, it did not make a lot of difference to me. But when I saw Yuvraj Singh sobbing uncontrollably into Sachin Tendulkar's left shoulder, I became teary-eyed myself. This fellow has etched his name in history, and deservedly so!

GAUTAM GAMBHIR

Ian Chappell was of the opinion that Gambhir did not fit into the Indian XI. He was made to eat humble pie when Gambhir ended up being just 3 runs short of what could arguably have been a World Cup Finals Man-of-the-Match winning performance.

But before talking about his wonderful innings in the Finals, one must not forget the very vital contribution he made to India's successful chase against Australia in the Quarter Finals at Ahmedabad. A fine knock of 50 runs before his recurrent problem of running between the wickets came back to haunt him, and had him run out on the third attempt! His partnership with Virat Kohli in that match, though short-lived, was one of the highlights of that chase for me, simply because of the ease with which these two youngsters milked the Australian bowling around!

And now the last knock of 97. Just take in the situation - World Cup Finals, 0 for 1, opposition completely charged up with momentum, Sehwag out, a difficult chase, immense pressure, a quality fast bowler to face first up - that was no place for the weak-hearted!

For a major part of 2010, Gambhir too, like Yuvraj, was suffering from some injuries and a little bit of dip in form. Voices calling for his ouster from the team had grown from faint whispers to buzzing murmurs. A couple hundreds against the visiting Kiwis helped get his form back, and a couple of solid knocks in Tests in South Africa in extremely difficult conditions against the best bowling attack in the world, must have helped build a lot of confidence.

Four half-centuries and the second-highest run-scorer for India in a successful World Cup campaign, with a BIG role in the victory in World Cup finals was a deserving result. At Wankhede, the standout part of his innings was the way he resisted his urge to go inside out over the cover region to the three Sri Lankan off-spinners after he had been let off once early in the innings to that stroke. He saw that Sangakkara had set a very intelligent field for that very shot, with a straight-ish deep extra cover and a long off. That shot must have still been very tempting because of the three off-spinners in operation and the fact that it has been very productive for him in the past. But he resisted - he swept, he paddle-swept, he did a lot of things that he doesn't normally do (like dive in to make his ground on a tight second run) - but he stayed in there till the match was quite comfortably in India's reach!

One couldn't have asked for more from him at No. 3 for India. He consolidated and he attacked when least expected, both with great success. And though a few experts kept shaking their head in disapproval on his selection, he made sure that he had the last laugh!

SACHIN TENDULKAR

482 runs, second-highest run-scorer in the World Cup, highest for India, strike rate of 92, 2 centuries and 2 fifties, and the most sixes hit by an Indian in this World Cup (8) - all this just before turning 38 years of age. In his record-equaling 6th World Cup appearance, a winner's medal was what he deserved and what he achieved!

His centuries may be remembered for the wrong reasons of non-winning causes, but do not play down the mastery in their construction. In both those hundreds, Sachin Tendulkar decided to take the attack to the opponent's best bowler. At Bangalore, he blasted two consecutive sixes off Graeme Swann's first two balls of a new spell to send a signal to Strauss that his best bowler means nothing to him! At Nagpur, he pulled a Dale Steyn bouncer for a six to backward square leg to tell him that his pace and ferocity meant nothing and that he could be easily blunted! It is a pity, a real shame, that both these matches were not won by India, for these hundreds deserved to be called match-winning ones for their sheer quality.

In the Quarter Finals against Australia, his 53 might look a moderate score, but it was the second-highest in India's innings, bettered only by Yuvraj Singh's winning hit for 4 that moved him to 57*. He gave India a brisk start and held fort with Gambhir after Sehwag fell relatively early in that chase. His attack on Shaun Tait in his very first over sent his radar wayward, which eventually proved to be a pressure-releasing factor for India in a lot of crunch moments later in the match.

In the Semi Finals against Pakistan, his only Man-of-the-Match performance in this World Cup, he scored an error-strewn 85 aided by five lives. Irrespective of the manner of those runs, it was his innings and that of Suresh Raina's at the end that eventually proved to be the difference between the two sides. In the final analysis, Sachin Tendulkar and Misbah-ul-Haq had very similar strike rates, but the superiority with which Tendulkar paced his innings despite the obvious discomfort in picking Ajmal's spin proved to be a crucial factor at the end.

He may have failed in the Finals, with just 18 runs off 12 balls... but he did provide early indication as to which bowler will be the easiest to attack for India. And that glorious straight drive off Nuwan Kulasekara was one for the ages! This man will stop scoring consistently only on The Judgement Day!

MAHENDRA SINGH DHONI

A lot of times in the past, MS Dhoni has been praised by the 'experts' for even his smallest and most insignificant of moves. A lot of times in the past, I have just brushed these comments aside and as I always do, formed my own opinion with my perspective. But on the night of 2nd April 2011, it was all very different! On that night, Mahendra Singh Dhoni played a knock that will be fondly placed as one of the very best in limited overs cricket under ENORMOUS pressure in the annals of not only Indian cricket, but also the World Cup cricket.

Had he not promoted himself over Yuvraj Singh to play the trio of Sri Lankan off-spinners, I may not even have placed his name in this list. But that sharp bit of captaincy followed by a knock of immense maturity, devoid of a single careless shot, has gained MS Dhoni an entry into this and numerous other lists. The surreal clam with which he hoisted the winning six will be replayed over and over again in every household of the myriad communities in India, for nothing less than that kind of a shot would have been worthy of sealing India's historical win and Dhoni's name in a list of all-time great captains of the world!

