Jarrod Kimber05-Nov-2012Before the 28th of November 2007, Rob Quiney was just a club cricketer.When he started club cricket he was a chubby kid who people at his club thought was named Bobby. At first all he wanted to do was go beyond St Kilda’s fourths, and later he fit in Victoria training around working in a factory while getting a few games mostly as a fill in. On the night of the 28th, Quiney was playing in his 29th match for Victoria, and there was a very real chance it might be his last. One more failure and he was back to club cricket forever.On a typical MCG wicket, too slow to make batting or bowling an enjoyable spectacle, New South Wales made 259 from their 50 overs. A young, almost unknown Phillip Hughes was far from free flowing in making 68. Simon Katich used all his chest hair and grit to push around for 58. And the player who would become an agent, Dom Thornley, slapped a few around at the end for 49.Dirk Nannes and Bryce McGain played in that match, two men who existed in club cricket until their late twenties and early 30s before Victoria made them regulars. Michael Clarke missed because of illness, but watched the whole game from the dugout looking sick and unimpressed.Michael Klinger, still in his underachieving Victorian phase, made a trudging 50. David Hussey made 80, but it wasn’t pretty or like a normal Hussey innings for Victoria. When Klinger went out, Quiney came in ahead of Andrew McDonald to face an attack of Brett Lee, Stuart Clark, Nathan Bracken and Nathan Hauritz. It was an odd decision. In less than 18 months time Andrew McDonald would be playing for Australia. And Quiney was a player in his mid twenties without any big achievements behind him who’d not showed much when playing for Victoria.It was a low-pressure game. There were few hundred fans at the ground, a few thousand more watching on TV, and yet Quiney had more pressure on himself than at anytime in his career. He thrashed a brutal 89 off 57 balls, and Victoria won by four overs and six wickets.It all started in a batting powerplay. While many fans and officials don’t like the powerplay, Rob Quiney’s Test call up might never have happened without one.The reason Victoria had pushed Quiney up the order was as a pinch hitter who could use the early batting powerplay to get them above the rate. You’ve all seen this scenario before; generally the pitch hitter walks off after soaking up too many balls and the new batsman has to face up with all the fielders in the circle.When the powerplay was called, Quiney was 11 off 15 balls.The powerplay started with Nathan Hauritz, 14 runs off his over.Stuart Clark bowled over number two for eight runs.Fourteen runs came from Brett Lee in the third over.Clark’s next over went for 12.The last over, also by Lee, went for another 12.When the powerplay finished, Quiney was 57 from 35 balls.Quiney had gone from a no one to a player to watch in one night. It was the might when Quiney started believing in himself.Since the Argus report, club cricket’s health in Australia has been much discussed. It was the centrepiece of Gideon Haigh’s Bradman oration. And many think that until club cricket improves its quality Australia will struggle.Quiney is a club cricketer. You couldn’t say he batted like a first class or International player. He played like a club cricketer with serious talent. It was raw and unkempt. A classic shot could be followed by a horrible slog. It was instinctive and natural. Entertaining to watch, frustrating to bowl at. He wasn’t sculpted through the academy or under age systems, he just sort of appeared in 2006 as a 24-year-old batsman because he made so many runs for St Kilda. You can see the difference between Australian cricketers from club or country backgrounds compared to the academy and underage players. There is something untidy about them, but not in a bad way.Quiney’s first venture up from club cricket was playing against a World XI attack of Shoaib Akhtar, Jacques Kallis, Makhaya Ntini, Daniel Vettori, Shahid Afridi, Shaun Pollock and Muttiah Muralitharan in their warm-up for the 2005 ‘Super Series’. He was run out for three.It took three years for Quiney to make a first-class century. His highest score is 153. He seems more like the person who will make a classy half century (he’s collected many scores around 80) and then give it all away. His career has seven first-class hundreds, and an average of 37, when combined with his age of 30 doesn’t inspire too many people.But if you’ve seen Quiney on a good day, like that day against NSW or in the 2010 Shield final against Queensland, you feel you’ve seen a special player. He imposes himself and dominates, can score anywhere and when in form looks like a run out or stupid shot is the only way to get past him. Rod Marsh and John Inverarity saw another of his good days when he made 85 against Vernon Philander, Imran Tahir and the Dale Steyn.

It’s either a wild hunch by a selection committee that likes form, or an unconventional decision by a group of men who value hard, work, talent and perseverance. An 85 and a middling average don’t usually propel you that quickly.

Leading the run scorers in last year’s Shield, averaging 49 and picking up the Domestic player of the year award couldn’t get Quiney on the A tour to England. Even through injuries and squad departures, he never made his way onto that trip. Even Hughes and Usman Khawaja, learning the ropes at county sides, seemed far ahead of him. Now he is one injury from a Test cap. It’s either a wild hunch by a selection committee that likes form, or an unconventional decision by a group of men who value hard, work, talent and perseverance. An 85 and a middling average don’t usually propel you that quickly.Quiney is a pre-Argus review player in a post-Argus world. The immensely talented club cricketer who’s made it to the Australian set up with a weight of 80-odds. He’s had experience playing New Zealand, Sri Lanka and the IPL, and is coming off two solid years of domestic cricket. His selection will upset those who thirst for 20-year-old, once in a generation Australian batsmen. Quiney’s a decade distant from 20, and is not a 10-year player. He ‘s been around now for a while without exciting many or getting headlines. But he has been getting better every year and was consistent and lucky enough to make it this far.Clarke, now Australia’s captain, was never a club cricketer. He was born with a baggy green in his mouth. These days he is pretty busy, and chances are on his day off he doesn’t sit in a dugout watching a List A game. But luckily for Quiney, when the other selectors brought up his name, there’s a strong chance Clarke’s mind went back to that night at the MCG.It was one great night for Quiney, and it may mean he joins a far more exclusive cricket club on Friday.

As long as Bangladesh lack belief in themselves and seem satisfied with limited success, fortunes are unlikely to change

Mohammad Isam18-Nov-2012Bangladesh’s stumble at the penultimate hurdle in Mirpur has brought into focus their mindset while on the verge of a major outcome. The defeat drew attention to a subconscious lack of belief in their own abilities and apparent satisfaction with limited goals after a period of positive cricket. This is more likely to test them in the last two sessions of a Test, but the team must realise quickly that taking the game into the fifth day alone does not constitute an achievement.Bangladesh’s approach was confusing from the outset in the chase. They were slow off the blocks and lost early wickets. They lost five wickets in the two hours after lunch, which left them having too much to do in the final session. They batted at a tepid pace, and seemed daunted by the prospect of surviving 70-odd overs or even winning a Test. Captain Mushfiqur Rahim said their plan was to keep six wickets in hand in the final session to win. At no stage during the innings, in which they lost wickets regularly, did the team think of playing for a draw.Bangladesh bat deep and had as many as eight batsmen. They reached their highest Test score in the first innings, but should have been more useful in the second. They lacked imagination in the chase and the will to bat it out, with only Mahmudullah showing some determination in the last hour of the match.Mushfiqur also pointed to the lack of experience in the fourth innings as one of the causes for the defeat. The last Bangladesh were set a target under 300, they beat a weakened West Indies in 2009. The quality of the bowling attack was better in Mirpur, but what matters is a winning approach and, in Tests, Bangladesh haven’t developed one yet.In the one-dayers, Bangladesh have chased quite well, but, again, there hasn’t been consistency. They lost to Pakistan in the Asia Cup final, chasing a total lower than the one they overhauled against India, and with a less-demanding asking-rate than they faced against Sri Lanka. The occasion gets to them.Five batsmen scored more than 50 in Bangladesh’s first innings, but none went past 30 in the second. There’s been a trend of Bangladesh batsmen not building on a positive start to the series, and that doesn’t augur well for the next Test in Khulna. Only once has a Bangladesh batsman scored more than 300 runs in a series.Tamim Iqbal and Shakib Al Hasan, the team’s two best players, could be blamed for not contributing when it mattered. But what about the responsibility of others in the event the duo fails?Once the game was over, Mushfiqur said the concern ahead of the Test was to last the five days. Taking the game into the final day seemed to be the key for a team playing it’s first Test this year. The ICC president Alan Isaac cited the example of New Zealand, saying the team could play more Tests against the better-ranked teams if it performed more often against them. It seems a vicious cycle for Bangladesh, because they play so few Tests, and are unlikely to get more opportunities if they perform only every once in a while.

