"Their position now, as I understand it, is that Howard's not qualified because he's a politician and he's criticised Zimbabwe, so they bring politics back into it when it suits them. I think the behaviour of Zimbabwe, and South Africa supporting them, has been outrageous.
"They agreed to the process. They knew it was to be Australia and New Zealand's decision and they should have been prepared to accept that position and not second-guess those countries. The process should have been followed."
Monday, May 31, 2010
This appears to be Malcolm Speed's argument. Zimbabwe and South Africa have opposed John Howard's (former Prime Minister of Australia) nomination as ICC President. Here is the gist of Speed's concerns
In a post that could easily pass as a Who's who of the corporate buzzword population, Gideon Haigh trumpets the same old story for the umpteenth time on Cricinfo. Odd Men In was such a wonderful column! Why is Mr. Haigh trying to tell us about things he clearly doesn't understand - namely, the workings of the BCCI and it's connection with the IPL?
Sunday, May 09, 2010
Did you know that India's batsmen have a problem against the short ball? Haven't you watched the T20 World Cup games at Barbados against Australia and West Indies? A full 40 overs of batting from the Indians chasing 9 and 8 runs per over against Australia and West Indies respectively.
This "play" we are supposed to believe, is the same as the word play, when used in a Test Match context. Gautam Gambhir who has scored plenty of runs on all types of wickets suddenly has a problem facing the short ball. The mainstream view that the basics never change in cricket, irrespective of the format, that the same language can be used to describe all types of cricketing contest.
Friday, May 07, 2010
That is Sanjay Manjrekar's verdict. India lacked "mental discipline". Chasing 9 runs per over over 20 overs, Manjrekar concludes that
"Technique is a difficult thing to correct in 48 hours. You can't suddenly change your technique and be able to cope with the short deliveries. I don't think it was as much a technical problem as it was about mental discipline. India needed to show a little more guts; sometimes in Twenty20 cricket just seeing off the first few overs is not such a bad thing even if you get four or five runs and over."
Tuesday, May 04, 2010
Peter Roebuck presents a fairly detailed account of the development of bowling tactics as a result of limited overs cricket. Amazingly for a former cricketer (and captain), he leaves out the most crucial part of the story - the length of the contest. What does it mean for a bowler to be attacking in a 20 over game? What is this bowler attacking when faced with a batsman who is willing to leave his stumps and take a chance as frequently as every ball? Roebuck's recounting of the facts is fine, but his analysis based on those facts is bizarre. He writes:
Sunday, May 02, 2010
Has it ever happened in any form of the game?
Mohammad Aamer to Haddin, OUT, 83.7 mph, gone! No mistake from Sami at short third man, it was full and outside off, Haddin throws his hands at it, gets an edge and neatly taken. Dot ball is what matters at this stage, but the total is already imposing
BJ Haddin c Mohammad Sami b Mohammad Aamer 1 (2b 0x4 0x6) SR: 50.00
Mohammad Aamer to Johnson, OUT, 87.9 mph, Aamer strikes! Lovely yorker and Johnson can't get his bat down in time, it crashes into middle stump, lovely bowling
MG Johnson b Mohammad Aamer 0 (1b 0x4 0x6) SR: 0.00
Aamer on a hat-trick and Steven Smith to face.
Mohammad Aamer to Smith, OUT, 87.7 mph, well it's three wickets in three balls, but not a hat-trick! Another good yorker, Smith swished and misses, they attempt to run a bye to get Hussey on strike, Kamran is quick with the throw and Hussey is run out
MEK Hussey run out 17 (8b 1x4 1x6) SR: 212.50