Category Uncategorized

ESPNcricinfo staff23-Oct-2016Blackwood fell to Rahat Ali’s reverse swing in the seventh over of the day•Getty ImagesDevendra Bishoo took 20 balls to get off the mark, and made 20 off 66 balls before falling to Sohail Khan•Getty ImagesRoston Chase and Shai Hope avoided further damage, and West Indies scored just 45 runs in 27 overs in the first session•Getty ImagesChase fell to Yasir Shah after the break, chasing a wide one and edging it to second slip•AFPYasir cleaned up Hope in his next over with one that kept low; West Indies were reduced to 178 for 8•AFPJason Holder farmed the strike and scored 31 quick runs•AFPBut Yasir struck again to dismiss last man Shannon Gabriel. He finished with 4 for 86 as West Indies were bowled out for 224, conceding a lead of 228•Getty ImagesSami Aslam scored a half-century and put on 93 for the opening wicket with Azhar Ali as Pakistan tightened their grip•Getty ImagesShannon Gabriel ended the association, but Azhar raised a fifty too and took Pakistan to 114 for 1 at stumps for a lead of 342•Getty Images

The Delhi court’s decision to drop the charges against Sreesanth, Ajit Chandila and Ankeet Chavan has not only indicated that the case against the cricketers was weak but also that spot- and match-fixing cannot be punished under the Indian penal code

Suhrith Parthasarathy29-Jul-20155:45

Can the players challenge BCCI’s ban?

On 25 July, an additional sessions judge in Delhi discharged 42 individuals accused of having been involved in a systematic racket to bet on, and fix, cricket matches during the sixth edition of the IPL. The list of those acquitted included three cricketers who had participated in that season’s IPL: Sreesanth, Ajit Chandila and Ankeet Chavan. The trio has now been exonerated of all criminal charges levied against them, including those under the draconian Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act, 1999 [MCOCA]. Their prospects of returning to cricket, while unclear, are certainly enhanced by the judgment.Even in 2013, when the Delhi Police first charged the three cricketers under the MCOCA, its intentions appeared extraordinary. The MCOCA is a special law enacted to counter the dangers of serious organised crime. To think that a cricketer, even one who might have taken money to throw matches, could be involved actively in a criminal syndicate that included, among others, notable underworld dons Dawood Ibrahim and Chota Shakeel, was fanciful, if not incongruous. But that, in substance, was the primary claim of the Delhi Police. Now, more than two years after these allegations surfaced, Judge Neena Bansal Krishna’s judgment has not only lifted the charges against the cricketers, but has also brought to light a void that prevents the Indian state from effectively punishing those guilty of match and spot fixing.In all, Judge Krishna’s ruling makes three telling points. First, even assuming the three cricketers were involved in spot-fixing, there was no evidence on show to establish their nexus with bookies and brutes, as was alleged. Second, the offence of spot fixing – and, for that matter, match fixing – is not specifically punishable under any Indian penal law. Third, it was impossible to conclude based on available evidence that the three cricketers had, in fact, taken money in exchange for performing any specific feat on the cricket field. Each of these findings is instructive.Though the allegations against the three cricketers are distinct on facts, a common thread runs through all of them: a woeful lack of corroborative testimony, which ultimately crippled the prosecution’s claims. In Chandila’s case, the state relied almost entirely on a confessional statement by an individual, Sunil Bhatia, who was purportedly a henchman with links to a number of gangsters involved in the business of fixing cricket matches.Bhatia had claimed Chandila had been gifted money with specific instructions to underperform, at least, on two separate occasions. Both these times, not only did Chandila fail to flounder to the satisfaction of the bookies, but he also returned the sums allegedly paid to him. According to Judge Krishna’s judgment, the prosecution had produced very little evidence to show that Chandila had actually received, and had later returned, these sums of money from the bookies. Their only proof was Bhatia’s statement, which, extraordinary as it was, was later retracted by him. What’s more, there was no evidence offered showing any direct link between Chandila and Dawood and Shakeel, the alleged masterminds of the criminal syndicate.Chavan’s case was based on similarly tenuous ground. The prosecution had claimed he had received INR 60 lakhs to perform poorly in a match involving his team, Rajasthan Royals, and Mumbai Indians on May 15, 2013. But, according to Judge Krishna, there was no direct evidence that was produced, to show that Chavan actually received this sum of money. Additionally, she ruled, the claims made by his team, the Rajasthan Royals, that they felt cheated by Chavan’s actions were incapable of being considered as any proof that he truly underperformed against