In the euphoria of the win at Wankhede, it was very easy to forget Dhoni's contribution as a captain in the other knockout matches, especially the Quarter Finals against Australia at Ahmedabad. I have never seen Dhoni attack so much in the field in an ODI as he did against Australia on the 24th March 2011. Be it Ricky Ponting nearing his century or a rusty Cameron White, MS Dhoni was relentless in applying enormous pressure to their batsmen. An eventual score of 260 was in a big way, the result of some fine captaincy by Dhoni.

In the semi-finals too, against Pakistan, Dhoni did well to attack the batsmen in the middle overs. In this match, his attack was not focussed on taking wickets. Rather, he set his close fields very close, and his deep fields very deep, to ensure that the boundaries as well as singles are minimised. Since Pakistan is not reputed for athleticism, the chances of conceding a lot of twos was minimal. And the introduction of Harbhajan Singh to grab the wicket of Umar Akmal was a vindication of captain's gut feel!

An average World Cup with the bat, illuminated by an innings of abnormal calm and composure in the Finals, MS Dhoni has finally helped India get hold of the biggest prize that limited overs cricket has to offer - after 28 years of long and sometimes agonising wait!

A CASE FOR A 15-TEAM WORLD CUP

This post is inspired by Russell Degnan's 'Potential World Cup Formats' post on his wonderful blog Idle Summers. He argues a strong case for a 20-team World Cup based on 4 groups of 5 teams each, and lists the merits and demerits of such a format.

There is one demerit though, in his 20-team format, (which I loved, but am sure that the ICC will not for the very reason I will now elaborate), that gains in significance with the recent ICC decision of a 10-team World Cup. The ICC wants to ensure as many matches as possible featuring the big teams like India, Australia, South Africa, Pakistan and England (in terms of revenue generation). In that format, these teams can assuredly play only 4 matches, before entering the knockouts. In ICC's view, that would be regressive from the 2011 format. That is why there is a proposal to go for a 10-team round robin format in 2015.

Using a bit of inspiration from Russell's idea for groups of 5, I came up with an idea for a 15-team World Cup, where the teams are divided in 3 Groups of 5 each. Using the current ODI rankings, I have divided the three groups as such:

Now, the first round will be the Group Stages (Round Robin), where 10 games will be played in each group, and 30 games overall. Each team will play 4 matches. The top-3 in each group shall qualify for the next round. Why 3? This ensures a very low chance of a top-ranked team missing out on the next round, even if they suffer an upset in this stage. When Pakistan lost to Ireland in 2007, they exited in the first round itself because they had also lost to West Indies in their group earlier. In this scenario, if Pakistan were to lose to Ireland, but all the other matches give expected results, both these teams shall be tied on 4 points each, along with Bangladesh (assuming 2 points for a win). This will bring the NRR into play, which means that despite the upset, Pakistan will stand a chance to enter the next round.

The second round will be Super Nines, where each team will play 4 matches, resulting in a total of 18 matches. Who will play whom in these 4 matches? Here it is: A1 will play B2, B3, C2, C3; A2 will play B1, B3, C1, C3; etc. The following box will give a clearer picture:

The idea here is to ensure an easier round for those teams that finished 1st in their respective groups, and a tougher round for those that finished 3rd. Additionally, the teams that finished 1st in their groups will start this round with 4 points each, those that finished 2nd will start with 2 points each, and those that came 3rd will start at Nil.

This ensures that in the First Stage of Group Round Robin, there is every incentive for a team to finish at as high a rank as possible. Yet, if a 3rd ranked team wants to qualify for the next round after Super Nines, they can do so by winning all 4 of their matches in this round. In fact, it is possible for them to proceed even with 3 wins out of 4 (with some help from others).

With points set as 4, 2, 0 for 1st, 2nd, 3rd ranked teams respectively, this ensures that there will not be a scenario like that of Kenya in 2003. Kenya had finished 3rd in their Group in that World Cup, yet they carried more points into the Super Sixes than the 1st and 2nd ranked teams, because they had beaten Sri Lanka (1st), and New Zealand (2nd) had forfeited their match due to security reasons. This enabled Kenya to get a head start in the Super Sixes that they did not deserve based on their Group ranking, and therefore, with one win over Zimbabwe in the Super Sixes, they managed qualification for the semi-finals.

This ensures that each team that qualifies for this round is guaranteed to play 8 matches each. Since all the big teams in terms of revenue generation are expected to qualify for this round, there should not be a problem in terms of advertising and broadcasting contracts.

The top-4 teams in Super Nines shall qualify for the Playoffs in the same format as being used in IPL 2011. The following figure illustrates it:

This again gives an incentive for each team in the Super Nines to finish at as high as rank as possible. Both the rounds (i.e. Group Stages and Super Nines) will become more competitive with extra focus on the teams' rankings.

In this format, one finalist will play 10 matches and the other one will play 11 matches. In 2011, the two finalists played 9 matches each. In the 10-team format for 2015, the two finalists will play 11 matches each. This 15-team format will contain 52 matches (30 in Group Stages, 18 in Super Nines, 3 in Playoffs and 1 Finals). This ensures that the broadcasters will be satisfied as well.

Now, lets see how long will the 52-game 15-team World Cup last. The Group stages of 30 matches can be completed in 15 days, with 2 matches on each day. However, if the big matches (i.e. matches between Seed 1 and Seed 2 in each group) are to be held singly on certain days, this stage can last up to 18 days.

The Super Nines stage has 18 matches, that should be completed in 9 days if 2 matches are played each day. However, if these matches, viz. A1 v. B2, A1 v. C2, B1 v. A2, B1 v. C2, C1 v. A2, and C1 v. B2 are to be held singly on certain days, this stage will require 12 days to be completed.

