ENGLAND'S 2012 - A YEAR IN ASIA

One-sided matches, almost invariably, are a combination of one side performing exceptionally well and the other side under-performing. The first Test between Pakistan and England at Dubai was no different.

Pakistan were exceptional - keeping tight lines on the first day to create mistakes from the batsmen on an unresponsive wicket, then bat solidly at the top and wag a bit at the bottom to get a more than decent-sized lead, and finally put in another disciplined and at the same time, aggressive bowling effort to bowl England out just 14 runs ahead of their first innings lead.

England were shabby - they got too caught up in trying to be careful against the spin and were done in by Ajmal's guile and wicket-to-wicket lines as a result, then could not find the ammunition to restrict Pakistan despite taking wickets at regular intervals after they had got the first breakthrough, and finally batting poorly again to be shot out just for 160.

The result tells profound tales about both the camps. For Pakistan, it is a huge win, coming against the opponent in whose country they had experienced the lowest point of their recent cricket history - the 2010 Spot Fixing Scandal. Since then, Pakistan has been in a rebuilding state. After showing the promise in the World Cup (and just before than in New Zealand), they have now every reason to be delighted with the progress they have shown under the leadership of Misbah-ul-Haq. This is the first time in about half a decade that there is a sense of stability in Pakistan's cricket, which had been missing ever since they had lost to Ireland in the World Cup 2007, followed by their then coach Bob Woolmer's death and Inzamam-ul-Haq's retirement in the next game against Zimbabwe.

Their win has just made the scenario of Test cricket very exciting at the top. England, because of their Asian struggles, are definitely not in the category of 'Invincibles' yet. Pakistan themselves are on the rise, as is Australia after a decline for some time. India is on a slide, as is Sri Lanka (despite Durban). South Africa is stable near the top, though inconsistent. If Pakistan can unearth another couple of good fast bowler (something they tend to do quite easily and also frankly because I am not very convinced with Aizaz Cheema yet), they might as well threaten for a stint of their own at the top of the rankings in a couple of years.

On the other side of the fence, England have a task ahead of them. They rose to the No. 1 spot in Test rankings not a long time ago. But if they put in such performances in Asia, they will not be holding that rank for a long time, as 2012 sees them play away to Sri Lanka and India as well. Their batting is definitely not as abject as the scores of 192 and 160 would suggest (almost seems like I am talking about India!), but their difficulties against the sub-continental spinners in the sub-continent have been very well-documented. They are not incapable of doing well in the sun-continent - Strauss has a century in each innings in Chennai and a wonderful 150 at Bangalore in the World Cup to look back at, Trott was very consistent in the World Cup, Bell (despite his confusion against Ajmal's doosras) has a fine footwork to counter spin bowling, Pietersen is a class player in a different category of his own, Morgan can counter spin effectively, as can Prior (which is what he showed in the first innings at Dubai).

They have worries in the bowling department too, and it starts right with the structure of their bowling attack. Five bowlers or four bowlers? One spinner or two spinner? What should be the combination when Bresnan is fit and what should it be when he isn't? I don't think two spinners is a good idea for England. Spinners are the bowlers that Asian batsmen relish facing, and so home or away, the best way to attack them is with pace - something the South Africa has done well with a good measure of success in the sub-continent! In the Dubai Test, Swann hardly troubled the Pakistan batsmen. When there is turn, he will surely get a few wickets, but if he is played out comfortably, then 3-4 wickets per Test is not much of a solace. In the sub-continent, the lead spinner of every team needs to be capable of getting 6-7 wickets every Test match!

The other spinner in the English ranks in Monty Panesar, who performed well in the warm-up game prior to the Dubai Test. So bewildering as it might sound to many - here's what I think England should do: draft in Monty Panesar in place of Graeme Swann, their premier spinner. I do feel that sub-continental batsmen prefer facing an off-spinner rather than a left-arm spinner. But the most compelling reason is the abundance of right-handed batsmen in the 3 teams that England will face in Asia in 2012. In their last respective Tests, Pakistan had just 1 left-hander in top-7 (Taufeeq Umar), Sri Lanka had 2 (Lahiru Thirimanne and Kumar Sangakkara), and India had 1 (Gautam Gambhir). With just right-arm fast bowlers in their ranks having to bowl mainly at right-handed batsmen (thereby almost eliminating their chances of bowling around the wicket), there are very little chances of footmarks creating rough patches on the pitch for an off-spinner. But if a left-arm spinner can use those footmarks by going over the wicket. It may be a slightly defensive strategy, but in my opinion, it is the best shot for England!

