All posts by n8rngtd.top

India’s Under-19 World Cup winners may be barely old enough to drink but they’ve got big money chasing them. It’s important that they get help to stay grounded and make sure they don’t lose their way

Jamie Alter06-Mar-2008

“Nothing can be judged from Under-19 cricket,” Robin Singh, the former India cricketer, said after the 2004 Under-19 World Cup. “It is several notches below first-class standards. The most important phase in a cricketer’s development is between 19 and 24.”The sad part is, U-19 gets more hype than a Ranji final,” he added. His words ring truer than ever now as, a few days on from India’s victory in the 2008 edition of the tournament, in Kuala Lumpur, the nation toasts the young side’s success. There has been a parade through Bangalore, a grand ceremony at the Chinnaswamy Stadium, and plenty of keen advertising agents ready to latch on to these young players’ success. The Indian board has announced a cash reward of Rs 15 lakh (US$37,500 approx) for each of the players, and brands like Reebok and United Breweries are eager to cash in on the young stars. Reebok already have Ravindra Jadeja, Manish Pandey, Iqbal Abdulla and Shreevats Goswami. Pandey, not yet 19, has also been signed on for US$105,000 by the UB-owned Indian Premier League Bangalore team. Other brands are reportedly interested as well.Too much too soon? Chandrakant Pandit, a former player with plenty of coaching experience, thinks the players need to keep themselves grounded. “The money will come later. What remains to be seen is what’s important for players,” he told Cricinfo. “Let us see how seriously they take the game. It depends purely on the individuals and how they handle their success.”Even Rahul Dravid, the only one from the U-19 class of 1991 to go on to play for India, has weighed in with a word of caution.The lost generation
Why the worry? Shouldn’t the side just be appreciated? Well, yes, but there are lessons to be learned as well – especially from India’s 2000 U-19 World Cup team. That side, led by Mohammad Kaif, included Yuvraj Singh, Ajay Ratra and Reetinder Sodhi. Pause for a moment to ponder these names who were also there: Manish Sharma, Ravneet Ricky, Venugopal Rao, Niraj Patel, Shalabh Srivastava, Anup Dave and Mrityunjay Tripathi.Sharma and Ricky were stars at the 2000 tournament but failed to register much success afterwards. Ricky once admitted he made the mistake of thinking he would definitely play for India. Sodhi played 18 ODIs but couldn’t make the cut in the long term. Rao (16 ODIs) and Patel ended up domestic giants but not much more. Ratra captained the U-19s to victory over England in a home series but became a victim of poor handling, and despite becoming the youngest wicketkeeper to score a Test hundred, struggled to find a Ranji team for a while. Srivastava was third on the wicket-takers’ list in the 2000 U-19 World Cup but wasn’t given his due. Disillusioned by the powers that be and unemployed, he switched to a Plate Group team last year, Railways, and subsequently joined the Indian Cricket League. Dave and Tripathi simple faded away. Only Yuvraj and Kaif made the step up.There will be transitional phases in the lives of the current lot, not to mention distractions. The ICL, which will conduct four additional tournaments in 2008, has attracted plenty of youngsters with lucrative contracts. The flip side? They have been barred from competing in any other form of domestic cricket. The BCCI has instructed junior cricketers to wait before signing with the Indian Premier League, but when huge sums of money are up for grabs for a two-month extravaganza, will these youngsters – at an age when decision-making isn’t the strongest suit – be able to resist? There are also plenty of agents monitoring talent who are eager to pitch the U-19 stars to IPL teams in order to influence their equity. These young players can earn sizeable packets from signing with brands, much like their role models, the senior cricketers.

