A clear-cut case of 'restraint of trade'

The cheap fight between the BCCI and the Indian Cricket League has now plunged to new depths.

The BCCI today announced that India's contracted players would not be allowed to play in the English domestic season if the side they were representing had ICL players in it.

The ECB had initially followed the BCCI's diktat and banned ICL players from playing in the English domestic season. But just over 2 months ago, three South African players won an appeal and they were ruled eligible to play for their counties. The ECB's requirement was that players' home national cricket boards provide permission in the form of a 'No Objection Certificate'. Andrew Hall, Justin Kemp & Johan van der Wath did not get the NOC and were not allowed to register.

In the case that Kerry Packer filed against the ICC and TCCB in 1977, Justice Slade ruled in favour of Kerry Packer & his motley crew. He said "A professional cricketer needs to make his living as much as any other professional man."

In the light of that judgement, it seems to me that preventing Piyush Chawla, Ajit Agarkar and VVS Laxman from playing for county sides just because those sides have ICL players in them is a clear-cut case of 'restraint of trade'. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights says (Article 23) "Everyone has the right to work, to free choice of employment, to just and favourable conditions of work and to protection against unemployment."

I really hope someone forces the BCCI to quit the hallucination drugs and get back to reality. Today, cricketers are stopped from playing for other teams because those teams have ICL players. Tomorrow, will they be asked to stop staying in touch with those friends who've played in the ICL? After that, will the records of the ICL players be deleted?

If you do have an opinion, leave a comment and also vote in the poll.

Labels: bcci, ecb, indian cricket league, restraint of trade

Thus spake Jagadish @ 12:29 AM | Sledge/Read 0 sledge(s) | Add to del.icio.us | Related posts

Proposed schedule for England tour of North, West, Central & East India

The ECB announced that the BCCI had sent the proposed itinerary for England's tour India north of the Vindhyas later this year.

The ECB is totally peeved about the fact that 7 of the 9 international games are at smaller cities like Rajkot, Indore, Kanpur, Jamshedpur, Cuttack, Guwahati & Ahmedabad (Delhi and Mumbai host one game each). While they may be justified in their concern for the Barmy Army not watching cricket at other main cricketing centres like Bangalore, Chennai & Kolkota, the BCCI will obviously point out that the rotation policy, based on which games are allotted to various cities/grounds, has resulted in this situation.

The 61 ODIs that have been played in India over the last 3 years have been hosted at 25 different grounds. By and large, the rotation policy has been adhered to. There is the odd exception here and there for political administrative reasons, quite a few during the 2006 ICC Champions Trophy because of the ICC's ground-advertising restrictions.

There's no way a game in Chennai would have made sense. The tour is in November and Chennai's "rainy season", officially, is between October & December. You'd end up with 5 mm of rain in those 3 months, but it's still the rainy season! The last few internationals played in those 3 months have all been affected by rain: a test v Sri Lanka in 2005, an ODI v South Africa in 2005, a potential classic v Australia in 2004 and an ODI v New Zealand in 2003.

But yes, some aspects of the schedule are definitely hard to understand. Such as not a single game being scheduled anywhere in South India. Karnataka, Andhra Pradesh and Kerala are typically exempt from the North-East monsoon. So I don't understand why they've been left off the schedule altogether. There's also a distinct West Zone bias to the schedule: 3 games (1 test) in Mumbai, 3 games in Gujarat (Rajkot, Baroda & Ahmedabad). That's hardly surprising given where Sharad Pawar, Ratnakar Shetty and Niranjan Shah are from.

Labels: bcci, ecb, england, india, scheduling

Thus spake Jagadish @ 11:37 PM | Sledge/Read 0 sledge(s) | Add to del.icio.us | Related posts

IPL doping controversy

An unknown cricket website (cricketnirvana.com) reports that the random testing carried out by WADA during the recently concluded Indian Premier League has resulted in one sample testing positive.

There's a lot of conjecture over who that player could be. We can rule out Shane Warne, who actually only tested positive for a diuretic, since the report mentions a sub-continental fast bowler. Then there's the Pakistani duo of Akhtar & Asif who first tested positive before the 2006 Champions Trophy. They were let off by a kangaroo court committee. But shortly before the 2007 World Cup, they were mysteriously declared unfit for the tournament. There're also a few who've admitted in the past to using recreational drugs (Fleming, Gibbs, etc.)

But I have a sneaking feeling it wasn't a player at all. I think it was Lalit Modi. I'm fairly sure he was smoking something when he kept talking about enforcing bans on teams which fielded ICL players and insisting that players would necessarily have to turn out for their IPL teams in the Champions League even if the team that they normally represented in their country's domestic season qualified.

Labels: drugs, indian premier league

Thus spake Jagadish @ 11:54 PM | Sledge/Read 0 sledge(s) | Add to del.icio.us | Related posts

South Africa suffer from Lord's curse

Since 2000, there have been 7 instances where the touring team sent England in to bat at Lord's. The data is fairly emphatically indicative of the fact that touring teams almost always get it wrong when they opt to field first at Lord's. This is something I mentioned in a post on AOL's cricket blogs section last year before the India v England test at Lord's.

