All posts by csb10.top

Andy Atkinson, an English curator in charge of the pitches during the Pakistan and South Africa series, and a pitch adviser for the ICC, promised to prepare quality pitches with pace and bounce fair to both sides.

Atkinson, who worked in South Africa from 1993 to 2001, said: “I am here to make quality cricket pitches but there are no specific targets of making spintracks to support the home team.” He continued: “I came here two years ago, the soil has no problem, but maybe the way the pitches are made here is a problem. The conditions are much similar to South Africa, the clay content is the same and grass is of the same quality. The whole idea is to make consistent pitches in Pakistan.”The Pakistan board sought Atkinson’s help after criticism of the pitches by Rashid Latif, former captain, Javed Miandad, the coach and Tauqir Zia, PCB chairman. After his tour of Pakistan, Atkinson will fly to Bangladesh to supervise the preparations of the pitches for the ICC Junior World Cup to be held in January and February.Atkinson always has high praise for Australia’s wickets, but rejected Steve Waugh’s demand for uniform pitches. “It is impossible to have uniform pitches all over the world because atmospheric conditions are different,” he said. “They would be detrimental for world cricket.”

India and Pakistan are no closer to resuming cricket ties, according to an Indian news agency, after negotiations between the two countries stalled.Both sides have shown a recent willingness to get out of the boardroom and onto the cricket field, and tentative tour plans had even been discussed, with one-day internationals in each country in September, followed by a full series in Pakistan in February 2004. But for the time being, it’s back to the drawing-board.”After those few days of excitement, there is a general despondency in the two camps as we seem to be heading nowhere,” an unnamed cricket official was quoted as saying. “At the moment, I doubt if we could have any cricket between the two countries in September. But we cannot afford to be lax and want to keep everything in place should we get positive signals from the government.”The Pakistan Cricket Board is particularly eager to resume ties. It is suffering a financial squeeze from cancelled tours and needs to play as much cricket as reasonably possible.