From Aditya Mungee, India If I die tomorrow, one thing I won’t regret is that I got a chance to watch an Indian “fast” bowler knock the stuffing out of guys like Ponting and Clarke, supposedly born and brought up on fast pitches like the WACA.

Cricinfo25-Feb-2013Aditya Mungee, India
If I die tomorrow, one thing I won’t regret is that I got a chance to watch an Indian “fast” bowler knock the stuffing out of guys like Ponting and Clarke, supposedly born and brought up on fast pitches like the WACA.With all due respect to Anil Kumble, in 15 years of seriously following Indian Cricket,not for once have I felt that an Indian bowler, even on his day and at his peak could run through a top batting side on any pitch in the world Kumble has toiled and served Indian cricket, Srinath has, for long been the lone warrior in a “pace starved” country, Bhajji can bamboozle the best of batsmen on spin friendly wickets; Zaheer,when he reverse swings the old ball is lethal but Ishant is a class apart.His biggest strength I believe is that he swings the ball both ways at >140 kph, and gets movement with the new ball as well as the old one. Of course, with just 13 tests under his belt, he’s got a long long way to go and match those illustrious names, but simply the sight of a tall Indian fast bowler terrorising teams like Australia and Pakistan, once the powerhouses of fast bowling is an awesome experience. The fact that he is the first Indian fast bowler since Kapil Dev to pick up “Man of the Series” in a home series speaks for itself.PS – Is it just me or does the sight of him bringing the ball back in into the right hander remind everyone of Courtney Walsh?

In the end, whether Howard does or doesn’t get the job–the fact is that there are many, many people better suited to the job

Cricinfo25-Feb-2013
The nomination of John Howard is an act of severe short-sightedness© Getty Images
Gideon Haigh has made himself a name for writing spanking pieces taking apart moral and economic flaws in the cricket fraternity. Unfortunately, his case for John Howard wasn’t one of them. It’s a fine piece in its own right, filled with Haigh’s typical bafflement at the hypocrisies and short-sightedness of some of the world’s most vocal bodies–yet it fails, I’m afraid, to make a case for the much-maligned Howard.First of all, let’s get the prerequisites out. What Howard was as prime minister of Australia really doesn’t matter; the way and pattern he went about his work does, as that is what will be transferred to the ICC should he become vice-president or president. What he said or didn’t say about Murali doesn’t matter, either; it’s his personal view, and though it may be mind-numbingly frustrating for some fans (myself included) to have to continually beat a dead horse every time Murali grabs a seven-for, Howard is entitled to his opinion.Nor is the fact that he can’t bowl to save his life of any consequence–mere knowledge and awareness of his responsibilities as an ICC official should suffice, and he is at least academically aware of cricket norms.Indeed, it can be argued that his outsider rank is a strength and not a weakness, seeing as it removes a significant chip from his shoulder. But the fact remains that he is in no way qualified whatsoever for the job either. Those who attacked him as a racist or politician were indulging in ad hominem, trying to break their opponent’s case by attacking his character instead of the issues at hand.The temptation to expose their hypocrisy must have taken over, but instead of presenting a case for Howard’s candidature Mr Haigh only attacked the double standards of the opponents; the subtitle to his piece, saying that Howard’s opponents “are not exactly shining examples of rectitude themselves”, signifies as much.The fact is that there is a broadly divided view on Howard, and most of it is, unfortunately, not positive. To overcome that Howard would have to be a shining example of level-headed diplomacy, firmness and cool–yet his chuntering, in-your-face manner while leading his country suggests otherwise. His regular forays into the world of cricket went beyond endearing–that was a John Major, or a Robert Menzies–to simply tasteless. He is, unfortunately, seen in some parts of the cricket world as a divisive influence.The fact is that from all the wonderfully capable administrators who surely must exist in the Anzac realm–that capable former NZC administrator, Sir John Anderson, springs immediately to mind–choosing Howard, whatever the hypocrisy of the nay-sayers, was almost mind-blowingly short-sighted. You may as well have appointed George W Bush head of FIFA–he may be a hell of a nice guy personally and his politics may have nothing to do with his views on the sport, but the fact is that people don’t like him.To overcome that he would have to be a genius at management–and that, unfortunately, is not evident either. Howard would have to change his public image dramatically–and serenading India, unfortunately, won’t be enough. Indeed it is a sign that instead of standing up for the Anzac divide, Howard may just end up pandering to the hulking Indian board. In the end, whether Howard does or doesn’t get the job–the fact is that there are many, many people better suited to the job, and the nomination is an act of severe short-sightedness.