I probably don't have the stats to back me up, but I've seen many visiting teams (not named Australia) flounder at Lord's and opting to bowl first. Then they repent for a couple of days. After that, they realise that the pitch has changed character and the game is out of their grasp before either of the two captains can say 'inexperienced bowling attack'.

England's first innings scores have been 391, 187, 472, 173, 568, 553 & 593. Only Australia (2001) & South Africa (2003) shot out England for a low score.

There're far too many people who're credited with having given advice to the effect of "If you win the toss, you should bat first 9 times out of 10. On that one other instance, you think again, and bat first." I read a similar line in Ashley Mallett's book featuring Ian Chappell - "Chappelli Speaks Out" a couple of weeks ago and Mike Brearley's "The Art of Captaincy". I've also seen this sort of quote attributed to the likes of Richie Benaud & Don Bradman.

That last total of 593 came in the on-going England v South Africa test, the first of an eagerly awaited series. Graeme Smith sent England in and watched with horror as his bowlers failed to pick up a wicket before lunch on day one and England piled up 309/3 at stumps on the first day. First, Kevin Pietersen got a century in his first test against South Africa. He now has 13 centuries from 74 innings, the most for any current English batsman not named Michael Vaughan (assuming that Trescothick is unlikely to make a comeback).

Ian Bell is actually the interesting part of this post. He now has 8 centuries from 71 innings, but all his centuries have had the cushion of someone else also scoring a hundred. You could look at it in two ways.

• He cashes in when someone else does, implying that the conditions are good for batting most of the time.
  
• He strings together big partnerships when his team is in a spot of bother.

But when I looked at his centuries, there've really been only 2 instances (aside from the on-going test where he came in after England had dramatically collapsed from 114/0 to 117/3) when he has come in and done a good job when England was in trouble. These were at Faisalabad (which was quite a dramatic game since Shahid Afridi first smashed 92 in 85 balls and was then caught on TV damaging the pitch while Pakistan was fielding. After Afridi's innings, Inzamam was wrongly ruled run out when he took evasive action after Harmison hurled the ball on the striker's stumps) and at Napier earlier this year when England & New Zealand were in the early stages of their love affair lasting 19 consecutive internationals.

I'm not saying he's not a good batsman. He obviously is. But he'd rate far more highly if he made centuries when others made 30s and 40s. Patrick Kidd from the Times Online is also thinking on similar lines.

Labels: england, ian bell, lord's, pietersen, south africa, statistic, toss

Thus spake Jagadish @ 11:00 PM | Sledge/Read 1 sledge(s) | Add to del.icio.us | Related posts

Squad announcements: India's tour to Sri Lanka & Champions Trophy

The BCCI announced the Indian squad for the test series in Sri Lanka today. Since Dhoni had opted out, citing overwork, there is no designated vice-captain. I guess Sehwag, who was sacked from the role during India's tour of South Africa in 2006, will step in when required. In any case, Kumble has more than enough people to chip in with suggestions (Dravid, Tendulkar, Ganguly, Laxman, Zaheer & Harbhajan).

Dhoni had opted out since he was obviously tired, stressed & probably getting burnt out from having played out his multiple roles as captain, wicket-keeper & star batsman almost continously for over a year without ever getting a chance to sit out a game or two. He has done the right thing. On his personal website, Gary Kirsten touched upon the necessity to give Dhoni a break.

Mahendra Singh Dhoni is probably the most obvious example of a man needing a break. In my own experience, by the time a player is feeling tired or 'flat', it is already too late to rest him. The rest needs to happen before fatigue sets in. MS is a brilliant cricketer and the sort of man who is happy to play every game, but he knows that it is not practical. Fatigue can lead to loss of form as well as injuries, both of which can adversely affect a player's long-term career.

Like I've mentioned before, the responsibility and right ultimately rests with the player. Unless the players have a mechanism to be actively consulted when the board draws up schedules, they have to play when required to.

My take on there being too much cricket is that players always have the option of opting out of series. Typically the only players you'll see complaining about too much cricket are those that play the most often, and hence are the 'star' players. Surely they've performed well enough to risk skipping a game or a series and not face a piquant situation where they won't be included next time around. Also, if a sufficiently large number of players keep opting out of tournaments, cricket administrators will realize that they may be doing a lot of damage to the golden geese.

Thankfully, the selectors have lost patience with Yuvraj. After his blazing century against Pakistan at Bangalore, he has been quite hopeless. He'll keep saying all the right things about the need to make an impact in test cricket, but personally, despite the fact that he is only 27, I think he should just stick to limited overs cricket. I'm sure he'll do a very good job.

Presumably Dravid & Ganguly have been 'rested' for the ICC Champions Trophy later this year, since they don't feature in the list of 30 probables.

Labels: bcci, burnout, champions trophy, dhoni, india, squad, sri lanka

Thus spake Jagadish @ 11:34 AM | Sledge/Read 3 sledge(s) | Add to del.icio.us | Related posts

Zimbabwe throw Twenty20 World Cup scheduling haywire

Reports suggest that Zimbabwe have voluntarily withdrawn from the 2009 edition of the Twenty20 World Cup in England.