Now then, has John Geoffrey Wright, that infernal Kiwi, the Canterbury interloper, that foreign fellow, prostrated himself before our own BCCI president, just got right down on his arrogant knees and thanked His Dalmiyaness for giving him a one-year extension? I mean, there he was, sometimes on a two-month extension, unsure about his future, just how we like it, and we go and give him 12 months. Talk about indulgence.We Indians are hospitable to the point of hysteria, still hauling along our tedious colonial baggage. So many pontificating pundits and garrulous gurus with Indian passports, and we still choose Wright? So what if these former cricketers have no real coaching resumes; so what if they can go three days nonstop without a pleasant word to say about the team (and then they expect the players’ respect!); so what if they promise us a retreat into a cricketing stone age? They’re Indians, aren’t they?What does Wright know about us Indians? ask some former players. Indeed, what does he know? Instead of Aamir Khan videos to relax with, he bungs in tapes of opposition batsmen at work (what bhai, they don’t see enough of them on the field?). Instead of a chai piyo first and a Kapil Dev-like `Enjoy, boys’, he runs them into the ground and has them dirtying their whites (Remember Chris Evert who said no shot was worth diving for? Well that’s us). Instead of players looking for the nearest Indian restaurant when they enter a hotel, they’re first checking if it has a good gym.Our Indian way is going to hell.What were we thinking?Wait a minute, hold your horses and those Dilip "Why do we need a foreign coach?" Vengsarkars for a moment. Maybe we’re finally thinking.Maybe we figured it out (or we should have): this guy is good for us. This guy whose father is dying of cancer in New Zealand, but who still finds the concentration and courage to not just hang with his team at the World Cup but help take them closer to the promised land than we dared imagine, really cares.This guy, who embraces everything Indian, who Javagal Srinath says "thinks about the team all the time, his focus is 100 per cent, and that sort of dedication is rare", may be the real McCoy.This guy, who strangely enough retreats from headlines; who Rahul Dravid says has made a difference in planning and organisation and has "created an environment where everyone is made to feel comfortable to give his best, and that only an attitude to improvement will be tolerated", has had a telling effect.This guy, who former player Arun Lal says "has with the support staff brought in professionalism, is first at the nets, sees the wicket is okay, the nets are okay, knows what to do with each player and is tremendous for the team", is doing a decent job. Maybe that’s the problem.He was supposed to fail. He was supposed to be proof (to some of us) that we know best. Forget the fact that the Indian team’s an improved side; forget that they actually win Tests abroad these days; forget that they won the NatWest Trophy while under pressure about contracts, and also the ICC Trophy. What’s incredible, says Lal, is that at the World Cup, after an indifferent start, they didn’t fold like a cheap pack of cards as Indian teams usually do, but found the nerve to scrap their way back. Still, the foreign coach is no good? (No one’s forgetting Sourav Ganguly’s considerable contribution; it’s just that this isn’t about him).So sure, there are lacunae, and we’re about a million miles away from Australia in consistent excellence, and the players are sometimes overtly touchy; but the incremental improvements are obvious. Running between wickets, fitness, focus, discipline, attitude, shouldering responsibility. A once-disparate team full of cliques and cabals is now actually huddling, and not just to decide which sponsor pays most.Funny thing is, ask the former Indian coaches and players, some who slag Wright off, and they say they never had enough time with the team to put their plans into action. Yet Wright doesn’t deserve any? They want him to turn a team arriving from an amateur system into world-beaters by tomorrow – something they knew they couldn’t do. But they’ve had their chance; now let Wright have his.As Ravi Shastri says flatly: "No one else but John Wright should be coach. No one (in India) has the qualifications or delivery (and follow-through). No Indian is a patch on him. He comes without baggage, he’s honest, he’s sincere, the boys like him and he has done wonders. If there’s a criticism – but I know his hands are tied – it’s that I’d like to see him crack the whip more".You think every former player in Australia likes their present team? You think everyone in the Australian team is so cuddly-close they’d marry their sisters off to the next guy? Still, they understand that the cause they’re fighting for – i.e. Australia – is bigger than any pettiness. They pull together. We tear each other apart.So these fellows, KD and gang, great players no doubt, who see no value in Wright, do they ever think, `Maybe, instead of shooting from the lip every time I see a microphone, I could contribute a few original ideas, travel to Australia to do a coaching course, ask John, "Hey, is there any way I could help at the nets?" ‘ Or is Anshuman Gaekwad saying that the boys are swallowing some illegal elixir the best we can do?How many times should we say it: great players don’t necessarily make great coaches. Coaching is not about grandstanding; it’s not about how many Tests you played or the continent-sized reputation you own or the fact that you can come up with seven cringe-inducing similes in five minutes flat. It’s about interest and detail and humility and ideas and homework and subjugating your ego and patience.But what bothers me most is why some people don’t like Wright. If the statistics showed we were going backward, then okay. If the team said he sucked, then fine. But that’s hardly the case. A former player says there are agendas at work, that people are pulling Wright down because they want the job. Earning the post is clearly too time-consuming. But more worrying is this. Could it be that some of us, the very same people who feel discriminated against by western nations (and we’re not always wrong, mind you) are now guilty of an ugly xenophobia? How pitiful that would be.No one’s saying Wright’s beyond criticism, or that he’s some messiah, but let’s treat him like any other coach. And that’s the key. Don’t judge him on colour, passport, accent; judge him on performance. Thing is, are these former players who are doing the sniping primarily concerned with the primitive idea of a foreign coach showing us up, or are they interested in us being a better team, whatever it takes?Let’s remember why so many of us thought foreign coaches might be a good idea. Not because they’re better, but because they’re different. Because a foreign coach might bring a fresh mindset; because we’re high on flair but need discipline; because he wouldn’t care if a player was from Mumbai or Meerut; because too many Indian coaches have come and gone without any effect; because we want a system and direction, not platitudes. And, oh yes, because the team thought we should have one too. They were reasonable reasons and they’ve been borne out.We live in a time of internationalism, where a Swede coaches England’s soccer team, an Australian was asked to help the West Indies cricket side, and an American baseball coach works with the Australian cricket team. Sport is a better place for such exchanges, for knowledge should never have borders. John Wright is learning every day about, and from, our country and he will be a more rounded man for it. To not learn from him (Why isn’t he coaching coaches, he feeding off them, they feeding off him – like maybe Ashok Malhotra hopefully did as assistant coach?) would be arrogant.One day, sooner than we think, Wright will be gone. And the greatest compliment we can pay him is by not missing him. By having a bevy of trained, ambitious, humble, dignified, tough, literate-in-modern-cricket Indian coaches ready to take his place. Endless pontificating and uselessly undermining him is not the prescription; hard work is. Alas, that’s something we’re not always too familiar with.