From Oindrila Mukherjee, USA

Cricinfo25-Feb-2013
For the expat, with victory comes the realization, stronger than at any other time, of being away•Associated PressTrying desperately to find a live stream for the World Cup final on the Internet that won’t buffer at key moments turns out to be an impossible task. Buffer, wicket. Buffer, six. Buffer, India wins the World Cup. Yes, it’s true that I missed some of the most special seconds of the historic final. But thanks to the illegal streaming from just one or two sources, I was able to catch most of the tournament online for free, either on a small window or a full screen with blurry images. Squinting my eyes, cursing at the buffering video, sitting alone in my darkened room on a Saturday morning in Atlanta, Georgia, I watched India reach its ultimate goal.In the hours leading up to the final, throughout the actual game, and of course immediately following it, I found myself almost involuntarily switching between Twitter and Facebook, sharing status updates and tweets with friends and strangers. It made me feel at once part of a community, and also incredibly alone, as news of celebrations poured in from India. Scenes at the Wankhede, traffic jams in Mumbai and Delhi, party at the India Gate, crowds of people on the streets of other cities, all through that night, parties I wasn’t invited to. So near, and yet so far. The exile’s crisis in the age of the Internet.Away from the communal environs of university, it is hard even for a dedicated sports fan to keep track of cricket in the U.S. where the World Series is played between domestic baseball teams, and where college football and basketball drive fans to partisan frenzy. While English soccer fans who live here can follow their Premier League teams in select sports bars on Saturday mornings, it’s a lot harder for cricket fans from the subcontinent – let’s face it the only cricket fans here are from the subcontinent – to find a place where a cricket match is being broadcast. It’s usually upto desi communities to organise viewings, which then become hubs for communal socialising much like religious festivals.This year, the World Cup was available for a decent fee to subscribers of Dish or Direct TV, both satellite cable providers. For those of us without satellite dishes, the only legitimate option was to go online and pay Willow TV for live streaming. And for those reluctant to dish out (no pun intended) the fee, let’s say for a student, there’s always the option of illegal streaming from a few sources.Of course online streaming means putting up with frequent buffering that causes the video to freeze, often at crucial moments. Still, with higher Internet speeds these days, the buffering has improved in recent times, and watching matches streamed online is better than not watching them at all. So there you are, up at the crack of dawn, hunched over your Mac or PC, trying to catch up or tune in, not only to a game, but to a cultural experience which was once your very own. When the crowd begins to roar during a bowler’s run up, it sounds just like a time capsule has arrived to transport you to another place, another time.The moment of victory was greater than cricket, greater than sport•Getty ImagesThe time is childhood, or adolescence, or whenever it was, the innocent age, before you left your country, before you became an expat. The place is your high school, college, street corner, local haunts, Eden Gardens, Wankhede, Feroz Shah. Wherever you sat on the bleachers or got special tickets to the clubhouse. Wherever you were with friends or family.Since following cricket on a regular basis is so difficult in the US, I often find myself feeling like Rip Van Winkle when I do watch a game. When I’m vacationing in India every couple of years for instance or, as happened this past month, during the World Cup. I was a little bewildered by the DRS, the Powerplay, the hype around some cricketers I hadn’t actually heard of. As one who used to be an avid sports quizzer once upon a time, this ignorance is embarrassing to admit to. However, it is a fact. Cricket and I are no longer close friends. We’re, at best, acquaintances who meet only occasionally, and have to start over again.And yet. And yet. When Dhoni hit his by-now famous six, the six that, like Miandad’s against India, will pass into cricketing legend and will be retold to future generations just as our parents, aunts, and uncles went on and on about Kapil’s unbeaten 175 against Zimbabwe in 1983, the moment, quite literally, froze. The video buffered the shot. One second India needed a couple of runs to win, and the next players were embracing and crying on the field, an anti-climax that was so predictable that it didn’t even hurt. Because that moment was greater than cricket, greater than sport. When the crowds in Mumbai erupted, when Facebook exploded into giddy exclamations of joy and shock, the tears I found myself shedding weren’t all of joy. With victory comes the realization, stronger than at any other time, of being away. My friend, Prerona, watching the match from Edinburgh, exchanged notes with me online after the match, in between updating her status. “There is,” she said, “no one to hug.”At exactly the same time, from another corner of the world, another friend, Sandeep, reported his experience of watching the final with Sri Lankan and Indian fans at the Selangor Club in Kuala Lampur. “If someone hit a good shot half the crowd cheered as it neared the ropes, and when it was fielded on the boundary the other half cheered.”Exile is a double-edged sword. On the one hand you feel alienated and removed from your people, and on the other you feel connected more closely to the rest of the world, to all the world. You belong nowhere, you belong everywhere.Through the years spent watching cricket in different cities around England and the U.S., with Australians, South Africans, Englishmen, and Pakistanis, at various times, on screens of various sizes, with different results, through the ecstasies and agonies that are a part of any sport lover’s life, through it all, these memories from further back suddenly become clearer. Huddling around a black and white TV with a lot of grown ups as a little girl in 1983, watching my parents and their friends celebrate something I wasn’t quite able to comprehend the magnitude of. Playing para cricket in Calcutta with a group of boys before being dismissed SBW – Skirt Before Wicket. Going for a spontaneous drive to the Eden Gardens with the family on the eve of the 1987 World cup final to catch a glimpse of the floodlit stadium, and discovering that the entire city had had the same idea, thereby causing a traffic jam outside the stadium in the middle of the night. Gossiping with friends in high school about Wasim Akram’s good looks. Looking on from red-cushioned seats in the clubhouse in 1996 in disbelief and humiliation as a few crazy fans hurled trash onto the field to disrupt India’s semi-final against Sri Lanka.They say nostalgia is the refuge and also the somewhat pathetic crutch of the exile. But forgive the sentimentality, for the memories have nothing to do with cricket. They are about the foods we miss, the sounds we once heard, the colours that fade. They are about family, and childhood, and innocence. Because in the end, for an Indian expat, watching cricket is like going home.

A look at the season-wise comparisons, team-wise stats, and the best batsmen and bowlers in the Powerplay, middle, and slog overs

S Rajesh27-May-2013IPL 2013 started slowly in terms of run-scoring, but by the end it picked up sufficiently so that the overall numbers are pretty similar to what was achieved in the last few years. The run-rate picked up and ended at 7.67, only about two percent lower than last season’s rate, while the number of 50-plus scores was only one short of last season’s aggregate. The sixes count went down from 731 to 674 – a fall of 57 – but there were 140 more fours this time than last year. There were only four 200-plus scores this time, though, the least in an IPL season in India. This was also a season of minimal weather interruptions: only one match was played with a reduced number of overs, while none was washed out, unlike what had happened in the last two seasons.It was noticeable that teams didn’t bank so heavily on the Powerplay overs this time, choosing instead to wait for the last few overs to make their move. That’s reflected in the run rates as well: for the first time in six IPL seasons, the average Powerplay run rate dropped to less than seven runs per over – it was 6.93, compared to 7.22 last year. The scoring rate in the middle overs wasn’t too high either, but in the last five the rate increased to 9.57, which is the rate achieved in 2010, when the overall tournament run rate was 8.12. For teams batting first, the scoring rate in the last five was 10.16, well clear of last year’s 9.68 and 2011’s 9.36.The bowling was a mixed bag in 2013, and while there were some stand-out fast-bowling performances by Dale Steyn, Mitchell Johnson, James Faulkner and Lasith Malinga, among several others, overall spinners did better: they were more economical while averaging around the same. However, they bowled fewer overs than they had in the previous two seasons: compared to 1039.2 overs in 2011 and 1019.4 overs in 2012, spinners bowled only 856 overs in 2013.The main difference in the contribution from spinners was in the Powerplay overs. In the 2011 IPL, following on the success of spin with the new ball in the World Cup, they 1199 deliveries during the Powerplays, and next year it went up to 1266; this time, though, it came down to 902 balls.

Overall stats in each IPL season

SeasonMatchesRuns per wktRuns per over100s/ 50s4s/ 6s200+ scores20085826.038.306/ 831702/ 6221120095723.417.482/ 681316/ 506120106026.208.124/ 881709/ 585920117326.017.726/ 891913/ 639520127526.197.826/ 961911/ 731520137624.797.674/ 972051/ 6744

Spread of runs and wickets in each IPL season

Powerplay overs6.1 to 15Last 5 oversSeasonAverageRun rateAverageRun rateAverageRun rate200830.447.7030.557.9818.099.94200926.377.2226.946.8517.679.13201032.287.8928.277.5619.719.58201129.827.2030.867.4418.289.10201232.717.2230.397.3918.449.52201329.406.9328.827.2318.159.57

Pace and spin stats in each IPL season

PaceSpinSeasonWicketsAverageEcon rateWicketsAverageEcon rate200846728.428.0513430.388.18200938826.257.6522624.776.77201040529.648.3221028.807.34201147028.127.8026827.607.11201253127.197.8124131.357.41201360426.787.7822526.176.88Team-wise statsWhen a tournament has such a long league stage with each team playing 16 games, it isn’t necessary that the title winners are actually the side with the most wins over the entire tournament. However, this year Mumbai Indians, the champions, had a better win-loss ratio over the entire tournament than any other side. Coming into the final, they had a poorer win-loss ratio – 12 wins, 6 defeats – than their opponents in the final, Chennai Super Kings, who had a 12-5 record. However, the result in the final meant Mumbai Indians finished with a 13-6 record, while Super kings dropped to 12-6. Super Kings, though, had the better numbers than Mumbai Indians in each of the four key stats – batting average, run rate, bowling average and economy rate.Rajasthan Royals, who finished third, also had the third-best win-loss ratio, while Sunrisers Hyderabad, the fourth team to make the play-offs, were the only side among the top six with a poorer run-rate than economy rate.