Greame Swann is a wonderful bowler, but England would do well by adopting a horses-for-courses theory. He can always be drafted back in the side if they are faced with a dustbowl or if Panesar underperforms or if they decide to go with 5 bowlers. But I think going for a left-arm spinner with 3 pacemen is a strategy worth having a shot at!

As for their fast bowlers, they will just have to persevere, get their lengths right, and be patient. The Asian pitches can be a big test of patience, and winning that test shall help them win a lot of Tests. Broad, I suspect, will be their key bowler... and Strauss would do well to hand him the new ball every time with Anderson (unlike what he did at Dubai). England would have loved to have someone with reverse-swing-capabilities of Simon Jones in their ranks... but even without that, they have good men in their arsenal. Now lets see if they can fire!

COMPARING THE TWO HORROR TOURS

Taking a leaf out of Stuart Broad's book!

This one's headed the same way as the last one... and it is unbelievably painful to watch it happen. Mad hope kept flickering up every now and again, but there was always an air of inevitability even when there was some promise being shown.

Which tour is more depressing as a cricket viewer? I really have no idea, and even if I discover some way of measuring my depression, I would really not be interested in doing so. But since we are in the midst of the Australian tour, I want to touch upon certain points that make me really afraid of what's happening and what more might happen.

During the tour of England, a lot of things went wrong for India. It was believed that if some of those things had gone right, India would not have suffered the embarrassment of a whitewash. In the period between the England tour and the Australian tour, there were a few steps taken that were seemingly lessons from the former. Yet, here we are... facing the very same 4-0 scoreline against an opponent that is definitely not as good as England had been!

So what were the excuses that could have been passed off as reasons for the England debacle?

ZAHEER KHAN LIMPING OUT

India received the biggest blow possible on the very first day of the Test series in England, when Zaheer Khan limped back into the dressing room clutching his hamstring muscles after having picked up the wickets of both the English openers (and having a catch dropped of their No. 3 in the slips) by soundly working them over. The absence of Zaheer Khan for the rest of the tour was considered to be one of the biggest factors of India's losses there by all and sundry.

But now, in hindsight, one wonders how much of a difference would he really have made! He has been available for all the 3 Test matches in Australia, and while he has bowled well himself, India's attack really has not looked as threatening as it should have considering the personnel present. One might say that the Zaheer-led bowling attack has done commendably except for that one period spanning over two Tests in different time zones where they conceded 836 runs for just 1 wicket, but that is a hollow argument!

The only conclusion that can be drawn after watching India bowl in the 7 losses thus far is that with or without Zaheer Khan, the bowling has just not been good enough to get the team within sights of a victory! While their opponents have had bowlers (Stuart Broad and Peter Siddle being prime examples) who have altered their bowling lengths to gain impressive rewards, the Indian team continue to field a bowler (read Ishant Sharma) whose lengths have received sound punishment and have shown no signs of changing.

INJURIES IN BATTING

In England, India was hampered by lack of fit personnel even at the top of the batting lineup. Sehwag was unfit for the first two Tests, and did not look fit enough even in his return for the last two Tests. Gambhir suffered injuries during the series. Tendulkar had to play an innings battling fever. Yuvraj Singh got injured during the series.

In Australia, there have been no such problems. Sehwag came in completely fit having scored the highest score by a batsman in ODIs, and Gambhir too came in fully fit and having recovered a bit of his lost touch against the West Indies at home. And even before the series started, there was more or less a certainty that Virat Kohli would be given a decent run at the No. 6 spot. So as a result, India played an unchanged top-7 in all three Tests... and floundered in each one of them!

The consistent failures of the Indian batting unit have been very baffling and difficult to explain. These men have brilliant records and have been proven performers in the past even in tough away conditions too. With these 7 losses, voices have grown loud that these batting stalwarts are old now, and their age is showing up in their batting. Dravid's spree of bowled dismissals are explained as a result of slowing reflexes.

These very same men had had wonderful runs with the bat in not too distant a past, and back then, they were being described as fine wine - getting better with age. Now, they are supposedly getting slower with age. It's the easiest way of calling for their heads, I suppose!