It had to be the shortest game of the tournament.Canada were all out for 41 when dismissed in the 29th over in their match with South Africa at North Harbour Stadium today.Left-arm fast bowler Ryan McLaren had a field day taking the first four wickets to fall at a cost of nine runs from his 10 overs. Rory Kleinveldt took two for 10 from seven overs while Ian Postman took two for four in his 1.4 overs.It took South Africa’s openers Stephen Cook (16) and Chad Baxter (20) only 8.2 overs to knock the total off to take a 10-wicket win.

Hosts South Africa were knocked out of the World Cup in bizarre and cruelcircumstances after a rain affected tie in their crunch clash against SriLanka at Durban on Monday night.Sri Lanka scored an imposing 268 after a superb century from opener MarvanAtapattu and then restricted the Proteas to 229 for six in 45 overs beforethe soaked players were forced from the field by sheets of rain.According to the Duckworth Lewis method used to decide weather affectedmatches, the scores were tied when the umpires called on the covers withSouth Africa needing 40 runs from the last 30 balls of the innings.With time fast running out till the 10.45 cut off time, a slight lighteningof the rain encouraged a brief burst of activity from the ground staff,cheered on by a desperate partisan crowd. But the umpires prevented thecovers being hauled off and play had to be abandoned.With the points shared between the two sides, Sri Lanka’s place in the SuperSixes is confirmed and they top the Pool B table with 18 points. Kenya andNew Zealand take second and third place respectively with 16 points.Sri Lanka will not, however, carry through their maximum quota of pointshaving suffered a shock defeat against surprise qualifiers Kenya in Nairobi.Indeed, bizarrely, Steve Tikolo’s team, by virtue of that crucial win andNew Zealand’s forfeiture, carry through 10 points, and possibly 11 if theydefeat the West Indies, meaning they could be one upset away from a place inthe semi-finals. Sri Lanka carry through 7.5 and New Zealand four.South Africa, one of the favourites before the competition commenced, paidthe penalty for earlier defeats against West Indies and New Zealand andsuffer the similar ignominious exit suffered by the 1999 tournament hostsEngland.Contrary to the pre-game predictions of the swing bowlers dominating thegame, especially under the lights during the second innings, it was SriLanka’s spinners that caused the most problems for South Africa’s batsmen.Herschelle Gibbs, South Africa’s top scorer with 73 from 88 balls, aninnings studded with some glorious pulls, nullified the threat of ChamindaVaas’s left arm swing bowling expertly.With fellow opener Graeme Smith (35) also batting positively, the SouthAfricans rattled along at a run-a-ball against the new ball adding 65 runsin 11.1 overs.But Sri Lanka skipper Sanath Jayasuriya’s decision to employ his spinnersearly brought instantaneous success as the left-hander smashed Aravinda deSilva’s first ball straight down the throat of a kneeling Pulasthi Gunaratneon the mid-wicket boundary.De Silva then mopped up Gary Kirsten (8) after the left-hander missed asweep and was bowled behind his legs to leave South Africa on 91 for two.However, despite the early wickets, and even the loss of Jacques Kallis, whowas uncorked by a fizzing delivery from Jayasuriya, South Africa looked tobe in control whilst Gibbs was at the crease.The 29-year-old batted serenely, cleverly opening his stance against Vaasand playing the ball as late as possible. He was ruthless and clinicalagainst the loose delivery and looked set to carry South Africa home.But Muttiah Muralitharan recovered from an expensive first over to claim thekey wicket as the right-hander stretched across his stumps and missed anattempted sweep.Next over, Boeta Dippenaar was given his marching orders by umpire Venkat asa quicker delivery from Jayasuriya thudded in to his pads.Mark Boucher and Shaun Pollock (25) revitalised local hopes with 63 runs in13.1 overs before, just when the initiative looked to swinging to SouthAfrica, a reflex back-hand flick from Muralitharan ran out Pollock.With 57 needed from 45 balls, new batsman Lance Klusener struggled with histiming, scoring just one run from eight balls, and the run rate crept upuntil Muralitharan’s ninth over, the 45th of the innings.Muralitharan conceded five wides and was then slammed for a magnificentstraight six by Boucher, who was 45 not out from 50 balls when play theplayers left the field. Cruelly, for South African fans, had Boucher taken asingle off the last ball of the over and not tapped the ball straight tomid-wicket, South Africa would have won the match.Earlier, Atapattu had scored his maiden World Cup century and the ninth ofhis career, rescuing the Sri Lanka’s after a nervous start.The innings was precariously placed on 90 for three after the loss of SanathJayasuriya (16), whose innings was cut short by some doleful running, HashanTillakaratne (14) and Mahela Jayawardene (1).But the 32-year-old batted magnificently – his powerful and crisp drivingthrough the cover region a feature of his innings -stroking 18 boundaries inhis 124 from 129 ballsAravinda de Silva provided solid support, showcasing his big match pedigreewith a perfectly paced 73 from 78 balls, an innings that included six foursand two glorious leg-side sixes.The experienced pair accelerated after a period of consolidation andeventually compiled a 152 run stand – a fourth wicket record for Sri Lankaagainst South Africa.