For the Playoffs, 3 separate days will be necessary, and 1 day for the Finals. If the itinerary is planned well, there will not be a need to add any rest days in between the Group stages and the Super Nines stage. Despite no gap, each team will assuredly have at least 2 days between successive matches, as is the current practice. A 1-day gap between Super Nines stage and Qualifier 1, another 1-day gap between the Eliminator match and Qualifier 2, and a 2-day gap before the Finals ensure that the tournament shall last no longer than 38 days.

While the length may seem a tad too much, it can be reduced to 5 weeks (i.e. 35 days) by making the Group stages more efficient and finish them off in 15 days. The World Cup will have low number of meaningless games as at each stage, an incentive to finish high has been given to the teams. Add to it the fact that it will allow exposure to 5 Associate nations on the big stage (in this case 4 Associates and 1 Affiliate, since Afghanistan is still an Affiliate Member of the ICC), which is the very purpose for which I thought of this format!

THESE MEN PLAY CRICKET TOO

(L to R): Rarva Dikana (Papua New Guinea), Akbar Baig (Uganda), Khurram Khan (United Arab Emirates), Craig Williams (Namibia), Najeeb Amar (Hong Kong), David Hemp (Bermuda)

These are the captains of the 6 teams that will take part in the World Cricket League Division Two tournament, organised by the ICC and hosted by UAE, starting today (8th April 2011). Incidentally, this is a 50-over tournament. If the ICC really has no plans to give these men a chance to dream of playing in a 50-over World Cups, then why hold such tournaments?

ICC'S 'WORLD' CUP PLANS FOR 2015

By now, we all know about ICC's ridiculous decision to keep the Associates out of the 2015 World Cup to be hosted by Australia and New Zealand. The fact that they have decided on a 10-team World Cup restricted to the 10 Full Members of the ICC only for the 2015 edition means that it will be the first time in the history of Cricket World Cups that not a single non-Test playing nation shall take part. Amongst all the regressive decisions taken by the world body, this is second to none.

There is outrage and disgust over this decision. A lot of tweets have been addressed to ICC's official twitter feed. A new Twitter Feed by the name of Cricket Justice has been formed by people against this decision. People have been writing to the ICC, and its commercial partners, to express their anger and non-support to this decision. In fact, even I intend to email them in a day or two. I don't know if all this will make a difference, but I intend to play my part in any way (howsoever small) that I can!

The most important bit, which I would like all my viewers to do (if they have not already done it), is to sign this online petition initiated by Tim. I have put in my signature and the message already (No. 243), and last I checked, there were more than 900 people who had signed in their support to the petition. Please do the same.

Another very important measure that we must all undertake in our own small ways is show more interest in the cricket played by these 'minnows'. I will not be large on the blogging or tweeting scene over the next two months because of upcoming examinations, but I will definitely follow the matches of the World Cricket League Division 2 (starting 8th April), ICC Americas Division 2 World Twenty20 Qualifiers (starting 10th April) and other World Cricket League Divisions / World Twenty20 Qualifications / Intercontinental Cup fixtures a great deal more than I have done in the past, and I urge everyone to do the same for the benefit of our game.

I hope and pray that ICC takes cognizance of this outrage and disgust that people world over have shown towards this decision, and moves towards changing it. This decision has obviously been taken by the Boards of all the Full Member nations together, and is quite obviously intended towards the protection of the weaker ones amongst the Full Member nations. Given that ICC has 105 members registered as 10 Full Members, 35 Associates and 60 Affiliates, this decision really does come as a huge setback to the sport.

Here is what the Irish coach Phil Simmons had to say about this: "I'm afraid the next World Cup will be like the American World Series - you are crowned World Champions but the world did not take part - congratulations to India on winning the last real World Cup. Finally - congratulations to ICC for pulling the game we love back ten years!"

It's not just 10 years... it's a lot worse!

(P.S.: Please DO NOT FORGET to sign the petition, if you have not already done so!)

WORLD CUP '11 - XI AND XV

Everyone has been forming their World Cup XI from the recently-concluded World Cup 2011, where India were crowned the World Champions (wow... feels so nice to write this!).

I decided to form my own XI too, and in fact, unlike the ICC and Cricinfo, I decided to go further and list my team of XV for the World Cup. But before that, lets take a look at both ICC's and Cricinfo's team for the World Cup.

ICC TEAM: T Dilshan (SL), S Tendulkar (Ind), K Sangakkara (SL), M Jayawardene (SL), AB de Villiers (SA), Y Singh (Ind), S Watson (Aus), S Afridi (Pak), D Steyn (SA), Z Khan (Ind), M Muralitharan (SL). 12th man: T Southee (NZ).

Cricinfo TEAM: T Dilshan (SL), S Tendulkar (Ind), K Sangakkara (SL), J Trott (Eng), AB de Villiers (SA), Y Singh (Ind), S Afridi (Pak), G Swann (Eng), D Steyn (SA), Z Khan (Ind), L Malinga (SL).

Now, here's a look at my team:

T Dilshan (SL), S Tendulkar (Ind), J Trott (Eng), K Sangakkara (SL), AB de Villiers (SA), Y Singh (Ind), R ten Doeschate (Ned), S Afridi (Pak), D Steyn (SA), Z Khan (Ind), M Muralitharan (SL).

Remaining players in the XV: R Peterson (SA), T Southee (NZ), R Taylor (NZ), R Price (Zim).