How each team fared in IPL 2013

TeamMatchesWon/ lostBat aveRun rateBowl aveEcon rateMumbai Indians1913/ 626.327.9523.027.68Chennai Super Kings1812/ 630.868.1921.157.62Rajasthan Royals1811/ 728.777.7323.457.51Sunrisers Hyderabad1710/ 721.476.9821.287.07Royal Challengers Bangalore169/ 732.968.5423.798.09Kings XI Punjab168/ 823.347.9829.477.74Kolkata Knight Riders166/ 1022.457.3623.877.40Pune Warriors164/ 1220.377.1530.348.10Delhi Daredevils163/ 1320.307.1732.057.94The Powerplay starsSuper Kings had a solid top-order star in Michael Hussey throughout the tournament, and he was a huge factor in the team getting off to fine starts in most of their matches. Hussey’s consistency was outstanding: in only four out of 17 innings did he score less than 20, though one of them was unfortunately in the final. Hussey scored six fifties in the tournament, and all of them were in wins. In the 12 matches that Super Kings won, Hussey averaged 71.55 at a strike rate of 137; in the five games he played in which Super Kings lost, he averaged just 17.80, at a strike rate of 93.Hussey was the leading run-scorer in the Powerplay overs, while his scoring rate was a steady seven per over. Among the others in this list are Chris Gayle, Gautam Gambhir, Rahul Dravid, and both the regular openers from Pune Warriors, Aaron Finch and Robin Uthappa. Dravid had a high average, but he also played out plenty of dots during the Powerplay overs.Among the bowlers, Mitchell Johnson and Mohit Sharma were the stand-out names in the Powerplay overs. Both took 15 or more wickets at excellent economy rates. James Faulkner, Bhuvneshwar Kumar and Praveen Kumar all had superb economy rates as well.

Top run-scorers in the Powerplay overs

BatsmanInningsRunsAverageStrike rate4s/ 6sDot-ball %Michael Hussey1730776.757.0344/ 448.09Robin Uthappa1627934.876.9430/ 643.98Chris Gayle1627345.508.0228/ 1751.96Gautam Gambhir1526738.147.7739/ 343.20Aaron Finch1423834.007.8036/ 650.82Rahul Dravid1523277.336.2444/ 161.43

Leading wicket-takers in the Powerplay overs

BowlerBalls bowledWicketsAverageEcon rateDot-ball %Mitchell Johnson2341614.756.0558.97Mohit Sharma2161515.266.3657.87Ishant Sharma228930.447.2153.51Bhuvneshwar Kumar204823.005.4165.20James Faulkner150720.425.7258.00Praveen Kumar222728.715.4359.01Best in the middle oversHussey was a prominent name in the middle overs too, scoring the second-highest number of runs, and he was often joined during this period by Suresh Raina, who has excellent stats too. These two have the lowest dot-ball percentage among the eight batsmen in the list below, and more often than not ensured that Super Kings had a fine launching pad for the final overs. Virat Kohli and Chris Gayle did a similar job for Royal Challengers, scoring plenty of runs and scoring them quickly. Mumbai Indians have a couple of names in the list too, but Dinesh Karthik got out plenty of times in the middle overs, and Rohit Sharma’s scoring rate during this period was relatively low. David Miller had outstanding stats too for Kings XI Punjab.Harbhajan Singh was by far the leading wicket-taker during this period, with 19 at an economy rate of 6.01, while Amit Mishra had a fantastic economy rate of 5.53. The top two wicket-takers in the middle overs were both spinners from Mumbai Indians – Harbhajan and Pragyan Ojha – and their combination was one of the huge strengths of the team throughout the tournament.Not surprisingly, this period of the game was dominated by spin, with Siddharth Trivedi the only medium-pacer in the list.

Top run-scorers in the middle overs (6.1 to 15 overs)

BatsmanInningsRunsAverageRun rate4s/ 6sDot-ball %Virat Kohli1533155.167.6627/ 1031.66Michael Hussey1332854.667.7427/ 825.98Chris Gayle1031162.209.8721/ 2335.45Dinesh Karthik1728922.237.4431/ 432.62Suresh Raina1227739.578.0219/ 924.64Rohit Sharma1827539.386.5717/ 831.08Shane Watson1327534.378.6324/ 1333.51David Miller10233116.508.6815/ 1127.95

Leading wicket-takers in the middle overs (6.1 to 15 overs)

BowlerBallsWicketsAverageEcon rateDot-ball %Harbhajan Singh3061916.156.0138.24Pragyan Ojha2401419.716.9038.75R Ashwin2761225.916.7633.33Amit Mishra2821221.665.5340.78Siddharth Trivedi3241132.456.6138.58Ravindra Jadeja1921023.107.2134.38Karan Sharma1741018.106.2443.10Slog-over specialistsMS Dhoni was undoubtedly the batting king of the final overs, scoring 286 runs at more than 12 per over, but also take a look at Raina’s numbers below: in five innings when he batted in the last five overs, he scored 193 runs from 86 balls without being dismissed even once, giving him a scoring rate of 13.46 runs per over. His dot-ball percentage during this period was an incredibly low 7%. Most of the top batsmen had scoring rates of more than ten per over during this period, but the best of the lot was AB de Villiers’ rate of 14.30 runs per over: he scored 186 runs from 78 balls.The highest wicket-taker during the last five was Dwayne Bravo, whose slower balls and clever variations fetched him 24 wickets at a rate of 7.78 per over. In terms of economy rates, though, the two best bowlers were Dale Steyn and Sunil Narine – both conceded less than seven runs per over, and took a fair number of wickets too.

Top run-scorers in the last 5 overs

BatsmanInningsRunsAverageRun rate4s/ 6sDot-ball %MS Dhoni1128647.6612.1719/ 1922.70Keiron Pollard1525035.7110.0614/ 2034.23Rohit Sharma1123439.0012.3114/ 2026.32Suresh Raina5193-13.4620/ 86.98Brad Hodge1318731.169.2717/ 623.97AB de Villiers918637.2014.3016/ 1319.23David Miller1017935.8012.6312/ 1318.82

Leading wicket-takers in the last 5 overs

BowlerBallsWicketsAverageEcon rateDot-ball %Dwayne Bravo2192411.837.7838.81James Faulkner1511612.758.1034.44Dale Steyn1371510.466.8744.53Sunil Narine1501312.616.5642.00Vinay Kumar1331217.339.3829.32Umesh Yadav1441220.5810.2927.78

Delhi Police commissioner Neeraj Kumar is positive that cricket can fight corruption, but says for that to happen the BCCI and police need to join hands