Mumbai Indians. The entire case against Chavan, therefore, the court held, was conjectural, and completely unsupported by any corroboration.In the court’s opinion, the allegations against Sreesanth were also equally unfounded. The prosecution’s case against Sreesanth was built on a series of intercepted phone calls between the cricketer and an individual, P Jiju Janardhan, and between Janardhan and various alleged bookies. According to the police, Janardhan was a close friend of Sreesanth and had convinced him to accept money in return for conceding 14 runs in a specific over. But, the court held, none of the evidence that the prosecution had presented pointed towards Sreesanth’s guilt.The only fact that was even remotely incriminating, according to Judge Krishna, was a conversation between Janardhan and a bookie, Chandresh Patel. Here, Janardhan tells Patel: “[Sreesanth] is a little stubborn about this. He is playing after a long time and he is risking time … maine usko samjha diya [I’ve explained to him,] but he did not want to take risk.” This conversation, according to Judge Krishna, showed, if anything, that Sreesanth had refused to partake in any form of spot fixing. What’s more, none of the conversations between Janardhan and Sreesanth, according to the court, established any direct link between the pair and Dawood and Shakeel.The future remains uncertain for Sreesanth, Ajit Chandila and Ankeet Chavan with respect to their involvement in cricket•BCCIIn spite of these acquittals, the path back to active cricket for Chandila, Chavan and Sreesanth is far from assured. The bans imposed against the trio by the BCCI represent actions independent of criminal prosecution. They are sanctions that flow from the board’s own internal rules and regulations, including the IPL’s Anti-Corruption Code. Unlike criminal law, the standard of proof required to establish wrongdoing under these bylaws is far less onerous. The BCCI would not be required to show beyond all reasonable doubt that the cricketers had indulged in prohibited acts, but would merely have to prove that a preponderance of probabilities points towards such illegality.A reading of Judge Krishna’s judgment appears to suggest that even such minimal evidence, demonstrating any potential offence, might be absent in these cases. The cricketers, therefore, might be in a strong position to approach the BCCI with new petitions to have their bans overturned. Though the BCCI has stood by its original decision, its secretary Anurag Thakur has now confirmed that if a request is made by any of the three cricketers, the BCCI would be willing to consider his case afresh.Such a review would no doubt be conducted under the various internal rules and regulations that bind the board. The board, unlike the criminal court, would merely have to find that a preponderance of probabilities points towards a violation of its Anti Corruption Code. But any decision by the board upholding the life bans is unlikely to be final. Given that the Supreme Court, in January, confirmed that the decisions of the BCCI might be subject to the jurisdiction of the high courts under Article 226 of the Constitution, the cricketers could even conceivably challenge their bans as tantamount to a violation of their civil rights. However, any such process is unlikely to be swift.Though the Delhi court was unable to find any evidence that could have established beyond all reasonable doubt that these three cricketers indulged in spot fixing, the court also thought it necessary to point out that, in any event, it might have been difficult to sanction the trio under the criminal law. This is because both spot and match fixing are not specifically delineated as offences under any legislation. What’s more, according to Judge Krishna, such acts would also not fall within any other general offence, such as cheating, which required a specific transfer of property interests between the accused and the victim, in this case, the spectators. Therefore, it’s arguable that the Delhi police was entirely misplaced in its decision to charge these cricketers of any offence, given that their acts, even if proven, were simply not punishable under Indian penal law.The legalisation of sports betting is often recommended as a potential panacea to the menace of match fixing. The real problems, though, as the failed prosecution of these three cricketers shows us, is a reliance on the criminal law to punish cases of cheating in sport. Even if spot and match fixing were to be specifically criminalised, to burden an already flailing criminal justice system to solve a muddle that was created by cricket’s own maladministration appears to be imprudent.What cricket needs, on the contrary, is a more organised and accountable domestic regulation. Perhaps, the Lodha Committee’s recommendations, when they eventually arrive, will allow cricket the opportunity to clean its own house, and, in the process, to establish a stronger mechanism to counter instances not only of corruption and conflicts of interest, but also offences of match and spot fixing, which strike at the core of the sport’s integrity.