WANKHEDE STADIUM, MUMBAI

The failed light tower

The Wankhede Stadium in Mumbai is getting ready to host the Finals of ICC Cricket World Cup 2011 on 2nd April 2011. We have been reading about tightening security, lack of tickets, Haroon Lorgat's comments about why Wankhede Stadium was chosen, speculation of who will eventually play there and so on.

Amidst all this, one concern that I have not read or heard much about was the fact that one of the light towers during the New Zealand v. Sri Lanka match at that stadium had met with power failure. The match continued as the umpires deemed that the light from the rest of the towers was good enough, which is commendable. However, such a fiasco will not be seen in good light again if it happens in the World Cup Finals.

A few days back, I got a link to this interview of Mr. Sudhir Naik (the pitch curator of Wankhede Stadium) uploaded as a podcast (via @grangergabblog). Here, he addresses the concern about the failing light tower, and also touches on other interesting bit about the kind of surface he will prepare for the Finals, especially if India makes it till there. It is an interesting interview, and you must listen to it if you have not already done so.

CRICKET - THE FUTURE

Over the last 4 weeks, the Group stage of the ICC Cricket World Cup 2011 was contested across 13 cities in 3 South Asian countries. The top-8 Test teams have eventually managed to make it to the quarterfinals, a prediction made by a lot of people well in advance. While for 4 of these teams, the ride was easy and straightforward; for 4 others, it was an up-and-down adventure!

Two teams, by general consensus, have been the most exciting teams to watch in this World Cup… and to no one’s surprise really, they are both from Group B – England and Ireland! There were a total of 11 matches involving these 2 teams, and 10 of them were definitely worth a watch. The only one-sided match where either of these teams was involved was the Ireland v. South Africa match at Eden Gardens, where South Africa won comfortably by 131 runs.

The Difference

However, the similarities between these two teams end here. The path ahead for England is very clear – win 3 straight matches and lift the World Cup, or lose in the interim and return home for some rest after a hectic few months of non-stop cricket! The path for Ireland is not quite so clear though. They have an ODI scheduled against Sri Lanka in a couple of months’ time, when the latter go on a tour of England, and they have a few fixture scheduled in ICC’s Associate tournament structure. But what next?

England host Sri Lanka followed by India in the coming months. Then they will visit India for their cricket tour in October. As for Ireland, I doubt if they will get to play this much cricket over the next 4 years, by the time the next World Cup comes calling in 2015.

So when the time comes for them to play in the Qualifying round for World Cup 2015 against the lowest-ranked teams amongst the Full Member countries, there is a good chance that they may be found wanting. Ireland did not get a lot of cricket to play over the 4 years separating their impressive performances in 2007 and 2011, yet they managed to put up a fine effort in the latter edition. THIS DOES NOT MEAN THAT IF THEY DO NOT PLAY MUCH CRICKET OVER THE NECT 4 YEARS, THEY WILL AGAIN MANAGE TO PUT UP A FINE SHOW AGAIN IN 2015! Far from it, in fact!

Ireland in World Cup 2011

Cricket Ireland did a tremendous job in these four years from 2007 and 2011. They must be applauded for that. But in their achievement, they have pointed out to the ICC a mistake made by it. With their performances, they have clearly made a statement to the ICC telling them that had they been allowed to or made to play more top-level competitive games in this intervening period, they might well have been able to close out the games against Bangladesh and West Indies, where they were in a winning position, but lost out partly due to inexperience. They could have easily won those 2 games and finished 3rd in the Group B – the Group of Death – have would now have been in Colombo awaiting their Quarterfinal clash against Sri Lanka, while England would have had to be in Dhaka ready for South Africa, and West Indies on the flight home!

I believe that most cricket followers would opine that Ireland performed better in this World Cup than Bangladesh. The latter may have had more points, but one look at the NRRs of both these teams will give you an idea of the level of competitiveness that they played with. Bangladesh lost 3 matches in the World Cup – in one, they allowed the opposition to score 370 runs (the highest score of the tournament thus far), and in the other two, they were bowled out for paltry scores of 58 and 78 (two of the three lowest scores in this tournament thus far). A lot more was expected from a Test nation playing in conditions that were ideal for their brand of cricket.

Ireland, a minnow and an Associate, won only 2 matches – in one, they stole a win from England when all hopes seemed just about extinguished, and in another, they comfortably chased down a target in excess of 300 (with more than 2 overs to spare) against another Associate, the Netherlands, showing them in no uncertain terms, that they are ‘the best amongst the rest’. In the four matches they lost, they put up a hard fight in three, and were in winning positions in two of those three before losing out as much to inexperience as to the opponents.

However, the biggest difference between Bangladesh and Ireland in this World Cup, in my opinion, was not in the performances, but in the mindset. I recall one incident that I would like to bring to everyone’s notice. During the pre-match cricket program for the Bangaldesh v. West Indies game, the broadcaster aired an interview of Bangladesh’s bowling coach Ian Pont who made a remark that did not go down well with me, and even one of the studio experts. When asked about their chances of winning that match against West Indies and getting into the race for Quarterfinals qualification, Pont said that the team management had indentified that match as one of the four that they would target a victory in – the other three being against Ireland (already won at that stage), England and the Netherlands. Compare this to the Irish coach Phil Simmons’ comments where he said that the team was there to win. The Irish captain William Porterfield too stated on numerous occasions that the team would go for a win in all games that they play, regardless of the opposition, and given the way he captained the side and placed his fields, he certainly stuck to his promise.