Nagraj Gollapudi22-May-2013
Neeraj Kumar (right): “I was distressed and anguished when I announced the arrest of the three players. But I have stopped watching IPL this year. I have lost interest”•AFPNearly a week after having taken the three players into custody, how strong do you think your case is against them?
It is quite solid. Our evidence material, it is substantial, and I am quite hopeful that we would be able to get convictions against the accused. The fact of the matter is they cannot deny what they have said on the telephone and they cannot deny the sequence of events. So in the face of the overwhelming evidence we have, they have no option but to accept (the charges).There are also reports coming out that some more players might be involved from other teams. Is that true?
That is a distinct possibility provided we find the bookie we are looking for. We think through that bookie these other players might have been compromised.A lot of legal pundits have said the absence of any specific law dealing with cheating in sport will help the accused walk free. Do you agree?
I do not think so. The management of Rajasthan Royals has come forward and given us the contracts signed by these three players. So we added an additional charge under the IPC Section 409 for criminal breach of trust. Anyone who goes to watch a match, he goes under the presumption everybody would play to full potential. The spectators otherwise feel cheated if that is not case. Two spectators from Delhi have come forward to lodge a complaint of being cheated. They had bought tickets online for the three matches we had listed being under the scanner. So these two would be our witnesses.By charging the cricketers under Section 409, do you believe this is a way to set a precedent in terms of dealing with fraud in sport?
I guess in the future people will use this Section. We had originally filed the case under Sections 420 and 120(b) and the Royals complaint came subsequently, and has further strengthened our case.Moving to a broader question: How can cricket be cleaned up?
From our point of view we should be able to get as many of these bookies as possible, as many of these middlemen behind bars, and identify players and go after them. That is all we can do. The general tendency in the police is to just restrict yourself to the case and wrap it up before moving on to the next case. But so many leads crop up during an investigation and our duty to follow those leads to the logical end. The rest of the things should be done by the administrators.What is the role you expect the BCCI to play as the custodian of the sport in India?
I am not familiar with their working in terms of what they can and cannot do. But suffice to say that they should maintain better vigil. Most of this stuff happens quite openly: people are seen sitting with undesirable people and people do come to know about some strangers meeting somebody. So they have the list of the suspects, they should go after them.In order to beef up its anti-corruption measures, can the BCCI work in collaboration with law enforcement authorities? Is that practical or possible?
Why not? If they tip us off, the police can keep them under surveillance. The BCCI’s anti-corruption and security wing does not have police powers so to that extent they have to work within certain limitations.The BCCI has instituted its own inquiry committee to establish match-fixing chargers against the three accused. Are you willing to share evidence with that panel?
At an appropriate time and with the prior permission of the court, we would be willing to share information with the committee.Are you taking help of any former Test cricketers as part of investigations?
We are trying to get the services of an expert who will be our witness. He can explain to the court the various pros and cons of a certain field arrangement at a certain point during the match. For instance, there was an over [Ajit] Chandila bowled on May 5 in Jaipur and there is no fielder on the leg side, but he was pitching on the leg side. But my saying so will not hold much weight in the court of law. However, if a former player who is nominated by the BCCI or government comes forward and is willing to be a witness, it will enhance our case. We are talking to the BCCI, but I would not like to take any names till it is finalised.Can cricket ever be corruption free?
It would not be fair to say corruption is a rule and honesty an exception. There are a few rotten eggs, which should be spotted and be weeded out. I am a cricket fan, too. I was distressed and anguished when I announced the arrest of the three players. But I have stopped watching IPL this year. I have lost interest.Did you have any similar information of such stuff happening in the previous editions of the IPL?
We used to hear, but that was in the realm of rumour.

Loose shots have contributed to Rohit Sharma’s downfall on all three occasions. The sooner he adjusts to his new role as an opener, the greater the chances he will begin converting his starts

Nagraj Gollapudi at Edgbaston16-Jun-2013Even Rohit Sharma would admit that it is getting embarrassing to be back in the dressing room when he could have been there in the middle converting his starts into big scores. He had started off watchfully three times in the tournament. He converted two of those to half-centuries. Against Pakistan today, he started fluently once again. But just as his innings was about to blossom into another fifty, Rohit got distracted and played a loose stroke. Like the unnecessary pull shot against South Africa. Like the unwanted push against a leg-side delivery against West Indies. And like the unfathomable urge to hit over midwicket today when India were in a commanding position.Probably the pain of getting a start and then playing an erroneous stroke could be worse than getting a duck. At Sophia Gardens, then at The Oval and then at Edgbaston, Rohit walked back punching his gloves, cringing his eyes, shaking his head, hitting his bat on his pads, pursing his lips. It was clear how much he wanted to be in the center even as he reluctantly departed the field. He has been rightly accused in the past of throwing away his wicket. However, this tournament, Rohit has stayed hungry.He trained hard in the nets. Even after finishing his regular batting stint he would return later to continue to take throwdowns and be the last to leave. The best music to a batsman’s ears comes from middling the ball. From a distance it can seem as if a player is hitting a mallet to stroke his bat. Yet, it is the urge to get the feel that makes the exercise fascinating.You could see the confidence he derived from those preparations in the crucial partnerships he built with Shikhar Dhawan against South Africa and then West Indies, which were the key legs in the Indian victories. In the first match Morne Morkel tested Rohit with a robust spell of fast bowling, firing in short-pitched deliveries at an aggressive pace.Rohit looked uncomfortable at times, was even hit on the box once, folded into two on another occasion while trying to fend the white shell that was climbing high and fast towards his head. But Rohit knew the key was to leave the ball. What also helped was an understanding he had with Dhawan as both men showed the keenness to keep rotating the strike.The time he has to play his shots, the fact that he has all the shots in the book make Rohit a dangerous batsman once he gets his eye in. Over the years in the IPL, he has tended to take pressure positively, understanding when exactly to go for the big one. So even if India were scoring at a slow rate in the initial ten overs, he did not show any desperation. In fact, in the first two matches, Rohit had started slowly compared to Dhawan, yet accelerated effortlessly to reach the half-century mark before his partner. But what he has not been able to do is to get to three figures like Dhawan managed in the first two matches. So why is that?Not for the lack of courage. Probably it could be to do with his new role. Unlike Dhawan, who has primarily been a specialist opener, Rohit has played in the middle order for both India and Mumbai in first-class cricket. But his superior technique and ability to play the short ball confidently encouraged captain MS Dhoni and coach Duncan Fletcher to vault him into the opening position. With the Indian middle order looking settled, the challenge for Rohit is to adapt quickly.Rahul Dravid, the former India captain, who performed in various positions including as an opener in ODIs, reckons Rohit needs to be flexible. “He has all the talent, he has the goods. It is a question of him now converting it and having the hunger and desire when he has in good form to actually stack them up,” Dravid said on ESPNcricinfo’s The Huddle on Saturday.For now, Rohit has his captain’s confidence and he is bound to get the long rope if he continues to provide confident starts. “That’s the only space that we have got, where we all felt that with his talent he can really capitalise and be a good opener,” Dhoni said on Friday. However, Rohit knows well that he needs to start making centuries that will finally allow him to enjoy a settled role.Having played 90 ODIs and leading Mumbai Indians to the IPL title, Rohit, despite his young age (26), has stated assuming more responsibilities. He has seen a contemporary like Virat Kohli grow into one of the most reliable players for India. Rohit is now as close to fulfilling that role. But like his seniors have mentioned, he is the driver of his destiny.