While it is obvious that sooner rather than later, these men will have to make way for a younger generation of batsmen, one needs to realise that age has hardly been a factor in their undoing. Yes, they have failed... failed in 7 consecutive away Tests! But I honestly believe that this failure has been more due to much braver (read fuller) bowling from the opposition bowlers in helpful conditions. Since the Indian bowlers have not been able to replicate such consistency in bowling, the opposition batsmen have been made to look much better than their Indian counterparts, which may not be the genuine case!

LACK OF PREPARATION

In England, lack of acclimatisation and preparation in those conditions was considered to be a major factor in the losses. The Indian team landed in England after the Caribbean tour less than 10 complete days before the start of the first Test. They played just one 3-day warm-up game before the first Test, and looked ill at ease in conditions that were completely different from the ones they are accustomed to.

For the Australian tour, certain players reached Down Under more than two weeks before the first Test, and the others reached about 12 days prior. The preparation involved one 3-day game and one 2-day game. No player was coming in unfit or with the lack of match practice. In fact, India's biggest concern was over the fitness of Zaheer Khan... but he too played two Ranji games before playing a warm-up match in Australia.

After the first Test at MCG, Dhoni said that India have always been poor starters. It was depressing to see him hide behind that age-old facade... while the truth remains that the first Test was the one where the team was the most competitive during this tour, and had genuine chances of a win! Since then, it has all been downhill.

SCHEDULING

The IPL got a lot of flak after the England disaster, because of the way it disrupted cricket schedules. While the rest before the Australian tour for the team was hardly any better, but they were at home in an ODI series. This meant that the core of India's middle order was well rested and those who were participating in the ODI series were doing so to gain match fitness, practice or cement their spots in the Test team.

The scheduling also received a lot of flak because of the inadequate acclimatisation factor, as touched upon in the previous point. Yet no such reasons can be passed off here in Australia. The only conclusion that I can draw is that the team has actually been outplayed on the field, and any changes in the external factors would hardly have made any difference to the eventual result!



In England, the Indian team was beaten by a deserving side functioning at the top of its game. All the reasons / excuses that were put up by the fans defending the team were nothing but a protective shield to prevent any adverse after-effect of that shocking loss! Therefore, it was doubly depressing to see that protective shield blown apart piece-by-piece in a systematic fashion to leave the team and the fans nakedly exposed and vulnerable.

Every now and again, time calls for change. For the Indian team, there had been confusion over the past couple of years about when exactly is that time. Well, there is no such confusion now! That time for change has come, and a lot of rebuilding needs to be done. There will be more losses on the way, and more pain to be endured. But what needs to be done must be done!

WHY ARE WE HERE?

India, the World No. 1 Test team, is very likely to relinquish the ranking very soon to the rampaging English team. It's been frustrating and embarrassing to witness this Test series for an Indian fan. It was a tad bit embarrassing to see our famed middle order, known for its prowess against spin bowling of all kinds, catapult against Mendis in Sri Lanka 2008. It was embarrassing also to watch a virtually limp Indian team surrender to Australia 3-0 back in 1999-2000. But none of those experiences come close to what I have seen over the last 3 weeks in England.

After the ultimate high of World Cup win, I am feeling a bottomless low even before this series has ended. The Indian supporter in me shall never die, but I pray that it never has to face this kind of embarrassment ever again!

But why has Team India reached this position in the Test series against England? Last time that India toured England in 2007, we won the series 1-0 with a similar Indian line-up against a similar English line-up. What has changed? Both the teams have gotten better since then for sure, even though the scoreline suggests that only one team has gotten better, and the other has gone down to pits!

Why are we performing so badly then? Many people have come up with different reasons and explanations. The primary reason for me is not something new and unknown... but I will come to that later. First, I want refute another view.

Sanjay Manjrekar thinks that our bowling attack lacks ability. Maybe, it does. But India beat Sri Lanka in Colombo with an attack of Ishant Sharma, Abhimanyu Mithun, Amit Mishra and Pragyan Ojha. India beat Australia in Perth with an attack of Irfan Pathan, RP Singh, Ishant Sharma and the great Anil Kumble. The current bowling attack of Praveen Kumar, Ishant Sharma, S Sreesanth and Harbhajan Singh / Amit Mishra is not much worse from those attacks. Both Sri Lanka and Australia were in-form teams at those times playing on their home grounds with a series lead in hand, very similar to England here!