First-class first
Venkatesh Prasad, bowling coach of the India senior side, hopes the myth that the next step after U-19 success is the senior side is debunked. “When I was the coach, as soon as they played U-19 their next expectation was the Indian team, which I couldn’t understand. I don’t agree with that, unless a player is exceptionally good,” he says. “At that level it’s a learning curve. They need to be playing a minimum of two years of first-class competitions, and probably from there they could graduate to the next step, the Duleep Trophy. That’s the right approach.”Prasad believes four or five years of domestic cricket would do a U-19 player plenty of good if he is ever selected for India. “They would be more mature, they would understand what it requires to succeed at this level. They have to wait for the right time. That’s where it is very important the respective coaches in their states handle them and show them the right direction and don’t overload the players or burn them out.”Singh thinks it is the job of the state associations to nurture youngsters. “At 19 you don’t know much about what is right and wrong, and if they go astray the states should take care of them. What are the academies for? They need to make sure the players are making use of the various structures properly.”It is a view that Lalchand Rajput, who coached an U-19 team to successful tours of England and Pakistan in 2006, echoes. “The key is to get them mentally strong. It’s the responsibility of the coaches and the state association to monitor the same. If opportunities are not given at the right time then the player loses his appetite and gets frustrated.”It is in Ranji Trophy cricket that players really make the transition, say those who have been there.
“The difference between the Under-19 level and first-class cricket is huge. You can’t play the same way and expect to consistently excel,” says Pandit. “Bowlers around the country can sort you out in no time and within a few weeks all the players know your weaknesses. You need to constantly adapt your game, which most of these players are not used to at the lower levels.”Ratra agrees. “Ranji is where a player really learns and matures. You play tougher teams and older players and that matters tremendously. At 19 your body may seem ready, but mentally you still have a ways to go. These players need to play with seniors – and plenty in this side already are – to hone their skills.””Most of the youngsters are happy to perform at the U-19 level, but unless it’s an outstanding talent, those performances don’t matter much at the higher level,” adds Rajput. “I look for people who perform above their potential.Feet on the ground

The need for sound management seems to be the running theme. In the day of satellite television, brand endorsements and Twenty20 cricket, these youngsters need a firm hand guiding them and keeping them grounded.

With the win comes an overdose of adulation and big bucks, and there are more distractions today than ever before, Roger Binny, who coached the 2000 winners, points out. Binny says market forces now virtually dictate the game and believes India needs to follow the Australian prototype. “In Australia the development of junior cricketers is based completely within the state programme. Playing in tournaments is then just a part of the process. Their young players are groomed, there are counselling sessions where specialists tell them how to conduct themselves and what to expect.”These players are too young to take big decisions. The management here should have similar training sessions for our stars. For example, have a marketing or media expert come in and conduct a seminar on how to handle money and all the excess attention.”Ravi Shastri, a member of the IPL’s governing council and chairman of the National Cricket Academy, recently said young players would be given much-needed financial advice. Shastri spoke of Dav Whatmore, the coach of the U-19 side, as an advisor, and even suggested that parents of cricketers be invited for counselling with their sons. Ian Chappell said on Cricinfo that with all the IPL money pouring in, what Shastri said about advising young players must be followed through with or the board runs the risk of players falling by the wayside.Whatmore may be the best man for a crucial role in this regard. In his first season in India he has displayed that he is an extremely hands-on coach, always participating in any exercise and training drill he conducts. His reputation as a skilled professional precedes him, and the results have been impressive. A couple of the players have said that Whatmore was more involved than any of the other coaches they saw during the World Cup, and how, even if someone had a bad day, he would never belittle or criticise them. The team respects him and believes in him. Whatmore could forseeably be a father figure.To counter the rising concern over young cricketers being paid so much money early in their careers, the BCCI has decided that U-19 cricketers will be eligible only for one-year IPL contracts. In the wake of the elaborate auction of the bigger stars on February 20, the IPL franchises have been busy trying to sign up their quota of Under-22 players and other local players from the catchment areas. The BCCI is said to be considering a rule to have U-22 players play for their home teams. Franchises are also advocating that there be a limit on the amounts that can be paid for junior players, but will all this come to pass?It’s difficult to tell what route India’s U-19 winners will take. Many, if not all, will have to decide between whether to pursue a cricket career or study further. Age may also factor in. If some cannot find places in their respective state sides, after a point they may just leave the game. At this point in time, you can only hope they use the wonderful platform they have and go further.