The Problem for ICC

Numerous people have said during this World Cup that the Associate nations need more exposure against the top sides so that they may improve. Most of them were those associated with the Associates – Jimmy Kamande, Steve Tikolo, William Porterfield, Phil Simmons, Peter Borren, Ryan ten Doeschate, Ashish Bagai and others, but there have been a lot of other people, amongst the average cricket followers too.

I know that it will be difficult for ICC to do so. It makes little commercial sense to have a series, howsoever small, between a team like India or South Africa or Australia or England and Ireland or the Netherlands or even Scotland or Afghanistan. Moreover, these matches may not be contests as well… they may just end up being massacres that will force the ICC to stop this practice. So I have tried to think of a solution or two for the ICC, and how it can go about maximising the growth of cricket in these centres.

Possible Solutions

One of the most commonly suggested steps, which I would wholly support, is to organise frequent tours of ‘A’ teams of the stronger countries to the Associate countries. More exposure to good quality cricket in home conditions followed by more exposure to good quality cricket in alien conditions when they themselves will tour these countries for ‘A’ team matches should definitely show improvement.

There are also people who are suggesting that when major nations go on Test tours, they should play their warm-up matches against the Associate nations in that region. While Sri Lanka will just be playing an ODI match each against Ireland and the Netherlands during their tour of England later this year, I would also like to see more First Class matches involving Associate teams and Test teams. This again poses a commercial problem because the Home Boards lose out on revenue if Associate nations play the practice matches, instead of a team registered under that Home Board. For example, the BCCI would lose out on revenue if England plays their practice matches on tour to India against Afghanistan, instead of the Board President’s XI team. It also deprives the young home cricketers of a chance to impress the selectors ahead of the main series. But in my opinion, these two problems are not grave enough that they should stall the potential progress of cricket as a sport.

Over the last few days, I have had another couple of ideas in my mind. One of them is to organise a few big-team tournaments in the smaller countries, e.g. ICC Knock Out Tournament of 2000, which was held at Nairobi, Kenya. I would love to see every alternate Champions Trophy and every alternate World Twenty20 Championships held at smaller cricketing countries. There are a number of benefits of this. One, this will definitely help in improvement of infrastructure at those places and allow better facilities to that country’s cricket team in future. Two, the best way to popularise a sport in a new territory, in my opinion, is to take the best practitioners of the sport to that territory, and allow them to showcase the sport in the best of lights over there.

The other idea that I have had is a two-tier Test Championship. The ICC has already shown interest in the concept of Test Championships to lend more meaning to the game of Test cricket. My solution would just involve adding another tier to that Test Championship to help the game grow. In the ICC Inter Continental Cup, where the Associate nations play First Class cricket, 7 teams took part in 2009-10, including a Zimbabwe XI that wanted to get a bit experience before their return to Test cricket this year. The winner of this tournament was Afghanistan, with Scotland, Zimbabwe and the three-time defending champions Ireland taking the next three spots. So, apart from Ireland, there are a few other Associates as well, who look very promising for the future of our sport, and can be included in the two-tier Test Championships.

Test Cricket

My last solution involves integration of ICC’s current plan of a Test Championship as well as the ICC Inter Continental Championships. There are 105 members recognised by the ICC – 10 Full Members, 35 Associate Members and 60 Affiliate Members. A further 24 non-members are under constant ICC scanner to be enrolled as Affiliate Members. If this plan of Two-tier Test Championships is planned, organised, and executed properly, in a few years’ time, we could have at least 35-40 of these member countries (including all of the Associates and a few Affiliates) play First Class cricket at various levels, with a real chance of breaking into the top-level by the process of promotion and relegation.

As it stands today, 15 Associate / Affiliate members have already had a chance to participate in the Inter Continental Cups over its various seasons, which even includes territories where you wouldn’t know cricket existed, like Cayman Islands!

The Need to Dream

The reason why I think a Two-Tier Test Championship (and Multi-Tiered in future) is necessary for the game is to give the lesser Associates and Affiliates a chance to dream big about competing at the biggest stage called Test Cricket. Afghanistan was once in Division 5 of ICC’s World Cricket League. But they knew that they could still qualify for the World Cup 2011 if they won or ended up as Runners-up in all the subsequent league matches they play. And thus, they had a dream! This dream was possible only because they could see a way of fulfilling it. And they almost accomplished their dream, missing out by a very small margin during the World Cup Qualifiers, having zoomed up through the lower leagues.

How will cricket see sustained development in these places if youngsters do not dream of becoming cricketers? I come from India, a country that stands at about the 140th rank in FIFA’s team rankings. As a 10-year old, I only played cricket and dreamt of becoming a cricketer. Football never crossed my mind as a serious sporting career because of my country’s low profile in that sport. In my country, as things stand, an average footballer will never achieve anything big, and football as a career is feasible for only those who are extraordinarily talented and have a decent chance of making it to the European Leagues.

A lot of countries have a low profile in cricket too, which the ICC must better. When the profiles of these Associate countries in cricket increase, and they see a realistic chance of playing at the highest level of our sport, the youngsters there will be bold enough to think and dream of a career in cricket. There will be more number of cricket professionals, as there are in Ireland today.

The performance of Ireland in the World Cup 2011 has given ICC a chance to work on developing the sport further and taking it to new shores. It has made ICC see beyond its traditional big-powers and gauge the level of development amongst its smaller members. I dearly hope and pray that ICC does not let go of this chance, and for once, takes a step that would benefit our sport rather than just its coffers!

(Note: I have purposely not made any reference to development of cricket through ODIs and Twenty20s in this post. The reason is this - I believe that these two formats of the game, particularly the smallest one, are the best vehicles to spread the game in far corners of the earth.