Over the past two decades, Jacques Kallis’ world-class batting and energetic bowling allowed South Africa enviable depth in both departments

Firdose Moonda25-Dec-2013Nobody even noticed Jacques Kallis earlier today. He walked down the stairs at the back of the change-rooms at Kingsmead, as he may have done 18 years ago, with casual indifference. He had a sandwich in one hand, an energy drink in the other, a jaunt in his step and a faraway look in his eyes. If he was hiding any nerves, reservations or second thoughts, you would never have known.An hour later his plan to retire from Test cricket within a week was made public.It was announced with no fuss, frills or fanfare but via a prepared statement. Graeme Smith’s twitter message confirmed it was a decision that was made a few days ago. No doubt Kallis would have spent much longer thinking about exactly when, where and how he wanted to leave Test cricket. He could choose that because he picked his moment correctly.Timing has been the hallmark of Kallis’ career – from his cover drives to the way he paces an innings to the fact that at the age of 38, he can still bowl above 140kph. His is not a headline-poaching style of play but a patient, persistent one that appeals to those who prefer fine dining to fast food.That was evident as early as his seventh Test, when he scored a match-saving century at the MCG. His innings then displayed as much about his ability to occupy the crease and wear an attack down – he spent three minutes short of six hours and faced 279 balls for his 101 – as it did about his strength of mind. When Australia couldn’t bowl Kallis out, they tried to sledge him out but he was resolute in ignoring their verbals. In frustration, they resorted to asking him if he was deaf.Kallis looked a run machine starting up that day and he hasn’t slowed down for 18 years. In that time, he never went more than 13 Tests without scoring a hundred with the biggest gap between his 29th and 30th ton. Twice in his career, Kallis scored five centuries in successive Tests, the first time in the summer of 2003-4 with four against West Indies and one in New Zealand and the second in 2007 with three in Pakistan, including two in the same match, and two against New Zealand.He racked up centuries everywhere except Sri Lanka. As the runs piled up, and the reputation for being for a silent genius grew, one milestone remained elusive. It took Kallis 143 Tests before he reached a double-hundred, a duration of time which he said never really bothered him but had obviously become a sticking point for some supporters.Kallis was eventually promised lifetime membership to the Leopard Creek golf estate by businessman Johann Rupert if he achieved a double hundred. Kallis needed no further motivation. With golf being his second love and Mark Boucher egging him on, he celebrated joining the two-ton club against India in Centurion with a golf swing.His friendship with Boucher is the most human side to Kallis outsiders have seen because everyone understands what it’s like to have a best mate. Their shared love for the outdoors and golf and their business in a wine label has made them both more accessible to the average cricket fan. Boucher remains the more approachable one, Kallis the more aloof but when they are together, Kallis’ personality sometimes peeps through.The perception of Kallis as distant may have been driven by necessity. An outlandishly outstanding player, it may simply have been his way of coping with his success. Kallis is not simply a batsman. He is a cricketer in every sense of the word.His bowling is one of the less talked about but more celebrated parts of his game. He stands eight wickets away from 300 and performances with the ball have illustrated his worth as a team man. A Kallis bouncer is often a partnership breaker. He has accounted for some of the best batsmen in the world, including Adam Gilchrist, Shivnarine Chanderpaul and Ricky Ponting six times each.Kallis had the measure of Ponting as recently as Adelaide last year. He felled the former Australian captain with a delivery Ponting said left him “embarrassed” and prompted his retirement. Ironically, a year later, Kallis has been left looking out of sorts by playing late to deliveries that swing into him and being caught on the pad.Even though his reaction time may have slowed, he still reaches speeds most would he envious of. He bowls much less now than he used to but still provides an extra bowling option which, coaches have said, makes them feel they are playing with 12 men instead of 11.Jacques Kallis gobbled up everything that came his way at slips, and is now one short of 200 Test catches•Getty ImagesHis slip catching is an asset too. With 199 grabs, there is very little that evades Kallis’ bucket-like hands. It is also a testament to his concentration. Mike Young, the former fielding consultant, marvelled at Kallis and Smith’s ability to stand in the slips, sometimes all day with nothing coming their way, and then instinctively pouch the only chance they get.The only thing Kallis hasn’t done for any great length of time is captain. He led South Africa only twice in Tests, both times against Australia. In March 2006, he was asked to do it in his 99th Test, when he stood in for an injured Smith. Then, Mickey Arthur admitted it was only a stop-gap because South Africa did not want to overburden their best player with additional responsibility like other teams sometimes do.On the second occasion, Kallis stepped in again. Smith was injured again but Ashwell Prince was due to lead but refused because he was not permitted to bat in his preferred position. Kallis took over and scored one of three centuries in a match South Africa won by an innings and 20 runs.The match also was, especially in the early stages of Kallis’ career, a rare victory over the all-conquering Australians. In the latter phases, Kallis was involved in series wins across the cricketing world, including back-to-back triumphs in England and Australia. He regards those, particularly the most recent, as being part of the two most special years of his career.In that time, South Africa have gone to No.1 in the world with Kallis playing an important role. His all-round ability and AB de Villiers’ wicket-keeping allowed South Africa to lengthen their line-up to seven batsmen and field four bowlers, with Kallis acting as the fifth. It was also in that time that the signs Kallis would not be around forever started to sound.Wear and tear peeped through in New Zealand in March last year. Kallis had to be left out of the Wellington Test after suffering a stiff neck. That was also where South Africa had their first taste of what missing him would mean. Rather than simply replace him, they had to alter the composition of their XI to cover for both his batting and bowling absence. JP Duminy and Marchant de Lange were brought in, forcing South Africa to sacrifice a specialist spinner.After that series, Kallis was injured in three of the next four series South Africa played. In England last year, a sore lower back immobilised him for a day at Leeds. He could not bowl and spent time off the field as a result but was still able to bat in position. Later in the year, in Australia, he suffered a hamstring injury which left him unable to bowl after 3.3 overs and he was forced to bat at No. 7. He recovered in time for the next match.He played both home matches against New Zealand injury free but had to sit out of the third Test against Pakistan at Centurion because of a calf injury picked up at an optional training session. Kyle Abbott featured in his place but again, South Africa had to confront reality without him. Faf du Plessis was moved into Kallis’ position at No. 4 and will likely slot into there in future.What became clear that day was that the luxury of a two-in-one player would not always be there. With few seam-bowling all-rounders around, South Africa may have to rethink their strategy next year. Kallis will not be around then.Many have asked why Kallis did not stay on to play Australia at home – a series that has all the makings of a classic – and retire at his home ground, which is also the venue of the final Test, Newlands. Only Kallis knows the answer to that. Chances are he could feel he would not be able to contribute to the standard he expects of himself in that contest. Kallis is stern on himself and demands peak performance. That he could step away when he knew his body could no longer cope with Test cricket, is the greatest testament to his commitment to South African cricket.He also knows he may not make it to the 2015 World Cup and if the look in his eyes at Kingsmead on Christmas Day could reveal anything, it would be that he is at peace with that too.Kallis knows he will be just fine. He has his scholarship foundation, a wonderful initiative to educate promising cricketers at top institutions, to keep him busy and golf to keep his sporting skills sharp. He said once that on retirement he would also be able to digest all the numbers that have been thrown at him over the years and enjoy them, including the debate on whether or not he is a better allrounder than Sobers.South African cricket will be fine too, because of the 18 years of service Kallis gave. On his back was built much of the current success and through his inspiration the next generation can be expected to thrive.