Admittedly, this attack has misfired, and apart from Praveen Kumar, no one has been able to maintain consistency that demands respect from the batsmen... but is that the primary reason? Often in the past, our bowling attack has been helped by a scoreboard cushion provided by the batsmen, something that has not occurred this time.

This is the other reason that a lot of people have agreed on (and I agree too) - the failure to fire of our batting line-up. It has been somewhat surprising to see this line-up misfire so spectacularly. I still have no doubt that India's is the best batting line-up in the world in Test cricket. In the last five years, whenever our bowlers have managed to pick 20 opposition wickets, our batsmen have almost always ensured that they put enough runs on the board to beat the opponent. The only exceptions to this rule have been Lord's 2007 (draw), Cape Town 2011 (draw), Dominica 2011 (draw) and Nottingham 2011 (loss).

In fact, the last time (before Trent Bridge) that we lost a Test match despite our bowlers having taken 20 wickets was Mumbai 2006 against England. 5 years and a few months since then, there have only been those 4 aforementioned instances where the bowlers have done the job, and the batsmen have not capitalised. Worryingly, 3 of those incidents have come in a span of 7 months in 2011 while holding the No. 1 rank!

So if we agree that our batting failures is the single biggest cause of this situation in the series (and even if we do not agree, this question is still important), then the question that arises is how did it come to this! Why is the best batting line-up in the world misfiring so badly?

In the 1st Test, lack of acclimatisation could have been used as an excuse. But it's been 5 Test innings and 2 and a half practice match innings through this tour now, and we have not had a single collective batting performance to rejoice. Rahul Dravid has scored 2 hundreds, and there have been a few fifties to assuage some pride, but where is the good old Indian way of applying scoreboard pressure gone?

In my humble opinion, the failures have been caused not by the lack of acclimatisation, but by the lack of preparation. The English cricket team had their eyes set on an Ashes triumph in Australia, and so they prepared for it diligently and well in advance. They planned well, had contingency options ready, and when the time came, they delivered. They then had a new goal to aim for - the No. 1 ranking in Test cricket. They knew they would have to beat India at home quite comprehensively to attain that. So they prepared again, planned again, and seem to be delivering again!

It's not that the Indian team and its management is incapable of such planning. Our triumph at the World Cup 2011 is a prime example of how we planned for a campaign that was very precious and dear to us. Players have talked about how their mental preparation started a year before the World Cup in Dambulla. They have talked about how they worked at their fitness to be in the best shape during the final stages of the campaign. They have talked about how they wanted to peak at the right time. And they delivered!

So was it a case of not having planned and prepared well to take on England in England? Was there a bit of complacency after having creditably earned a draw away at South Africa just a few months ago? As a fan, I think that even I am a little guilty of having underestimated England a little bit before the series began.

But my assessment of England before the series was based on an English attack containing a misfiring Stuart Broad. But the Stuart Broad playing in this series is a different one from the one that played earlier against Sri Lanka and Australia in the Ashes!

Stuart Broad's new avatar has ensured that the English pace attack has been able to apply relentless pressure on the ill-prepared Indian batting line-up. In South Africa, after the pressure from Steyn and Morkel was over, India could play a few release shots against Tsotsobe, Kallis and Harris. Similarly, against all other attacks, our batsmen have always had at least 2 bowlers who could be attacked for pressure-release!

However, on the evidence of the cricket that has been played on this tour thus far, India's only hope for release in pressure has been in the form of Graeme Swann. The difficulty for the Indians has arisen because Strauss has rotated and managed his fast bowlers so well that Indians have not faced too much from Swann! Instead, it has been steady and relentless pressure and testing from a highly-skilled English pace attack!

When India's No. 1 ranking used to come under fire by people who used to say that they are not like the dominant West Indies and Australia of the past, I always defended India by saying that No. 1 ranking suggests that we are the best of the current lot. That ranking does not imply that the team owning it will be one of the all-time greats like those West Indian and Australian teams!

So going by the same logic, if and when England get to that ranking, I will accept their position there. However, to be dominant like West Indies and Australia, they will need to beat South Africa (home and away) as well as India (away). Nevertheless, if they get that No. 1 ranking, then No. 1 they will be, and deservedly so! As for India, I know that I will (like a lot of others) continue the support despite this nightmare. They may have been badly exposed this time in England, but the lessons will be learnt, and we will see better cricket from this team!