Soulberry from The Cricket Watcher's Journal puts it well when he says "T20 is the best vehicle for it provides a pleasure factor with the least debate in a new recipient's mind. The process of acculturization employs what is available to create a context - the desire for fun outing that doesn't consume or encroach upon existing vitals and the clarity of simplicity which helps acceptability because there are no tedious debates they have to understake in their minds over Cricket. And all you need is a park and a TV camera cabled up to an OB van to get started with T20."

However, my dream extends beyond the growth of merely the shorter formats of the game in these lands. I, as already stated, would love to see Test cricket take wings and spread just as much. That is why the solutions offered in this post are all related to Test cricket and First Class cricket. The Twenty20 format is bound to grow without a lot of effort from the ICC. Test cricket's growth will require effort.

There is a good chance that ICC may rest on it laurels of having spread cricket wide just on the basis of popularising Twenty20 cricket everywhere. However, that is not what I want to see ICC stop at. Hence, this post makes no reference to Limited Overs Cricket of any form.)

FINALLY, AN ICC DECISION WORTH APPRECIATION

For a good part of last two months, I have been getting more and more incensed by some of the decisions taken by ICC. The 10-team World Cup for 2015, defending Billy Bowden's decision of Bell non-LBW, then changing the UDRS rules again, reprimanding William Porterfield for public criticism and not acting against Graeme Swann for his share of public criticism after he had already been fined for swearing at the umpire!

But finally, ICC has taken a decision that I can support. They have decided to drop Ashoka de Silva as an umpire for some of the crucial matches coming up, and relocated him to the dead rubbers remaining. So whereas earlier he was scheduled to stand in England v. West Indies and sit as a third umpire in India v. West Indies matches, he will now stand in the Zimbabwe v. Kenya match and be the fourth official during Ireland v. Netherlands game. (Report)

Ashoka de Silva has given some shockers in this World Cup, and though some of them have been corrected by UDRS, that did not stop him from giving a howler even with the help of UDRS. I have already stated that I consider him the least elite of ICC's Elite Panel of Umpires and frankly, do not find him competent enough to be a part of it.

However, wrapped in this news was something unusual. In that news report, ICC has listed a certain Tyron Wijewardene as the third umpire for the Australia v. Pakistan match. I wonder how does he end up having this job without having officiated in a single match so far in this World Cup. We are coming to the end of league stages and an umpire who has not yet been a part of the World Cup will be officiating as a third umpire in a match between two heavyweights that would potentially decide the group toppers! WEIRD!

Oh well, I am again coming to terms with the fact that there is hardly going to be a single decision taken by the ICC that I will completely agree to! Maybe, I should run it one day... at least, that would help me avoid disagreements with myself!

ANOTHER UDRS BLUNDER

A lot of people believe that Ashoka de Silva is the least elite amongst the ICC's Elite Panel of umpires. How he is deemed to be competent enough to officiate in a tournament as prestigious as a World Cup remains a mystery to many. In today's Ireland v. West Indies game at Mohali, he gave a howler (despite having used DRS) so large that it would have made Billy Bowden look a genius!

At 41.3 overs, Ireland were 199 for 5, requiring another 77 runs to beat the West Indians off 51 balls. Gary Wilson, batting on 61 off 61 balls was on strike, accompanied by a newly-in Alex Cusack. Despite having lost a couple of quick wickets, Ireland were in with more than a decent shot at the victory target. West Indian captain Darren Sammy was bowling... and on his next ball, Ashoka de Silva virtually decided the game in favour of West Indies.

A back-of-a-length off-cutter struck Wilson on his front pad as he was late in getting his bat down to guide the ball towards third man. When the ball struck his pad, his bat was behind the pad and came down later to meet the ball as it rolled to the left of the point fielder. As Wilson set for a single, Sammy appealed for an LBW decision and saw Ashoka de Silva raise his finger. Wilson immediately called for a review. Now have a look at the sequence of images below:

One look at just the three images, and any person who knows a little bit about the UDRS and the laws of LBW will immediately say that the umpire should reverse his decision. However, Ashoka de Silva decided to go with his original decision because allegedly, he believed that the batsman had not offered a shot to that delivery. What rubbish!

How does a man who is batting on 61 with a strike rate of 100 play a non-shot when his team needs more than 8 runs an over to win the game! Forget the situation of the match. Just read what the Irish skipper William Porterfield had to say about this: "The word we are getting at the minute is the umpire went back upstairs to check if he hit the ball before the impact on the pad and if it was pad first, or bat first. Surely if you are asking if it was pad first or bat first, you know he is playing a shot. In my opinion they got it wrong."

Simple logic that puts the argument to rest! If the umpire wants to see three replays to determine whether it is pad first or bat first, then there should be no doubt that a shot was attempted. Forget the fact that it was clearly a shot being attempted as Wilson tried to run it down to the third man... just ask yourself when do you say that no shot has been attempted. In my opinion, where the bat makes no deliberate attempt to make contact with the ball and does not make contact with the ball, one can say that no shot was attempted.

With the images, over the video footage and by Porterfield's crystal clear logic, I think it is very easy to conclude that a shot was clearly attempted on that ball. Yet when the umpire decided to rule it out with the commentators claiming that it must have been because of a non-attempt at a shot, my mind wandered off in search of some other explanation. And this is what it came up with...

I believe that the moment Ashoka de Silva saw the yellow light saying "Wickets: On Field Call", he presumed that his call will stand. He didn't bother to use his brain and see that when there is a clear green light saying "Impact: Outside", it should be Not Out regardless of the original decision. I believe that he had trained his mind into thinking that every time a yellow light saying "On Field Call" is displayed, he will not be required to reverse his decision, irrespective of whether there are other red or green lights!