It may not matter hugely in Bangalore or Bridgetown, but in England and Australia, in cricket at least, nothing matters more than what is about to begin

George Dobell at Trent Bridge09-Jul-2013It says much about the enduring appeal of the Ashes that, at a time of economic pressures, at a time when Test cricket’s popularity is waning in many parts of the world and at time when neither team can claim to be the best in the world, just about every day of this series will be played in front of full houses and to vast audiences on TV, on the radio and on the internet.Whatever the economic importance of series against India and the ranking importance of series against South Africa, the vast majority of players on both sides will have grown up dreaming of playing in the Ashes. Rightly or wrongly, it is performances in such series that continue to disproportionately define the careers of players and coaches. The UK government reacted to England’s Ashes success in 2005 by bestowing MBEs on the whole team; no other series would have generated such rewards.The ICC rankings were designed to provide context and interest to Test series that were struggling to capture the public imagination. The Ashes doesn’t need such marketing strategies. Like Christmas and the NHS, familiarity may have bred a parasitical side-industry, but it has not bred contempt.Conventional wisdom suggests that Australia, unburdened by expectation, go into the series without pressure. It is nonsense. The sacking of Mickey Arthur and Robbie Deans – the Australia cricket and rugby coaches – within the last few weeks suggests Australia are not so sanguine about sporting failure as some might like to suggest.Darren Lehmann might survive an early failure, but some of the players will not. England supporters, by contrast, were weaned on unrealistic expectations and put to bed by disillusionment. They are familiar in dealing with the sting of disappointment.Besides, England possess significant advantages. While two of their batsmen, Kevin Pietersen and Alastair Cook, will surely go down in history among the greatest players to have represented England, it is two of the bowlers that provide the real edge.In James Anderson England have a supreme athlete at the peak of his career with an ability to swing, reverse swing and seam the ball allied to a control very few can match. MS Dhoni credited him as “the difference between the teams” in the series in India. If he can prove so valuable on Indian wickets and armed – or disarmed – with an SG or a Kookaburra ball, then he can be devastating in conditions offering him even a little assistance in England and with a Dukes ball.But perhaps more relevant is the presence of Graeme Swann. It is Swann, arguably the best finger spinner either of these nations has produced since Jim Laker, who represents the key difference between these sides. Both teams have talented batsmen; both have dangerous seamers: only England have a champion spinner who has shown, against all opposition and in all conditions, that he is a match-winner at this level.It is generally unwise to try to predict England’s plans. Under Andy Flower they are guarded with a level of security that even Edward Snowden could not unpick. But the evidence has mounted in recent days that they see spin and reverse swing as their key weapons.

Looking to the future

Ben Foakes was a noticeable addition to England’s training squad at Trent Bridge. The 20-year-old Essex and England Lions wicketkeeper will remain with England throughout the first Investec Test and act as 12th man.

Identified for some time as an England player of the future – he was picked as the Lions wicketkeeper for their limited-overs tour of Australia before he had played a List A game – Foakes will also have early morning batting sessions with Graham Gooch and wicketkeeping sessions with Bruce French. Foakes is one of four young players – Ben Stokes, Chris Woakes and Gary Ballance are the others – who has been identified to benefit from specialist attention from Gooch over the coming months.

Foakes’ Essex team-mate, 19-year-old left-arm seamer Reece Topley, also spent time bowling at the England squad while they trained at Loughborough over the weekend as they sought to replicate the left-arm angle of attack anticipated from Mitchell Starc, in particular. Topley has now returned to county duty.

For a start, Swann was rested in the crucial stages of the Champions Trophy despite his willingness to play. England, however, prioritised the Ashes over the final of the global ODI tournament they have never won and refused to take any chances with Swann’s strained calf.It was interesting to note, too, that the pitch at Trent Bridge has, despite unbroken sunshine and no chance to rain, remained under covers in the two days ahead of the Test. In the current hot weather, it is unthinkable that there would be any attempt to keep the pitch green and appears more likely that a surface, already unusually dry, is being preserved to ensure it does not deteriorate too early.While the ball rarely spins on the ground, England are acutely aware of the likelihood that the Australia side will contain five or six left-handed batsmen and at least one left-arm bowler. The combination of footholes, the off-break turning away from the bat and the fact that, on a green pitch, Australia have the bowling weapons to hurt England, is likely to see this series played in conditions more like India than any previous series in England.There is an obvious contrast between the approach of the two camps ahead of the series. Australia, reflecting the new laid back approach that Lehmann has instilled, had an optional net session on Tuesday, while England trained as normal.The sense is that, while Australia’s mood has been lifted by recent events, the England dressing room remains just a little intense; an environment where every action and reaction is noted and analysed. It is professional, certainly, but whether it is relaxing or conducive to fearless cricket is another matter.Not that many in this England team play fearless cricket. With the exception of Pietersen and, to a lesser extent, Swann, England’s strength is consistency. They will attempt, in this series as in so many others, to grind Australia out of the game; to build up pressure until their opposition snaps; to make fewer mistakes.In Jonathan Trott, Cook and Anderson, they have supremely talented attritional cricketers. Lehmann and co. might be the more engaging company in a bar but, just as is the case when picking a surgeon or a pilot, substance often takes precedence over style.The careers of England and Australia players are often bookended by Ashes series and it just might prove that way with Flower. While Flower’s reputation is unquestionable – success in India might yet be remembered as the greatest achievement of the finest coach England have ever had – there seems of late, just a hint of a suspicion that he is tiring of the baggage that accompanies his high-profile position. Perhaps the players, subconsciously at least, are also yearning for a little more freedom and joy.There is only so often any leader can repeat the same wisdom without his words blurring in the ears of his followers and there was an impression that, under Ashley Giles, the limited-overs team appeared more relaxed and less intense. Flower has earned the right to go when he feels the time is due, but nearly everything has an expiry date and Flower may feel, after the Ashes tour of Australia ends in January, that he has reached his.Such issues can wait. There has been much talk of legacy in England cricket over the last few years and, over the next seven or so weeks, the players of both sides have the chance to build their own. It may not matter hugely in Bangalore or Bridgetown, but in England and Australia, in cricket at least, nothing matters more.

Sanjay Manjrekar and Sambit Bal talk about the sticky situation the Indian board finds itself in, and its president, who has become a magnet for negative opinion