The Sri Lankan cricket board (BCCSL) advertised on Sunday for a full-timecricket team manager and umpires manager in the national newspapers.Traditionally, the team manager’s post has been a part-time position withappointments made on a tour-by-tour basis by the executive committee withouta formal recruitment process.The decision to recruit a dedicated full-time manager is overdue recognitionof the need for greater off-field support for the players, both during andin-between tours.The current contract with Air Commodore Ajit Jayasekera expires after theZimbabwe Test series, but he may still apply for the post starting inFebruary.The appointment will be for a three-year period and the advert states thatthe candidates must have held a management position, have an aptitude forpublic speaking, be computer literate and aged below 55. Cricket experience,it adds, would be an advantage.The BCCSL are also looking to replace the current director of umpires, K.T.Francis, who has held the post for three years and is keen to continue, buthas been asked to retire.A younger man, under 55 years old, with first-class umpiring and corporatemanagement experience, computer literacy and workshop management skills, isbeing sought.But the post, which requires highly specialized skills, will be extremelyhard to fill if the BCCSL sticks rigidly to the credentials advertised.Interested candidates for both posts are requested to submit applications tothe cricket board headquarters by 31 December.

The overnight rain may have tried to play spoilsport to start with atthe Green Park Oval in Kanpur, but it did not completely succeed. Whenthe overs are cut short in a limited-overs game, all the planning doneon the eve of the match comes to little fruition, and what mattersmost is how well the teams adapt to the conditions on the day.The pitch at the Green Park Oval was one factor that remained thesame, helping the captains in some measure in their decision-making.The surface has not really changed since my playing days, and, onMonday, it played true to its nature, keeping low and makingstrokeplay a difficult proposition.