I purposely placed three images up there in this post. I'll explain why. In my view, if the ball is pitched outside the line of leg stump, the review should stop there and the path of the ball should not be shown further ahead by the broadcaster to make it absolutely clear that it is a Not Out call.

Where it pitches in line or outside off, but the impact is not within line, again the broadcaster should stop right there (like in the first image). Now here, if the umpire feels that the batsman has not offered a shot, then he should request the broadcaster to continue with the projection... or else, the decision is made. At least, this will ensure that the viewers will know for certain that the umpire was genuinely in doubt of a shot being offered rather than some other reason!

I have a feeling that had the broadcaster restricted his projection till the first image instead of going on till the second image, Gary Wilson may well have survived. I know I am questioning the aptitude of Ashoka de Silva and might even be a bit biased against him, but then I cannot help it for a man who has had all 4 DRS reviews against him (before this match) in this tournament overturned and then comes up with this shocker deserves no less, in my opinion!

And if you look at the third image, you might well say that the decision should have been "Not Out" even with the naked eye. That ball is barely clipping the outside of the off stump as per Hawk Eye! Even if it were striking in line, most umpires would have given that Not Out and called right for their decision. How he gave this to the bowler casts a doubt over his umpiring abilities!

INJURY REPLACEMENT RULE ANALYSED

Just before the Kenya vs Canada match, in the pre-match cricket show anchored by Harsha Bhogle, there was a discussion pertaining to the inclusion of Michael Hussey and Eoin Morgan as replacements for the injured Doug Bollinger and Kevin Pietersen respectively. Sunil Gavaskar made a very pertinent point on air at this point.

He said that, in his opinion, players who have been transferred out of thesquad of 15 for an ICC tournament due to injury reasons should not be allowed to get back in if they are fit again during the tournament. His biggest concern was that this rule can be misused by teams.

I have given a bit of thought to this subject and written an article that has been kindly published by FreehitCricket over here. Please do read it, and let me know your views.

SAVE THE MINNOW CAMPAIGN

I have written an article in support of the participation of the Associate teams in the ICC Cricket World Cups, in light of the recent decision by the ICC to have a 10-team World Cup in 2015. That article has been published on the wonderful FreehitCricket website, and you can read my article here.

UDRS 2.5 M RULE - CRITICISM AND SUGGESTION

First and foremost, I am sorry but this is a pretty long and detailed post... and will also be a little repetitive to the readers who have read my previous post on UDRS. But this one is more comprehensive and includes a suggestion for improvement at the end, on which I'd like you all to comment.

In one of my earlier posts on UDRS which I put up after the end of the India v. England World Cup match due to the Ian Bell reprieve (yes, I call it a ‘reprieve’), I received a few comments where the basic question that everyone was trying to seek an answer to was why Billy Bowden could have ruled it not out. 

This UDRS debate has raged on and gotten bigger now with Dhoni calling it as “an adulteration” of technology with human judgement, and then ICC coming out with an explanation defending that decision, followed by Haroon Lorgat (ICC Chief Executive) and Dave Richardson (ICC General Manager) too lending support to that decision and the rule of 2.5 metres (distance between the stumps and the point of impact) and 40 centimetres (distance between the point of impact and the point where the ball pitches). 

I have already explained in the earlier post about how the 2.5 metre rule makes the UDRS partly-redundant. I will re-explain that point here again and also suggest and alternative that, in my view, be a much better solution in respect of the ball-tracking technology (Hawk Eye and Virtual Eye). 

Wordings of the actual rule {Appendix 5, Clause 3.3, Sub-clause i (iii)}

"If a ‘not out’ decision is being reviewed, in order to report that the ball is hitting the stumps, the evidence provided by technology should show that the centre of the ball would have hit the stumps within an area demarcated by a line drawn below the lower edge of the bails and down the middle of the outer stumps.

However, in instances where the evidence shows that the ball would have hit the stumps within the demarcated area as set out above but that the point of impact is greater than 250 cm from the stumps, the third umpire shall notify the on-field umpire of:
a) The distance from the wickets to the point of impact with the batsman
b) The approximate distance from point of pitching to point of impact
c) Where the ball is predicted to hit the stumps.

In such a case, the on-field umpire shall have regard to the normal cricketing principles concerning the level of certainty in making his decision as to whether to change his decision."

How UDRS becomes partly-redundant 

With this 2.5 metre rule, the UDRS becomes completely redundant for a fielding captain when a batsman lunges forward more than 2.5 metres. Where there is an appeal for LBW denied with the batsman so far ahead, the fielding captain shall be averse to go in for a review no matter how plumb it looks. This is because the umpire can always go with his original decision even if the review shows all three criteria (pitching, impact and hitting the stumps) as red, simply because the batsman was lunging a long way forward and the ground umpire can cite that as a reason to not reverse his decision. 

Had the impact been 2.49 metres in front of the stumps, the umpire would HAVE HAD TO reverse his decision and rule the batsman out. But because the batsman was 2.51 metres ahead, the umpire gets AN OPTION to stick by his original decision. I am sure 2 centimetres wouldn’t have made that big a difference in the decision. 

If you like it, then lets have a hypothetical situation. Imagine Lasith Malinga or Mitchell Johnson bowling to Kevin Pietersen or Matthew Hayden (I know he’s retired, but we can always imagine!). These two bowlers, because of their slinging actions, release the ball from right on top of the stumps (when they are bowling over the wickets, of course!) and these two batsmen like to stand outside their crease even to fast bowlers and usually get a HUGE stride forward as a result of their lengthy frames. 