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!

ODI TEAM OF THE YEAR 2010

Here's my pick for the ODI team for the year 2010...


01. Hasim Amla (1058 runs in 15 matches @ Avg 75.57 and SR 104.23, 100s-5, 50s-4) - SA
02. Tillakaratne Dilshan (921 runs in 20 matches @ Avg 51.16 and SR 988.82, 100s-3, 50s-4) - SL
03. Virat Kohli (995 runs in 25 matches @ Avg 47.38 and SR 85.11, 100s-3, 50s-7) - Ind
04. AB De Villiers (964 runs in 16 matches @ Avg 80.33 and SR 102.11, 100s-5, 50s-4) - SA
05. Kumar Sangakkara (726 runs in 17 matches @ Avg 48.40 and SR 84.41, 100s-0, 50s-7, Cat-27, St-4) (c)(wk) - SL
06. Michael Hussey (825 runs in 24 matches @ Avg 45.83 and SR 91.56, 100s-0, 50s-6) - Aus
07. Shakib Al Hasan (27 matches, 787 runs @ Avg 32.79, SR 80.14, 100s-1, 50s-5, 46 wkts @ Avg 26.00, ER 4.80) - Ban
08. Graeme Swann (28 wkts in 14 matches @ Avg 18.67 and ER 4.25) - Eng
09. Stuart Broad (30 wkts in 16 matches @ Avg 24.86 and ER 5.21) - Eng
10. Ryan Harris (40 wkts in 16 matches @ Avg 15.17 and ER 4.63) - Aus
11. Doug Bollinger (28 wkts in 19 matches @ Avg 23.39 and ER 4.36) - Aus

A LOOK AHEAD TO PERTH

And finally, it has happened! The selectors of the Australian National Cricket Team have finally realised that Marcus North needs to be dropped... and they have done just that!

Marcus North has had so many chances by now that I was almost starting to think of him as 'The Boy Who Lived'. But finally, he's been dropped from Australia's 12-man squad for the Third Ashes Test at WACA, Perth from the 16th of December 2010. Here's the 12-man squad:

Shane Watson, Phillip Hughes, Ricky Ponting (c), Michael Clarke, Michael Hussey, Brad Haddin (wk), Steven Smith, Mitchell Johnson, Ryan Harris, Peter Siddle, Michael Beer, Ben Hilfenhaus.

It is interesting to see just how important that one statement from Shane Warne has been for the selection of Michael Beer into the Australian Test squad. But frankly, I don't see how Beer is going to get into a final XI... it cannot happen.

For Beer to play in the final XI, Australia have to play either with 2 spinners, which is quite unthinkable from an Aussie side at Perth, OR play with 6 batsmen - 5 bowlers combination... which will not be that great an idea.

So assuming that Beer does become the 12th man, Australia will be going into the Perth Test against England with a 4-man pace attack, with a leg-spinner Steven Smith and a medium pacer Shane Watson to back them up.

This team definitely gives more options to Ricky Ponting as he tries to work out a way to get 20 English wickets. But what will be interesting to see is whether the 4 Aussie pacemen can generate enough quality to ensure that Ponting has a relatively easier time as a captain at Perth than he has had so far this Ashes?

Perth, as a venue, is known for its pace and bounce. Though the fieriness of the pitch has reduced over the years, it is still amongst the faster surfaces you will find around the world. However, this does not mean any advantage for Australia. Whereas once visiting teams were scared of what treatment will be meted out to them at Perth, the tables are now turning slowly but surely. The last 3 Tests played at Perth -

2009/10 Season - Australia v West Indies - Australia on by 35 runs
2008/09 Season - Australia v South Africa - South Africa won by 6 wickets
2007/08 Season - Australia v India - India won by 72 runs

West Indies almost managed to beat Australia chasing a stiff 359... and despite their loss, it must not be forgotten that with a batting lineup missing Shivnarine Chanderpaul, they managed to score 323. In 2008/09, South Africa chased down a historic 414, and in 2007/08, India bowled Australia out for 340 defending 413.