Harsha Bhogle, Ian Chappell and David Hopps on the championship so far, the exits of three major teams, trends and strategies, and the upcoming knockouts

ESPNcricinfo staff04-Oct-2012
How big a disappointment was the performance of the weaker teams in the first round? (2.23 – 4.35)
Ian Chappell: There are many problems with cricket and this is one of them. You’re just not seeing any progress from the Associate nations. Bangladesh [a Full Member], you wouldn’t say they are any closer to winning a World Cup now than when they started. The problem with a lot of the other countries, like Canada, is that so many of their team are expat Indians, Pakistanis, Sri Lankans, with perhaps the odd Englishman or Australian thrown in. Until you’re going to get the bulk of the team made up of locals, I’m not sure you can think you’re making a hell of a lot of progress. I believe the only way to globalise the game is through T20, but I’d like to see a bit more progress.David Hopps: Afghanistan were the most exciting of the sides that didn’t qualify. Bangladesh, they are so frustrating. You could understand if they missed out because they didn’t have big, strapping fast bowlers, but part of the reason they missed out was because their fielding was absolutely incompetent at times. There was no excuse for that with the amount of years they’ve been playing at the top level and still to be fielding so poorly in the match in which I saw them. Ireland, every time they find a world-class player, England steals them. There’s no future for Ireland if that keeps happening.Where did India fall short? (4.36 – 8.05)
IC: Against Australia, their bowling was disgraceful. Selection has been a problem for Indian cricket, not just in T20s but overall. The panel that’s now gone has been poor, really poor. I don’t think they’ve had any vision, guts. A classic example is when they came to Australia – their side was losing badly and they did nothing to revitalise things. India can only hope the new panel has got some guts and some vision.DH: India’s lack of bowling has been an issue for them and it’s one of the reasons why they’ve gone out, and I also think the balance of the side was wrong. Last night they’d seen the Pakistan spinners bowl well, they knew they’d have to dismiss South Africa cheaply, and then, in the middle of the innings, you’ve got two part-time spinners bowling crucial overs, where if they didn’t get three wickets for 20, they were out of the game. Where’s Harbhajan Singh? I just don’t understand the selection.What are the reasons for England’s exit from the Super Eights? (8.06 – 11.52)
DH: There are many. They didn’t have Kevin Pietersen, for a start. It’s a very deep issue and it was an issue of team ethics that had to be resolved, and it was important that England resolved it. It certainly weakened England as a team and we certainly shouldn’t be blind to that. England had a slightly different attitude; they seemed to be emphasising a more careful start in the first six overs, so if you’re going to play like that, why is Ian Bell not there?All the young guys didn’t particularly play well, the Buttlers, the Bairstows, the Kieswetters. They’ve been to the subcontinent before, England brought them last year to give them some preparation. None of them did particularly well. You don’t learn as an English batsman to bat in Sri Lanka in five minutes, no matter how good you are.IC: This is a problem not just with England. I think some teams have got carried away picking guys who are specialists in a format of the game, but where they’ve done well is basically at a lower level, i.e. at the domestic level, in that form of the game. Any day of the week, give me the guy who can make runs or get wickets at international level, as an international player. If he is any good, he is going to adapt to whatever length of time the administrators give him to play the game.South Africa were a classic case. To me, [Richard] Levi is a classic example of a player they’ve picked because he’s succeeded at domestic level in that form of the game. If a fellow has proved he can make runs in the 50-over international game, why the hell can’t he make runs in a 20-over game?How have the pitches behaved so far? (11.53 – 14.20)
IC: It doesn’t matter what format of the game you’re playing, your bowlers are going to win you the matches. The batsmen might set them up, but the bowlers will win them for you. The further you go in the tournament, the more likely that’s going to be the case. I feel sorry for the curators. When you are using the same three or four pitches, rolling them, the grass has got to die. Therefore, you know that as the tournament goes along the scores are going to get lower, which surely sends you the message that the bowlers are going to be pretty important. The pitches in Colombo [with more turn] were far from unplayableDH: I thought the Pallekele pitches held up marvelously well. I’ve not seen a ground as good as Pallekele in Sri Lanka before, and I’ve not seen pitches as good. They were ideal for this tournament. Sri Lanka Cricket has really kicked forward in what they produced at Pallekele. They brought in agricultural experts to discuss soil composition, the square of the pitches, and they’ve gained the rewards they deserve.Have teams picked sides according to the conditions, and what about some questionable tweaks in the batting order? (14.21 – 16.47)
IC: Isn’t that the idea of selecting a cricket team? Everybody talks about a well-balanced bowling attack, which you’ve got to have, but you also need a balanced batting line-up. Surely, the success of Sri Lanka and Australia in particular has got to tell you that you put your best three batsmen at the top for the simple reason that you give them the longest opportunity to score runs. Sending some guy in to whack a quick 15 or 20, to me is a total waste of time.

“You’d have to say, [in terms of] the natural cricketers who have come through in the last 15 to 20 years, Pakistan is way ahead of every other country”Ian Chappell