Obviously this is a temporary compromise worked out to ensure that Zimbabwe's status as an international team isn't addressed for now. Are Zimbabwe good enough to play Twenty20 cricket? If the answer to that is yes, then they should play the tournament. If the answer to that is no, then they shouldn't. Are Zimbabwe good enough to play ODI cricket? No. Let's not even bother asking about Test cricket.

Now Zimbabwe's withdrawal from the tournament has a few ramifications. They're in the same group as India and Bangladesh. At this point in time, the format of the tournament has 4 groups of 3 teams each (10 full members of the ICC + 2 qualifiers from amongst the associates). The top 2 qualifiers from each group are then divided into 2 groups, where they play in a round-robin league. The top 2 from each group's league qualify for the semi-finals. There're a total of 27 games: 12 in round 1, 12 in round 2, 2 semis and 1 final.

Since Zimbabwe have withdrawn, does it mean that India & Bangladesh automatically go through to the next round? Although on the basis of cricketing ability it was likely to have been the outcome had Zimbabwe not withdrawn, it doesn't seem fair to other teams.

So maybe the ICC will rework the groupings into 2 groups of 6 and 5 each, or 3 groups of 4, 4 & 3 teams each. That could upset fixture locations, especially since tickets have already been sold out. A lot of fans could have bought tickets for certain games since their favourite team was playing that day at that ground. If the groupings are reworked, the fans get taken for a ride.

I reckon that the ICC will bring in a third qualifier and slot that side as a replacement for Zimbabwe.

It will be interesting to see how the ICC works this one out!

Labels: icc, scheduling, twenty20, twenty20 world cup, zimbabwe

Thus spake Jagadish @ 12:58 PM | Sledge/Read 2 sledge(s) | Add to del.icio.us | Related posts

Bvute & Chingoka are right, let's focus on the cricketing aspects!

The ICC will today come to a decision over how to handle the current situation around Zimbabwe's status in international cricket. Last week,
I posted my views on the topic. They were primarily centred around Zimbabwe's cricketing credentials. I wrote:

Zimbabwe doesn't feature in the ICC test rankings since they haven't played a test for nearly three years now. The last time Zimbabwe won a ODI against major countries other than Bangladesh was in November 2007 (against West Indies). Before that, we go back to November 2003 (West Indies again!). They've been that pathetic.

Let's just give you some idea of how long ago they last played a test. That last test featured Sourav Ganguly as India's captain and Greg Chappell as India's coach. This was the test after the one where Ganguly revealed that Chappell had asked him to quit as captain. In 3 years, so much has changed: Ganguly was out of the side for over a year while Chappell resigned after the pathetic show at the 2007 World Cup.

Zimbabwe Cricket's Managing Director Ozias Bvute had questioned why only the ICC was discussing Zimbabwe when other sporting bodies were not. He pointed out that Zimbabwe was playing in a World Cup qualifier and a Zimbabwean swimmer had won gold medals and broken world records at the World Championship. The chairman of Zimbabwe Cricket, Peter Chingoka, claimed that a ban on Zimbabwe would be for political reasons and not cricketing. Like his MD, he also pointed out that there were no moves to ban Zimbabwe from other international sporting events or organisations.

Perhaps therein lies the problem: Zimbabwe have a FIFA ranking of 82 out of ~ 200 countries while Kirsty Coventry obviously can swim. Zimbabwe's footballers and swimmers are not banned from international competition because they are competitive. The time has come to rethink about Zimbabwe's status in international cricket because the cricketers are not competitive, as has already been pointed out last week.

Mike Atherton too says the same thing. Since the 2003 World Cup, which is about the time after which Zimbabwe's cricket started going into free-fall, Zimbabwe have tied with Ireland, lost twice to Kenya and 15 times to Bangladesh, without even going into their performances against better opponents.

Zimbabwe's cricketing credentials are surely poor enough to stop all debate about whether the ZCU should continue to be a full member of the ICC. I suspect the compromise reached, which will ensure that the BCCI gets 1 vote from Zimbabwe, is that Zimbabwe will continue as a full member but without the same amount of monetary assistance from the ICC. The BCCI will do its bit by hosting Zimbabwe in the Duleep and Deodhar Trophies. Other sub-continental boards will also do similar things.

PS: What on earth has happened to Irfan Pathan?! Just six months ago, he was man of the match, winning a test match for India at Perth. He did a decent job in the Commonwealth Bank triangular series as well. He picked up 15 wickets @ 23 each with a good economy rate of 6.6 in the IPL. Now, his bowling has lost all sting and he's repeatedly getting carted around. Is it because of the wickets he's bowling on? Or has he not completely recovered from the injury?

Yesterday against Pakistan, India's opening bowling combination (Pathan & Praveen Kumar) was probably its friendliest & most non-threatening since Abid Ali & Eknath Solkar did the job in India's first ever ODI.

Labels: bcci, icc, irfan pathan, zimbabwe

Thus spake Jagadish @ 3:19 PM | Sledge/Read 0 sledge(s) | Add to del.icio.us | Related posts