But when England batted first, Marcus Trescothick and Nick Knightseemed to have few problems with the bounce, finding the gaps in thefield regularly and ensuring a brisk scoring rate. Knight inparticular played a good hand to keep things going for England. Onceagain, however, indiscreet shots played by the top order pushedEngland into an abyss.I felt that England could easily have scored around 245 runs in their39 overs, especially given the magnificent start that their openersprovided them. The Indian bowling was yet again found wanting underpressure, giving away runs at almost 5.34 per over. Keeping an eye onthe 2003 World Cup, the efforts in the field are also simply not goodenough. The Indian fielding may sport an improved look, but that is oflittle consequence when one looks at the runs given away.It is about time that the selectors gave some thought to playing fivespecialist bowlers in the side. It makes no sense to me when I see thepart-time bowlers going for more than 60 runs. It puts pressure on thespecialist bowlers who generally do a good job of containment andtaking wickets. Conceding runs in the middle overs also putstremendous pressure on those bowling in the death.Ajay Ratra, in my view, was disappointing behind the stumps, and thisis one of many areas that needs to be looked at closely by theselectors. We have tried and tested too many wicket-keepers in therecent past, and it is quite frustrating not to see a genuine stumpercome through. The next World Cup is barely one year away, and urgentaction needs to be taken to build a fighting unit that will be astrong contender to win the trophy.England, on their part, were taken aback by the events transpiring inthe Indian innings. There were a couple of decisions initially thatshould have gone in their favour. Getting Sachin Tendulkar out withthe very first delivery of an innings would have made a bigdifference. The brilliance of the strokeplay that ensued was there tobe seen, and I hope that these two will continue to open the inningsfor India in one-day internationals.Having said that, though, there is little excuse for the way theEnglish bowled at Tendulkar and Virender Sehwag. Instead of puttingthose initial disappointments behind them, they let their shoulderdroop and bowled without any purpose. They simply gave up, and thisallowed Tendulkar and Sehwag to simply annihilate the bowling. Bydoing so, England have almost ceded their chances of squaring theseries, and they do not have anyone to blame but themselves forthrowing the advantage away by batting badly after winning the toss.

The International Cricket Council (ICC) has welcomed the resumption of cricketing ties between India and Pakistan at the the under-19 and A levels. Ehsan Mani, the ICC president, hoped that this would lead to the revival of full-fledged international cricket between the two teams.”India and Pakistan on the cricket field is one of the world’s greatsporting rivalries,” said Mani. “The announcement that these two powerful cricketing nations will again meet on the field, albeit at a level below full international status, is a welcome step along the path to the resumption of full cricketing ties between the countries.”When these two teams met in the 2003 World Cup the passion that the match generated and its ability to have a positive impact on people in both nations was apparent.”Cricket, like all sport, has the capacity to promote understanding and generate goodwill and I would urge the political leaders in both countries to allow the game of cricket to assist in building relations between these two nations rather than being used for a political purpose.”Earlier, Pakistan had requested the Asian Cricket Council (ACC) to reschedule the four-nation under-19 tournament so that it won’t clash with other major matches to be played in Pakistan later this year. “We welcome India’s participation in the event as the first step towards resuming cricketing ties but want the event to be rescheduled from September to November this year,” said Lt Gen Tauqir Zia, the Pakistan Cricket Board (PCB) chairman.Pakistan, who have rarely been able to play home series since the attacks on the World Trade Center led to a war in Afghanistan, are slated to host Bangladesh, South Africa and New Zealand from August to November. “The Under-19 event will be overshadowed during this period. That’s why we have asked the ACC to reschedule it.”The Indian government has refused to allow the senior side to tour Pakistan, but its decision to send the U-19s for the four-nation event indicates a thaw in relations. “With the junior-level events, we hope there are bright chances of revival of bilateral series between the two countries next year,” said Zia, alluding to a rivalry that has been in cold storage since India hosted a series in 1999.

Hardly anybody would have wagered on England losing all three Tests in a series against India, but the 1992-93 side under Graham Gooch had to endure this humiliation. This at a time when the Indian team itself was not doing very well. The captain, Mohammed Azharuddin, was under terrific pressure, as the team had returned in January 1993 after losing yet another away series, this time to South Africa. But in a contest in which everything went right for the home team and nothing did for the visitors, India won the series with ridiculous ease, even managing to square the six-match one-day international contest after winning the last two games.