DH: The top three for Australia and Sri Lanka have been wonderful. And yet, even Ian would admit that if Australia go 10 for 2, they could easily be in trouble.T20 has changed in that the preservation of wickets matters much more now, as teams believe they can go hard with wickets in hand in the last few overs. (16.48 – 18.38)
DH: You give a game to professional cricketers surrounded by coaches and analysts and they’ll make the game professional. The years are gone where it was clown’s hats and red noses. Cricketers are now trained to play this game as a proper professional cricket match and every year it becomes more and more intelligent.IC: And it’ll also vary with the conditions. You give them flat pitches, and they’ll go and belt the first six overs. But if you give them a pitch where the bowler’s got a bit of a chance, no international batsman likes to throw his wicket away. and if he thinks the odds are bid in favour of the bowler, he’ll play with a bit of caution, don’t worry.Shane Watson has been impressive, but there are concerns over Australia’s middle order (21.15 – 24.40)
IC: No doubt about that. At the Champions Trophy, the semi-final and the final, he does have a history of rising to the occasion – that was as a batsman. The fact that he’s become the go-to man for Australia, if they need to get a breakthrough… and he’s now a senior player. You get some guys that are buoyed by the responsibility, there are others who are weighed down by it, and he certainly appears to be the type of player who is buoyed by it.Could it be Sri Lanka’s turn this time?•ICC/GettyAustralia’s original mistake was picking a captain first and picking the other ten players around him. In all the years that I have followed cricket, Australia have picked a team and then found somebody from that XI who can captain the side. If you’re going to tell me you can’t do that now, I’m going to say, “You’re talking rubbish.” If you play Bailey, two things happen: Either one of [Glenn] Maxwell, [Cameron] White or David Hussey has got to go out, and it’s been David Hussey in this tournament. That’s a mistake because Hussey is a dynamic player, all three are more dynamic than Bailey. The second problem is, he comes in at a time when all of those three batsmen should really be coming in.DH: You could argue the same about West Indies. Darren Sammy is a big-hearted, affable, very popular skipper, but if you look at his role in the side, he doesn’t bowl well enough, doesn’t bat well enough, and he affects the balance at No. 8.Saeed Ajmal has been the bowler of the tournament so far. (25.18 – 31.06)
IC:: He’s got a couple of things going for him, in that he’s pretty confident and he’s very smart. He’s got a hell of a lot of confidence in himself, which is a natural trait, but the more success you have, the more confident you become.DH: The romantic story, though, is Akila Dananjaya. In England, it is almost impossible to comprehend that a 19-year-old lad can be pulled out of the nets and suddenly appear in World Twenty20. To be hit in the face after failing to take a catch, having a slightly fractured cheekbone and still to be bouncing back two days later says a lot about his bottle. It’s a great story.IC: I’ve come to the conclusion that you either have very good coaching when you’re young or you’re better off to have none and just play a hell of a lot of cricket. I think the Pakistan system, when you’re playing in the streets or wherever you can get a game, you just play a hell of a lot of cricket… it helps you know your game. Greg [Chappell] has said this to me many times, that what a young player gets today is a structured nets session or he’s playing in a match. Look at how Sachin Tendulkar developed his game, with his coach taking him from one game to the other on the maidans. It’s not a bad way to develop. I’ve heard Imran [Khan] say about the lack of structure in the first-class system in Pakistan, and that’s probably true. For actually producing cricketers, you’d have to say, [in terms of] the natural cricketers who have come through in the last 15 to 20 years, Pakistan is way ahead of every other country.Which team has impressed you the most? (32.05 – 34.06)
DH: I didn’t tip them at the start of the competition because I thought there was too much pressure on Sri Lanka from the people in Sri Lanka. They’d done so well to get to so many finals, and I thought the expectation level was too high. I’ve been in Pallekele, I’ve seen the way they’re responding to the crowd, the bits and pieces of their game seem to be coming together. The top order is in good form. I fancy Sri Lanka.IC: Pakistan don’t surprise, they’re so inconsistent, and that’s what makes Pakistan cricket more interesting to watch. You go along to the ground and you’re never quite sure what you’re going to get. That’s why you watch sport. If West Indies get their bowling together, they’re going to take some beating. That batting line-up is seriously dangerous.Numbers Game question (34.11 – 37.54)
In the 2012 World Twenty20, the lowest scoring rate is in the first over. In which over is the scoring the second lowest?

New Zealand believed that if they stuck to their task long enough, the Indian batsmen would eventually crack

ESPNcricinfo staff05-Nov-2010″Cricket is a funny game. If you compete with a team for long enough, something cracks,” Mark Greatbatch said on the eve of the Test. “That’s the challenge for us – to compete with India for a long period of time. Into the fourth day, fifth day, if we are still with them, they are human; they make mistakes like anyone else.” India got a taste of that spirit today, and New Zealand got those mistakes they were hunting.India had strolled to 383 for 4, without any alarms, when Sachin Tendulkar fell. It’s tempting to add, ‘against the run of play’ to that sentence. Were India, Sachin Tendulkar in particular, and a touch too cautious? The bowling was steady, but by no means disciplined enough to be suffocating. Jeetan Patel was a touch short at times, and offered width on a few occasions as well. You felt for Daniel Vettori at that point, and wondered whether India were going to pile up an obscenely big total. Just yesterday, Rahul Dravid recovered from a very slow start to push India to a good position. So the fact that they were batting slowly didn’t seem like end of the world. The reason for the mini-collapse was, as Greatbatch said, they made mistakes.Three of them came in the first session. Sachin Tendulkar went down the track, but the mind seemed elsewhere: It was a weak push. If you are an ardent fan, you might say the ball stopped. If you are from Patel’s family, you might say it dipped on Tendulkar. It didn’t look like it did either. It was just a push-drive gone awry.The second mistake came just before the lunch break, when Laxman played outside the line to a regular offbreak. Most times, simple things done well and consistently bring results in sport. It was just an off break; it didn’t jump, it didn’t skid alarmingly, it didn’t turn too much, and it didn’t keep low. Laxman just pushed outside the line.The third was a mistake that wasn’t entirely surprising. Suresh Raina likes to play on the up; he reaches forward and knives through the line. This wasn’t the pitch for such extravagance. That particular delivery, from Kane Williamson, stopped, and Raina ended up punching lamely to short extra cover.There was a fourth mistake too, from MS Dhoni, but he can perhaps be excused. Dhoni was shivering with fever during the lunch break and needed blankets to protect himself. “It was good to see him to go out to bat,” Harbhajan Singh said. “It was a good sign from a captain; [if] he had wanted, he could have not gone out to bat. It was nice of him to bat and he also kept. He is feeling much better now.”Harbhajan ensured India’s mistakes won’t prove too costly by taking them to 489 with his highest Test score. Advantage India? Harbhajan was very wary. “It’s very slow. There is no bounce, no turn and it’s hard for the bowlers. We need a special effort to beat them.”With Jesse and Vettori yet to come, we can’t relax at any stage. We have to work really hard on this wicket. We need to bowl to our fields and work to our plans.”Not that New Zealand are too upbeat. It was just about survival at this moment. Patel knew New Zealand have to bat long and hard. What did he make out of the pitch? “It’s starting to keep a little bit lower now,” Patel said. “Tim McIntosh was off a short-of-length ball. That’s Test cricket in the subcontinent. You expect the ball to go up and down, so we have to deal with it.”India’s bowler says it’s going to be very hard to take wickets. New Zealand’s bowler says it won’t be easy to bat on. Neither team appears to be playing mind games. Only time will tell what will happen in this Test. See you tomorrow.