05-Aug-2013Raunak Kapoor: Indian cricket finds itself facing a serious credibility crisis. Welcome to ESPNcricinfo for a special discussion on that very crisis, I am Raunak Kapoor, and joining me are former India batsman and television commentator Sanjay Manjrekar and ESPNcricinfo’s editor-in-chief Sambit Bal.We’ll get the thoughts of Sambit and Sanjay in just a moment but here’s what former India captain Rahul Dravid had to say in an exclusive interview when he spoke to Sambit Bal on the importance of credibility, especially when you live the public life.Rahul Dravid: There are so many fans and so many people who care deeply about this game and it is because of these fans that we are who we are as cricketers. Administrators are there because of the fans and the cricketers to run this game, so credibility of a game, or a board, or even a government for that matter, is important irrespective of what you do. If you are in public life it is important.Things like this don’t help, when we are on the front pages of the newspapers and not on the back. A certain amount of reverence, respect and love for cricketers can diminish, and I think it’s a really, really sad thing for cricket in this country if that had to happen.RK: Sanjay, I’ll start with you, Rahul emphasises how important credibility is. Now we seem to be in a situation where everyone seems to know exactly what the BCCI needs to do, except the BCCI themselves. Can we infer from this that the BCCI doesn’t really care about establishing credibility or safeguarding it?Sanjay Manjrekar: Completely agree with what Rahul has said about credibility. I think it is important. But let’s not forget India is a very strange country when it comes to cricket and the fans. They follow Indian cricket and – I’ve said this on public platforms – they follow Indian cricket unconditionally.When the match-fixing chapter was written in Indian cricket in 1999-2000, when some of the Indian stalwarts were banned, people thought Indian cricket had this severe jolt of credibility and it would all be downhill from then on. I remember there was an India-Zimbabwe series at home immediately after that particular event and every seat in the stadium was taken.So somewhere I think the administrators know that despite all this, the people will still follow this game passionately. There will still be those kind of numbers that make India such a powerhouse in world cricket, so that is where I think all of us are slightly fortunate: that despite making all kinds of mistakes which take their toll on the credibility of Indian cricket, the fans don’t seem to respond as much.You saw it in the last IPL as well. I know the final match was a bit damp because there were such glaring revelations before it, but it didn’t seem to do the kind of damage that one would have expected.Somewhere the administrators feel that they can get away with this, and I think that doesn’t quite help in building enough pressure in the management of Indian cricket.However, I think it is important to remember that the fan is evolving. New fans coming into the sport will be a lot more demanding on how Indian cricket functions, [especially with] social media coming into full force. I think the Indian fans have loved cricket unconditionally but that is something the administrators or the BCCI cannot take for granted for too long.RK: Sambit, the fans today seem to have a different approach. They seem to be more angry. They seem to want some kind of reform, but yet they remain loyal, as Sanjay said. The fact that there is such a loyal fan following, does it not add more responsibility on the administration?Sambit Bal: I think the fans have in their mind somehow separated cricket from BCCI. They seem to think that cricket is something else. If you go out and speak to anybody, sometimes, even unfairly, they blame the BCCI for everything. It’s a unique situation in India because you can’t do without cricket. There’s nothing else beside cricket, there’s no other sport.You don’t have an alternative, and sadly it’s a reality that credibility is not an aspiration for the Indian cricket board. What they aspire for is money, clout, power, and once those boxes are ticked, credibility hardly comes into the equation. I could say it’s a subcontinental trait. Some of them are dysfunctional, some of them are corrupt, and the BCCI are oblivious to everything else.RK: Sambit mentions about how the BCCI are sometimes prey to accusations that they don’t necessarily merit, but that seems to be a reputation that they’ve created by the way they handle themselves. Sanjay, you drew a comparison earlier with the 2000 match-fixing saga. Indian cricket has been through its highs and lows; this is probably the lowest it has ever hit. What is the difference in the way the BCCI handled both situations? Back then, we don’t remember blaming the BCCI as we are doing so right now.

“If an owner is arrested by the police on suspicion of either betting or other things, it’s a bit like staff in the office found guilty of malpractice, and the CEO, which is a bigger threat to the company”Sanjay Manjrekar

SM: To be fair, as Sambit said, I think the fans are able to separate the cricket body from the cricket players. So I think the cricket fans were really jolted back in 1999-2000, when some of the famous names were found to be guilty of match-fixing. Now with administrators and fringe players suspected of spot-fixing and being corrupt, I don’t think it’s as serious a jolt as it was that time when people like Mohammad Azharuddin, Ajay Jadeja who were big stars at the time, and some other names were being dragged in.That was a much more serious chapter and I thought the Indian cricket board at that time handled that issue much better than all the other cricket boards. Some of the other cricket boards were willing to brush everything under the carpet, which is now attributed more as the Indian style.In fact, India was the only country at the time willing to take some severe measures, banning Azharuddin for life; Ajay Jadeja as well. I think there was an effort made to tackle the issues.Hansie Cronje’s revelation would not have come had Hansie himself not come out in the open. His conscience started to trouble him. His cricket board actually tried to protect him and cover up the whole issue, so at that time I think the Indian cricket board handled the issue pretty well.The problem I think for the Indian cricket board is that all the internal inquiries that the BCCI has never hold water in court. Jadeja got his ban overthrown by the courts, Azharuddin did it very recently, and yet again a panel inquiry has been termed illegal by the courts. So I think that’s a lesson learned – that perhaps the internal inquiries that happen should have some merit when they are challenged in the courts of India.SB: It’s almost laughable that the inquiry that has been deemed illegal by the court [has been dismissed] really on technical grounds. The question that people should be asking is not about how the inquiry commission was set up but what it was set up to do. That’s what I find far more annoying, because this commission seems to have been set up with the singular objective of quickly giving a clean chit.We don’t know what the terms of reference were, and in fact one of the judges came out and said: The evidence can only be given by BCCI. We are not allowed to talk to the media or go out and gather any evidence ourselves. So it’s a strange case of the accused trying to form a committee. Who thought the police was actually going to depose before them?This was a domestic inquiry by a private body. So why did anybody think that the Delhi police and the Bombay police, who are professionally investigating the case, would go and depose?RK: The merits of it simply are that the court has booted the panel out on the grounds that it was against the operational rules of the BCCI, which required a member of the BCCI’s behavioural committee to be on it. If there was a member of the behavioural committee on it, then this panel’s findings would have stood.SB: In fact, BCCI is unlucky that they didn’t have a member from their committee on the panel. If they had, then this finding would have been valid and we would have had Mr Srinivasan back as president.RK: Sambit brought up the point, Sanjay, about what this panel was really set up to do. When this committee was formed, you said earlier that there should be more weight given to these domestic inquiries. What were you expecting this panel to do, and has it really lived up to expectations?SM: It was an internal inquiry, with all its limitations. It would never have the information or the evidence that you want to make a judgement and decide whether one is clean or guilty. That would have come only if they had police reports, which they weren’t going to have.The Mumbai police, from what we hear, didn’t cooperate with the panel, so it had its limitations, and the verdict they’ve pronounced hasn’t taken anyone by surprise.Raj Kundra has not been officially accused of wrongdoing, so what has he been cleared of by the BCCI’s panel?•AFPI think what is going to be critical is getting the real verdict, and the correct action will be seen only once one gets the police reports from Delhi and Mumbai. Once you have that – and I’m sure that will also be challenged in the courts – I think it’s only then that you will know whether Gurunath Meiyappan and Raj Kundra were guilty and were acting against the IPL and doing some damage to its credibility, and of course because of the relationship to the president of the BCCI.SB: A false impression has been created. I’m not saying that the BCCI has created that impression, but I think the way the matter has been reported, it is as if these guys were accused of spot-fixing. Nobody knows what they have been cleared of. Nobody accused either Meiyappan or Raj Kundra, forget Mr Srininvasan, he was never accused of anything, so what have they been cleared of? Clearly [information from the] police investigation that has come out in the public domain suggests that both these people have supposedly or reportedly confessed to betting.Betting per se has nothing to do with cricket, but betting is illegal in this country, and what is the most important thing for me in this whole thing is the matter of propriety. There was a ridiculous suggestion made or explanation given that Meiyappan was not a team owner. Maybe technically he was not, but what was he doing in the dugout, wearing “Team Owner” badges? It’s on video. If he was not an owner then he was breaking the IPL’s rules match after match. The only people who are supposed to be in the dugout according to IPL rules and constitution are team owners.SM: This is why I made a comment on a public platform, that an owner or somebody senior who was supposedly in charge of a cricket team, if he’s arrested by the police on suspicion of either betting or other things – that I think is a more serious threat to the IPL, because it’s a bit like staff in the office found guilty of malpractice, and the CEO of the company, which is a bigger threat to the company, and the problem I have with owners getting involved in betting is the logical thought of suspicion that the fans and everybody would have then of: how can you be sure that it’s only going to be betting, because it’s such a fine line from betting and being able to win your bets by controlling some aspects of the team you are an owner of.So that’s why when you have owners betting on matches where their team is participating, it is a very, very dangerous trend, and that’s why I think it should be viewed with gravity and as a serious threat.I’ve been a huge fan of the IPL. Last season, when you saw owners being accused of betting in the IPL and one owner actually confessing that he was betting – that, for me, is a huge dent to the image of the IPL.SB: And you also saw, Sanjay, two kinds of responses that came from the board. When the police accused the players, the action was decisive. The players were suspended immediately. No questions asked. Nobody said, “We will do our own investigations.” They appointed a committee, but they took clear and immediate action.But when it came to the team owners – and I’m going to say that Raj Kundra and Rajasthan Royals were fortunate that Chennai Super Kings were also involved in this – then you saw a different kind of response. They said we will inquire into this, and they have given them a clean chit, [after] an internal inquiry.So what will happen if Ravi Sawani’s commission, which is taking much longer – and that’s how it should be; I don’t think you can investigate this in 30 days – so if Ravi Sawani’s report is clear and the investigation is still going on and these guys are still in jail, will the BCCI take them back?RK: We’ve spoke about the propriety issue. The BCCI made all the right noises back then when the players were arrested, and that’s probably what created the expectation. They perhaps missed a great opportunity one would think when it came to the team owners.The police investigation is still ongoing but that will take its course. Sanjay, you mentioned that we must wait to see what course that takes and what the verdict is, but let’s get into the three words that seem to have summed up this controversy: conflict of interest. Don’t you think it is ideal for Mr Srinivasan – not that we are accusing him of any wrongdoing, as Sambit said, but isn’t it right on moral grounds that he simply step aside?SM: Okay, this is what I have to say about Mr Srinivasan. You know there are lots of things to like about him as an administrator. The first thing is he is an administrator who came from the grassroots. He is not one of those administrators who develop a sudden interest in cricket and want to take the top job in cricket administration.He had his own company team, and the stories that I’ve heard is that he would have one of his men sitting there during the club matches and keep him posted on what his team’s score was. He was a man who was very interested in his company team, at the club level, so a man genuinely fond of the game.It took him a long time to climb the ladder, and I’m told he was reluctant to get into the state administration of cricket, but that happened in due course. So he’s a guy who has grown through the system, which is excellent.But I think what has happened in the last few months has become more of a personal thing with the president of the BCCI, and the question he needs to ask himself is: the position that he’s taken in the last few months, is it helping the image of Indian cricket? Is it good for Indian cricket? And we know what the answer to that is.SB: I agree with most of what Sanjay has said. I don’t know Mr Srinivasan that well but I’ve spent about an hour or so with him and it’s easy to see his love for cricket. To say that he is a man of cricket – he is, there is no doubt about that.But I don’t think this is a thing that has happened in the last five or six months. I think it started the moment the BCCI’s rules allowed a BCCI office bearer to own an IPL team. It was always going to lead to this. I don’t [know] how some people think it’s not a conflict of interest. I’ve had this discussion with many people – and these are people I trust and respect – and they don’t see it as a conflict of interest.