If Malinga / Johnson were to bowl straight and full and strike the front pad of Hayden / Pietersen and the umpire were to rule not out to an LBW appeal, the fielding captain should not even contemplate a review if the batsman in question was struck on the front foot. Even if the ball pitches on off stump, impact is on middle stump and the ball-tracking technology suggests that the ball would have gone to hit between middle and leg stump half-way up, the umpire would still have AN OPTION TO RULE NOT OUT… simply because of that big stride. What’s the use of those Malinga yorkers then! 

Why this rule 

In Haroon Lorgat’s own words, “The rules were designed with serious thoughts in mind. That particular one [pertaining to the 2.5m rule] was to accommodate the scepticism that some players have got with predictive technology.” 

Another quote from that Cricinfo article – 

"What we have been trying to avoid because of the DRS is the absolute shocker. Umpires will acknowledge this and they are happy with the system. They can go to sleep at night knowing that had they made that one mistake, it can be rectified. That would not have happened without DRS."

The rule about the distance between impact and the stumps had been put in place precisely because experts had said that the accuracy of the ball tracker - in this case Hawk Eye - begins to falter from that point. "So we said if it's a longer time frame than 2.5m, and people say the prediction cannot be relied upon, then we are allowing the umpire (to take his decision)."

Dhoni had asked why the mark had not been stipulated at 2.4, or 2.6m, and Lorgat said that while, "You can call a mark wherever you want to, where Dhoni was saying 2.4 and 2.6, whatever, call it whatever you wish... it was the experts' views that had been taking into account by the ICC. From the experts' point of view, they said beyond 2.5m, beyond a longer stretch than that, you rely on the umpire." 

The absurdity 

In Lorgat’s own words, where the prediction becomes even tougher for the technology (after 2.5 metres), they are leaving it to the human judgement. Usually, technology is used in any field to assist people when it becomes difficult to use human element. Here, human element is being used when it is becoming difficult for technology! 

My suggestion to make it more acceptable 

I admit that over a longer distance, the predictive element of the technology will become less accurate. However, to set a rigid marker like 2.5 metres is incorrect… as I have shown in an example above where 2 centimetres between 2.49 metres and 2.51 metres can impact the result of a match! 

Instead, what I would like to see is that the companies who manufacture this technology (Hawk Eye and Virtual Eye) should include this element of uncertainty and inaccuracy in their predictive path. In other words, when the tracker is being shown on the television replay, the ball path predicted after the impact should continuously grow larger in radius as it progresses towards the stumps. This will enable the umpires to judge a lot more accurately about the probability that the ball would have hit the stumps. 

The circular area depicted in red around the ball is an addition made by me in an attempt to portray how the area of inaccuracy / uncertainty can be depicted over television replays.

I have taken this screenshot above from Cricinfo’s Hawk Eye application. This is the ball path of Graeme Smith’s LBW dismissal to Zaheer Khan during the first innings of the Third Test recently in January 2011. As I have illustrated above, let the technology show up its area of inaccuracy / uncertainty (whichever term they may want to use), so that we know with absolute certainty that the ball could not have hit outside this area. I have highlighted that with a red circle around the ball.

Here, we know now that larger the distance between the point of impact and the stumps, the bigger will be its area of inaccuracy / uncertainty. Now the umpire will get all the information required that is required for as-accurate-as-possible decision-making, i.e. (a) he shall know what is the most probable path the ball will take, (b) if not that path, then where and how much can the ball deviate, and (c) most importantly, how much percentage of that area is making impact with the stumps.

Where more than 50% of the area of inaccuracy / uncertainty is making impact with the stumps, the batsman should be ruled out (obviously assuming that other conditions are satisfied as well). I am sure that Yuvraj Singh would have earned the dismissal of Ian Bell if we were to follow this methodology of predicting ball paths.

For one, Yuvraj was bowling around the wicket and since Hawk Eye showed that impact was on the off stump, it is obvious that the ball couldn’t have missed off stump as Yuvraj hardly turned that ball… it just straightened very little. It definitely wouldn’t have climbed over the stumps on any sub-continental track. And I am sure it wouldn’t have missed leg stump as well, because the Hawk Eye showed impact between middle and off stumps… so even if the area of inaccuracy / uncertainty were to be very large, there would be no way that it would exceed the leg stump by a margin so huge that even 50% of it would not be deemed within the stumps.

Conclusion

So firstly, ICC should reconsider their rules and usages of technology… because till they don’t get it as right as possible, they cannot shirk away from criticism. Secondly, they should admit that the decision from Billy Bowden was wrong simply because he failed to apply common sense in that decision, which I have applied in the previous paragraph. And thirdly, they should set standards on this type of decision-making… for there have been cases in the past where similar Not Out decisions by the on-field umpires were overturned on review despite the impact being more than 2.5 metres out!

Case 1: Here is the video link of Tim Paine (Aus) being dismissed LBW by Liam Plunkett (Eng) at Perth (out of all places) on 6th February 2011 (7th match of the recently concluded ODI series), as a result of umpire Paul Reiffel overturning his original Not Out decision on review by the English captain, Andrew Strauss (watch the portion between 4:15 and 7:20)!

Case 2: Here is the video link of Shane Watson (Aus) being dismissed LBW by Graeme Cremer (Zim) at Ahmedabad on 21st February 2011 (4th match of the ICC World Cup 2011), as a result of umpire Richard Kettleborough overturning his original Not Out decision on review by the Zimbabwean captain, Elton Chigumbura (watch the portion between 3:03 and 3:48)!