Memories of India’s 1952-53 tour of the Caribbean from GS Ramchand

20-Apr-2006India’s 1952-53 tour of West Indies was their first to that part of the world. The team left by flight for London from where we took a boat to Barbados. It was a banana boat, a small cargo vessel that carried bananas from Barbados to the UK. Most of the players were sick because of the high seas and the rough weather.The matches in those days were restricted to four centres – Trinidad, British Guiana (now Guyana), Barbados and Jamaica. We had two or three weeks in each place during which we played a colony game and a Test. The tour itself lasted about two-and-a-half months.Only Barbados, Jamaica and British Guiana had turf wickets. Trinidad had jute matting, on which we played the first and third Tests. Barring a few players, most of our touring party had little experience playing on matting, which is a completely different ball-game as opposed to playing on turf. Fortunately for us, West Indies had only one genuine quick bowler in Frank King.It was imperative for us to post big totals if we had to match the might of the Three Ws – Frank Worrell, Everton Weekes and Clyde Walcott. We ended up with honourable draws in four of the five Tests. In fact, I believe that the only one we lost – the second Test in Barbados – was perfectly winnable. Set a target of 272, we were 54 for 2 at close of play on the fourth day with [opener] Pankaj Roy unbeaten on 9 – I was with him, on 31. The next morning we took the score to 70 when [slow left-arm bowler] Alf Valentine dismissed Roy. The overnight cracks on the wicket had got much wider and Sonny Ramadhin exploited it with his mixture of off- and legspin. He dropped his pace but pushed the odd delivery to hit the batsmen at ankle-height. India collapsed to 129 all out and Ramadhin ended with 5 for 26 in 24.5 overs. He was sorted out later in the series, and was in fact dropped for the final Test, though he and Valentine were the main bowlers for West Indies.In contrast to Ramadhin, our legspinner Subhash Gupte did very well on that tour. He got 27 of the 62 wickets that we picked up in the series. What made Gupte so effective was that he deceived batsmen with his flight, and had a good wrong’un. He got fine support at the other end from Vinoo Mankad, and the two of them were backed up by brilliant fielding. It was said that the 1952-53 team was the best Indian fielding side to visit the West Indies, with JM Ghorpade, CV Gadkari, Polly Umrigar, DK Gaekwad, Madhav Apte and myself.If there was anything we lacked, it was strong and aggressive captaincy. Vijay Hazare was a great batsman and an unassuming person, but his personality did not infuse confidence in the side. There was no planning, no team meetings or discussions of tactics. He did everything in a mechanical fashion and had confidence in only two bowlers – Gupte and Mankad. There was no fixed batting order. There was no planning, no thought as to which bowler should bowl to which batsmen. Someone like Dattu Phadkar, the allrounder, could have made a difference had he led the team. He had the courage, the will and the stomach to take chances and his body language reflected that.Bowling to the Three Ws was no joke. They were merciless. You got one out and another W emerged. Our only hope was to keep them relatively quiet. Gupte and Mankad both bowled their hearts out; Gupte bowled 65 overs and Mankad 82 in the first innings of the final Test, in which all the Three Ws got hundreds.It was a terrific series for Weekes. He got 207 in the first Test, and followed that up with scores of 47, 15, 161, 55 not out, 86, 109 and 36. Weekes did not spare us in the colony game against Barbados: he got 253. Walcott got 98 in the second Test, 125 in the fourth and 118 in the final Test. Worrell was grace personified, he would bat superbly for 30 or 40 runs and invariably got out to a marvellous catch. We used to tell Frank: “The other two Ws are murdering us, why don’t you get some runs?”He would reply: “Don’t worry, it will come soon.” And it did, in the final Test, where he got 237.Gupte commanded greater respect than Vinoo. To this generation, I would say that Gupte was as good as Shane Warne. Of the Indian batsmen, Polly Umrigar got 130 in the first Test and 117 in the fifth. Polly was a great hitter who could send the ball high over the boundary, but he was put to shade by the brilliance of the Three Ws. Madhav Apte got an unbeaten 163 in the third Test, but it was a laboured and chancy innings lasting over two days.This was the tour in which we had our first glimpse of a talented youngster. He got three wickets and 30-odd runs when we played against Barbados. His name: Garry Sobers.