On the face of it, there was nothing to indicate that the Test series would be so lopsided. For one thing, as already mentioned, the Indian team was going through a tough time, even if they had won four of the last five Tests played at home in the 1988-1990 period. Secondly, the England team had players of proven ability in Gooch, vice-captain Alec Stewart, Mike Gatting, John Emburey, Graeme Hick, Michael Atherton, Robin Smith, Philip DeFreitas, Devon Malcolm, Chis Lewis and Phil Tufnell. There was not even the remotest suggestion that such a formidable side would go down so tamely.To an extent, the England team was not helped by off-field events. Communal violence in the wake of the destruction of the mosque at Ayodhya had not yet simmered down, and the visitors’ fears were heightened when the first one-day international at Ahmedabad was cancelled because the safety of the players could not be guaranteed. For the second first-class fixture of the tour, against the Board President’s XI, the venue, Lucknow, was only 80 miles from Ayodhya. The players were advised not to leave their hotel without a police escort, and among the crowd of 20,000 each day were 5000 armed guards.Also, England were almost never at full strength in any of the Tests in the series. An indisposed Atherton had to miss the first Test at Calcutta, was inexplicably not chosen for the second Test at Madras, and played only the final game of the series at Bombay. Gooch himself was unwell throughout the first game, his 100th Test. He had to miss the second Test through an upset stomach, courtesy a plate of prawns consumed during dinner on the eve of the game. Many members of the team in fact had stomach problems at some stage or the other, and they also suffered from a flu virus.That said, it must be admitted that England played badly and were outplayed by a side that had suddenly discovered a winning formula. The batting was a major problem; in six innings the highest total was 347. None of the batsmen could play the new Indian spin trio – Rajesh Chauhan, Venkatapathy Raju and Anil Kumble – confidence. Hick got a mighty 178 in the final Test at Bombay, but in the five remaining innings, his tally was 137. The only other player to get a hundred was Lewis, whose 117 at Madras was a courageous knock. Gatting, with his vast experience and skill at negotiating the turning ball, could get no more than 219 runs at an average of 36.50. The failures of Stewart and Smith, as well as the dismal form of Gooch ­ 47 runs at 11.75 ­ meant that only the greatest of bowling attacks could cover for the deficiencies with the bat.But England had problems aplenty in this department too. That India ran up totals of 371, 560/6 declared and 591 illustrates this best. The bowlers captured only 28 wickets in all, and Hick with eight finished at the top of the list, another tell-tale sign of how bare the visitors’ bowling cupboard was.India, scarcely believing their good fortune, had a whale of a time. Two of the Tests were won by an innings and the other by eight wickets. The batsmen made a packet of runs and got them handsomely. Vinod Kambli, who made his debut in the first Test, did not take much time in proving that he was a prodigiously gifted young cricketer. Starting off with 16 and 18 not out on debut, the dashing left-hander improved to 59 in the next Test.Then, before an adoring home crowd, Kambli smashed 224 at Bombay, coming very close to overhauling Sunil Gavaskar’s 236 not out, then the highest score by an Indian in Tests. Bringing back memories of their school days, he and Sachin Tendulkar (78) added 194 runs for the third wicket. Kambli batted 10 hours, faced 411 balls, and hit 23 fours. Only 11 batsmen had scored more in notching up their maiden Test hundred. Kambli headed the Test figures with 317 runs at an average of 105.66, marginally ahead of Tendulkar’s 100.66.Tendulkar himself got his customary hundred, and his six-hour 165 at Madras, which included 24 fours and a six, was a commanding knock. Azharuddin’s reaction to being under pressure at the start of the series was to get a handsome 182 at his favourite venue, the Eden Gardens. Navjot Singh Sidhu was another century maker, making 106 at Madras.The Indian bowling centered around the spin trio, and Kumble (21 wickets), Raju (16) and Chauhan (9) did their job admirably. Kapil Dev had to play a secondary role, but he still headed the Test averages with seven wickets at 19.00 apiece. He also crossed an important personal landmark at Madras; playing in his 122nd Test, he became the first cricketer to score 5000 runs and take 400 wickets.

Andre Bruyns has resigned his position as Director of Cricket with the Boland Cricket Board.According to the South African Press Association, Bruyns cited personality clashes among his reasons for leaving.”There was not a lot more I could contribute to Boland cricket. I reached a stage where I felt I was restricted in my duties because there are too many amateur structures in place,” Bruyns told Sapa. “I tried to run the affairs strictly along business lines which was important given the financial position of Boland, as well as the run up to the World Cup.”In particular, Bruyns said he was “astounded” by a decision to turn down an offer a a cash injection from Sail (South African Investments Ltd).”It would have worked brilliantly for the Board and it would have helped to develop the facilities in the region so that it would compare with the best in the country,” said Bruyns."If somebody wants to try a new direction, it’s his right. There is nothing sinister in his decision," the Boland president Henry Paulse told the Afrikaans newspaper Rapport