“When the police accused the players, the action was decisive. The players were suspended immediately. No questions asked. Nobody said we will do our own investigations into this. But when it came to the team owners, you saw a different kind of response”Sambit Bal

How can you run a board, be the president of a board, and own a team that is supposed to be equal to the other eight teams? You make the rules, you decide on disciplinary matters, and this latest incident is just an extension of that. When Mr Srinivasan’s son-in-law was arrested and accused of something, he said, “What have I done?”He did step aside but he didn’t do that voluntarily. He did it after there was enormous pressure on him to do it. I don’t know how you do not see a situation where your own board is investigating your son-in-law, and how can you remain president?It’s not a question of whether you have done something wrong, it’s a question of propriety, perception, and all those things put together, and it comes with holding a high office and a public office.SM: I think Sambit is quite right, I think that is the basis of the angst that people have against Mr Srinivasan, because every time they attack him, they go to the clash-of-interest issue, and I think that is something the cricketing community outside of the BCCI has never been comfortable with. I’m sure in the English cricket board and the Australian cricket board, we would never have a situation like this.So yes, I think that is something that has always gone against him, and if you see in this whole spot-fixing thing, the media has gone more after Srinivasan than [they have] actually put pressure on the BCCI to cleanse Indian cricket or the IPL. So it has become a very personal thing between Srinivasan and the media. I think the clash of interest is the major reason why people are out to attack him.The other thing that has happened, unfortunately, under his regime is that the image of the BCCI has worsened in the last two years despite, I’m sure, his best efforts. There is an image of arrogance that the BCCI has at the moment, which is unfortunate, and I think the BCCI should realise that they may not like the media, but media is the one channel that gets through to the millions and millions of cricket fans that they have.If they keep the media in good spirits, they’ll have a much healthier relationship with their fans. I’m not saying that suddenly the media will support the BCCI. As an administrative organisation, they should know that they’ll get more criticism than praise, but in times like this I think they would have just got a better deal from the media.Why is the media again making such an issue of the spot-fixing thing? Because Srinivasan has come back into power, it’s almost as if they don’t care if spot-fixing is erased from IPL or corruption is removed, it’s more like they want Srinivasan removed.SB: In a sense it’s deflecting attention from the real issues. Srinivasan is not the real issue. I’m afraid the real issues of spot-fixing and betting will be forgotten and Srinivasan will become the target.I want to add one little point to what Sanjay was saying on the BCCI’s relationship with the media. What I’ve seen in the last couple of years is that there is a tendency to think, either you’re with us or against us, and that is not the media’s job, and that is what the BCCI has systematically gone and done with its commentators. “If you work on a BCCI platform, you have to be almost a marketing person for us.”You had to effectively be a cheerleader for Indian cricket and the BCCI, and that is why they’ve not only destroyed their own credibility, they have single-handedly destroyed the credibility of all cricket commentators in this country. There are a few exceptions. One of them is of course on our show now, and I hope, Sanjay, that you don’t lose your job because of this.RK: Last question to both of you. If all the attention has gone rightly or wrongly to Mr Srinivasan, it is he who is surely in the best position to make it go away, isn’t he?SM: Ideally, yes, he would sense that by him just stepping aside and by the law taking its natural course, that might just help the image of the BCCI at the moment.You know, somewhere I think Srinivasan would genuinely be feeling, “I have done nothing wrong and I just have this relationship with a person who has been alleged to be betting.” So until that is proved, he must be feeling in his own mind that he’s got all the right to be president of the BCCI, a position that he’s earned, a position that I’m sure is not easy to occupy, with the kind of politicians in the Indian system for somebody who is not a politician. A man who is just a cricket administrator with a very impressive corporate background – I’m sure it’s not easy for him to occupy such a position. As I said, the question that he needs to ask himself is: what is in the best interest of the BCCI and Indian cricket?SB: You know, sometimes it’s not easy to do that, but if you can manage to slightly detach yourself from the present and see how history is going to judge you… in fact, I think his dignity and respect will only rise in the eyes of the people if he does what is expected of him. Step aside, let the law take its course, and whether he will come back as BCCI president or not, in the span of a lifetime, it perhaps won’t matter. People might remember him as somebody who did the right thing. That should count for something.RK: We’ll end on that note gentlemen. Thank you very much for your time, Sanjay Manjrekar and Sambit Bal.Do log on to the site for the latest developments on this story, and also do keep an eye out for the full video interview with Rahul Dravid, which should be out soon.