Former England captain questioned by ECB counsel during Yorkshire racism hearing

Osman Samiuddin03-Mar-2023

Historic tweets from Michael Vaughan took centre stage on the third day of the ECB’s racism hearings, as the former England captain denied having made the statement that forms the core of the ECB’s charge of bringing the game into disrepute.As he has done publicly before, Vaughan emphatically denied ever having said, “There’s too many of you lot, we need to have a word about that” to Azeem Rafiq, Adil Rashid, Rana Naved-ul-Hasan and Ajmal Shahzad at a T20 game in June 2009. The ECB’s charge stems from Rafiq’s recollection of the remark which was, on Thursday, supported by the testimony of Rashid.Vaughan, appearing at the Cricket Discipline Commission (CDC) hearing in London, said of the day in question that he had “a very clear mind about back in 2009” and that he knew he did not say what had been alleged. He added that he would never have gone on to the field and said something to team-mates that could “put them in a bad state of mind” before the game.Related

Moeen: Vaughan must 'step up' in cricket's fight against racism

Yorkshire plead guilty to data deletion in wake of racism allegations

ECB lays out case against Yorkshire defendants as CDC hearing begins

Adil Rashid denies feeling pressure to confirm Michael Vaughan's 'you lot' comment

“Knowing me in 2009, that’s not the sort of thing I would’ve said.”Vaughan was questioned by the ECB’s lead counsel Jane Mulcahy KC for nearly 90 minutes, during which she argued that some historical tweets of his were “remarkably similar in tone” to the alleged remarks.The tweets she referenced were from 2010 and 2017. In one he tweeted, “Not many English people live in London…I need to learn a new language”. The other was his response to a Piers Morgan tweet calling for Muslims “to expose, name and shame radicalised members of their communities…” , to which Vaughan tweeted: “Totally agree.”Vaughan said the tweets were unacceptable and that he had apologised for them before and would continue to do so. But he disagreed with the suggestion that they were similar in tone. Mulcahy pointed out that both Rafiq and Rashid claimed Vaughan likely made the alleged comment as a “bad joke” and said the tweet was similar in tone because it was “lighthearted but offensive”.Asked if he agreed, Vaughan said: “No.”Vaughan said he was “disgusted” with the tweets. “I apologised for them. I put myself on an online course, Inclusion. I wanted to lead the game in knowing how to lead in modern times. The tweets are disgusting, awful, and other words you could use. But the most important thing is I have said sorry and I am learning from them. As I say, if I get things wrong in my life, I stick my hands up.”He went back to his recollection of the day of the game – which he has written about in his memoir – that he “could not have been more proud [of] four Asian players, three of whom had come through the system.”Vaughan was also questioned about his meeting with Rafiq in November 2021 saying he felt the need for it because “the whole situation was escalating out of control”. Vaughan said he was apologetic in the meeting with Rafiq because he was “disgusted” by what Rafiq had to go through at Yorkshire but did not accept he made the alleged comment.Vaughan: ‘Team-mates fighting it out terrible for game’Vaughan said that the CDC hearing was a “terrible look” for cricket. “It’s not been easy for anybody. This is not the right process to deal with word-against-word comments from 14 years ago. Ex-team-mates fighting it out over hearsay is a terrible look for the game and a really bad look on how cricket has dealt with this situation.”Earlier in the morning, scrutiny fell on the ECB’s scope in the investigation of the incident as well as the rigour deployed, with Meena Botros, its director of legal and integrity, facing a three-hour grilling from Christopher Stoner, Vaughan’s lawyer.The line of questioning took in a recent interview with Lord Kamlesh Patel, the outgoing Yorkshire chair, in . In it the claim was made that the ECB had “urged” Lord Patel to “get rid of people” at the county when he took over. Talking about his role, Patel said: “I was asked by the ECB to meet a set of criteria that most people would have winced at, would have thought there’s no way we can deliver this, and I delivered it.”I was asked by the ECB to work with them to create a framework and an environment where we would prove to the world that we want a non-racist institution, and I did all that. I was asked by the ECB to ensure some people who were there from the previous regime did not take part in that governance process, very clear about that.”Stoner suggested those comments showed that the ECB was “actively involved” in the Yorkshire investigation, in breach of the process as described in Botros’ witness statement, that the ECB remained independent of action being taken by one of its counties in such matters.Botros said he couldn’t talk about what Lord Patel had said but insisted that Stoner was “mistaking” the ECB’s regulatory function in getting involved, from its other roles in such cases. Stoner pointed to Botros’s witness statement which read: “In its capacity as a regulator, the ECB must remain independent of action being taken by one of its member first-class county clubs.””That’s just not what happened, is it?” Stoner asked.Botros replied: “It is what happened.”Stoner then zeroed in on the day Vaughan is alleged to have made the remark, questioning whether the ECB could and should have gone further in its investigations of events. He confirmed with Botros that the only players the ECB had spoken to about the incident were Adil Rashid and Ajmal Shahzad.Stoner asked why all Yorkshire players that day weren’t spoken to. Botros said the ECB “did speak to the individuals where we were able to” but that “certain individuals either didn’t want to take part or engage”, or that the ECB “weren’t able” to get contact details for others.Stoner also asked Botros why the on-field umpires that day had not been contacted by the ECB for their version of events.”There is no suggestion that the umpires were close enough to hear it,” Botros replied. Botros added that if it was such an important point, Vaughan’s team could have taken it on themselves.The hearing is scheduled to end next Tuesday.

Nottingham Forest are seeing assurances from Sky Sports before allowing Gary Neville back into their stadium for the 2025-26 season.