Not only this, even when England lost by 206 runs in 2006/07, they did manage 350 in the 4th innings and South Africa scored 287 for 5 in the 4th innings in 2005/06. What I am trying to suggest is that batting on Perth is not difficult... and scores of 300+ are a norm even in the 4th innings. Matches in Perth are lost only when a batting unit suffers a collapse, which is more often than not engineered by a quick bowler.

In such a scenario, I believe that Chris Tremlett will be the best replacement for the injured Stuart Broad. He may not be as good a batter as Broad, but with the batting unit functioning so well for England at the moment, they don't really need to worry about that.

It will also be interesting to see if the English pacers will attack the Aussie skipper with short stuff at Perth. It was on this ground last year when a young Kemar Roach stuck Ponting with a nasty lifter that forced him to retire hurt for the first time in his long Test career. It may also be recalled that later in the second innings, Roach had his man out caught at short leg fending to another nasty lifter. Ponting's troubles to short-pitched bowling have been well-documented ever since. Perth 2010 might just add another chapter to this story.

Perth usually guarantees a result in the match. And given how strong England are looking at the moment and how low the Australians are feeling, I suspect that England will be fancying their chances of retaining the Ashes at WACA itself... it would be fitting to do it at the ground where the Australians had regained the Ashes 4 years ago.

INCOMPLETE WITHOUT STUART BROAD

A Twenty20 World Cup is incomplete without something eventful happening with Stuart Broad.

In South Africa 2007, he got his name etched in history for being at the receiving end of the famous Yuvraj Singh onslaught where he was hit for 6 sixes in an over. In the process, he also became the first pacer in history to hold this dubious record in any form of the game.

Then in England 2009, some may recall that he bowled the last over of the opening match of the tournament against the Netherlands. The Dutch had required 7 to win and Broad went on to bowl an over where he missed 1 catch and 3 pretty straight forward run out chances (4 chances in 1 over, what the hell!) to allow them the 7 runs and a famous win.

He wore a similar look on his face at the end of both those overs... two unforgettable overs for those who watched them live. Unfortunately, I missed both those overs and had to watch them in the highlights package. Maybe, I shouldn't watch an England match for him to entertain us once again.

Or maybe, he is saving it for the final. A grand final against the bitter rivals from Down Under - Australia!

BROAD'S STEP BETTER THAN AFRIDI'S BITE?

As expected, the blogosphere is buzzing with the "AFRIDI BITES BALL" controversy. I have read a lot of these blogs, and there is this one article that I found to be an interesting view. Here is the link: A Cricketing View: Ball-Tampering: Afridi v Broad.

This article talks about Stuart Broad's outrageously innocent (or innocently outrageous) remarks that he was just being too lazy in temperatures of 40 degrees centigrade. The English team's stand is compared to that of Afridi's. Afridi, atleast, admits that he made a mistake and is embarassed by it.

Lets rewind a bit. In the recent South Africa - England Test series in South Africa, Stuart Broad bowls a ball. The batsman defends it with a straight bat and the ball rolls towards the bowler. Broad, in his followthrough, steps on the ball in order to stop it from rolling any further. There are murmurs, which soon turn into whispers and then accusations, that this is the reason why the English pacers have been generating early reverse swing.

In both the cases (Broad and Afridi), I think that there will be a unanimous conclusion that the ball's condition was not affected to the extent that it will generate enormous amount of reverse swing. And in both the cases, the result of the match was not affected by the acts of the subjects.

However, if Afridi was handed a ban of 2 T20 Internationals and labelled as 'cheat', why not Stuart Broad? Is it because his father, Chris Broad, is a senior member of ICC's Elite Panel of Match Referees (as claimed by Sunil Gavaskar)? Is it just because he is English and Afridi is a Pakistani (as claimed by Nasser Hussain and Michael Vaughan)?

How many times have we seen varying standards in the way ICC metes out the punishments to offenders? How many times have we demanded that we want the system to be standardised? Yet, such issues keep on cropping up. No one is claiming that Afridi was right in chewing the cherry. But he was right in admitting his wrongdoings. This is where Stuart Broad erred.

I think ICC should revisit the Stuart Broad incident and announce a similar verdict to that of Afridi there. After all, stepping on the ball is a way of tampering with the ball (it has been attempted in the past by Hansie Cronje). I know that ICC, being ICC, is not going to do anything about the Broad incident. Yet, I think it is a duty of all the cricket bloggers to lodge our protests in our own silent ways.