• Neville criticised owner Marinakis
• Barred from City Ground
• Forest want assurances before lifting ban

• WHAT HAPPENED?

  The ex-Manchester United captain saw his access to Forest's City Ground revoked at the end of last season after he criticised club owner Evangelos Marinakis on air. The issue is still believed to be unresolved, and the Tricky Trees are seeking assurances that Neville will be more careful when referencing Marinakis in the future.

Advertisement

• Getty Images Sport
  

  WHAT NEVILLE SAID

  Neville accused Forest of behaving like a "mafia gang" after releasing a statement attacking referee Stuarrt Attwell, and then ripped into them after Marinakis and head coach Nuno Espirito Santo clashed on the pitch in April 2024. He was therefore denied accreditation to the Midlands stadium, and released a statement on social media, saying: "I’ve dished out my fair share of criticism and praise in the last 14 years of doing this job and have never come close to this unprecedented action. Personally, I think it’s disappointing that a great club like Nottingham Forest have been reduced to making such a decision. Whilst they have every right to choose who they let into their own stadium, it’s symptomatic of things that have happened over the last 12 months with the club."

• THE BIGGER PICTURE

  Forest are believed to be willing to move past the row with Neville, providing he makes a handful of promises to them ahead of the new season. Reports suggest talks between the two will be needed, despite Sky believing the issue was a one-off incident.

ENJOYED THIS STORY?

Add GOAL.com as a preferred source on Google to see more of our reporting

• Getty Images Sport
  

  WHAT NEXT?

  Forest's Premier League opener against Brentford will be broadcast live on Sunday, but Neville will instead be covering Manchester United vs Arsenal at Old Trafford.

Arsenal were embarrassed on Wednesday as infamous flop Nicolas Pepe scored for Villarreal at the Emirates in a pre-season friendly.

• Pepe flopped badly at the Emirates
• Now with La Liga club
• Pepe scored in first half

• WHAT HAPPENED?

  In a pre-season friendly at the Emirates, Villarreal took an early lead against Arsenal thanks to a scruffy finish from Pepe. The winger, of course, joined the Gunners in a £72 million ($96m) deal back in 2019. He went on to play 112 times for the club but could only muster 27 goals and 21 assists, and was loaned to Nice in 2022 before being sold to Trabzonspor before later joining Villarreal. On Wednesday, though, he got ahead of the struggling Jakub Kiwior to poke an effort into the bottom corner, refusing to celebrate afterwards.

Advertisement

• WATCH THE CLIP

• THE BIGGER PICTURE

  Pepe only managed three goals for Villarreal last season, although he did provide six assists, as the club finished fifth in La Liga. He will hope to finally deliver on the immense potential he showed in Ligue 1 in 2025-26. 

ENJOYED THIS STORY?

Add GOAL.com as a preferred source on Google to see more of our reporting

• AFP
  

  WHAT NEXT?

  Arsenal will play one more pre-season friendly before the Premier League season gets underway. They face Athletic Club in the Emirates Cup this weekend. 

أشاد الاتحاد الدولي لكرة السلة “فيبا”، بـ منتخب مصر بعدما قدم الفراعنة أداء أكثر من رائع في بطولة كأس أمم إفريقيا لكرة السلة “الأفروباسكت” المقامة في أنجولا.

وحسم منتخب مصر تأهله إلى الدور ربع النهائي، بعد تصدره لترتيب المجموعة الرابعة برصيد 4 نقاط، وذلك قبل الجولة الأخيرة أمام أوغندا غدًا السبت.

طالع | منتخب مصر للسلة يهزم السنغال ويتأهل إلى ربع نهائي بطولة الأفروباسكت

ونشر الاتحاد الدولي لكرة السلة عبر موقعه الرسمي تقريرًا عن المباراة التي جمعت منتخب مصر بنظيره السنغالي، والتي انتهت بفوز الفراعنة بنتيجة 91-77، في ثاني جولات دور المجموعات لبطولة الأفروباسكت.

وأشاد “فيبا” بالأداء الكبير الذي قدمه منتخب مصر أمام السنغال، مؤكدًا أن مصر تمتلك جميع المقومات في هذه البطولة، من لاعبين رماة، وأصحاب أدوار محورية في الوسط، بالإضافة إلى نجوم قادرين على الاختراق والتسجيل.

ومن المقرر، أن يتأهل المتصدر إلى دور الثمانية مباشرةً، بينما يخوض الوصيف وصاحب المركز الثالث دور الـ 16 المؤهل للثمانية الكبار.

وتضم قائمة منتخب مصر للسلة في بطولة الأفروباسكت بأنجولا تضم القائمة النهائية كل من عمرو الجندي، عمر طارق، إيهاب أمين، يوسف أبو شوشة، آدم موسى، ياسين نصر، يوسف باترك، خالد عبدالناصر، محمد طه، إبراهيم زهران، أنس أسامة، أحمد أبو العلا.

ويرأس البعثة الكابتن طارق السعيد، نائب رئيس الاتحاد المصري لكرة السلة والمشرف على المنتخبات الوطنية، فيما يتكون الجهاز الفني من محمد الكرداني مديرًا فنيًا، محمد سليم مدربًا، رامي جنيدي مدربًا، أحمد الجارحي مدربًا، سامح صلاح مديرًا إداريًا، إسلام جمعة طبيبًا، عبدالرحمن الجلاد محلل أداء، محمد جمال مدرب أحمال، علي موسى استشفاء، السيد علي المنسق الإعلامي للمنتخبات المصرية.