In its third edition now, Steven Lynch’s book is a reliable and readable quick-reference tool for cricket over the next year

Steven Price23-Nov-2008

It’s been a tumultuous 12 months for international cricket, and the following year promises to be no less dramatic as the Test game tries to ward off the increasing dominance of Twenty20. It is therefore comforting to find something where you know what you are going to get.The latest version of follows the format of the two previous editions, and gives a rundown of all the players expected to appear at the top level over the next 12 months. Compact profiles, allied with extensive statistics from Cricinfo’s huge database, make for a valuable, quick-reference tool for anyone trying to keep up with who’s who.Products such as this don’t offer huge scope for development – the basic premise is simple – but with Steven Lynch at the helm one can be assured of a readable and high-quality product. With a crystal ball in hand, it is interesting to see who is being tipped for international honours in the near future. Kent opener Joe Denly is the biggest punt, and is one of only four players included who didn’t have an international cap when the book went to print. The other three are all Australians – Bryce McGain, Doug Bollinger and Peter Siddle. Siddle has since played a Test, McGain would have done except for injury.At the opposite end of the spectrum are those clinging to the hope for a recall, such as Michael Vaughan. Some, of course, have already departed, including Anil Kumble and Sourav Ganguly. One notable omission is Pakistan’s Mohammad Asif, so perhaps there is some inside knowledge on his future.The element of prediction and the constraints of the print format means there is always the risk of it being caught off guard. For example, there is no entry for India’s latest legspinner, Amit Mishra, who will be giving England few sleepless nights in the weeks ahead. Looking at the bigger picture, it remains to be seen how long books of this style will survive in an age where information is readily available online.The honour of the English cover this year goes to Kevin Pietersen as he prepares for 12 months that will define his career, and he also appears on the Indian version, while the Australian edition carries Ricky Ponting. The battle between the two cover stars is the most eagerly anticipated clash of 2009, and whoever comes out on top will have a new-look profile next year.
The Cricinfo Guide to International Cricket 2009
edited by Steven Lynch
John Wisden £8.99; Rs350; Aus$19.95

If Michael Clarke wants to graduate as a true great of the game he must seek a promotion in the Australian order and aim to finish his career at No. 3

Peter English at Headingley08-Aug-2009If Michael Clarke wants to graduate as a true great of the game he must seek a promotion in the Australian order and aim to finish his career at No. 3. It’s the position for the team’s best player and if Clarke can replicate his form in this Ashes every couple of series he will soon be wrestling Ricky Ponting for that title.Whatever the result of this five-game contest, Ponting should be in no hurry to leave the set-up and will enter at first drop until he’s had enough, but Clarke’s rise has to begin to give the side extra strength early in an innings. During his first year as an international Clarke found himself at four after entering originally at six and was dropped after three matches. Since coming back in 2006 he has spent almost all his time at No. 5 and done extremely well, taking his career average to a formidable 50.58 in 51 Tests. The only asterisk comes with his position.It is time for the vice-captain to take on more responsibility as he prepares for a seemingly inevitable takeover of the leadership and major batting duties. Ponting is 34 and likely to continue patching his team together until the 2011 World Cup, when he will probably decide whether to wave the bat for the final time. Clarke will be 30 then, the ideal age for a captain as long as he has the support of his men.Currently he looks like he will be a leader by example rather than a man to provide psychological prods; a regular run-maker instead of a commander convincing his unit of the same way forward. In the form he has been in England there is no doubt over the quality of his stroke-play.The initial promotion to No. 4 is easy and involves a simple swap with Michael Hussey, who would benefit from the reduction in duties as he tries to regain the consistency of his first three years as a Test player. Clarke needs the extra stress to hone his mind for the future, when he will be required to enter as early as the second delivery of an innings, facing fresh fast bowlers with the first new ball instead of tiring quicks with the one offered after 80 overs.Clarke has been exceptional throughout this series, holding Australia together at Lord’s and Edgbaston and pushing them to the brink of leveling the rubber at Headingley. Today’s innings was a crucial display and he deserved a third hundred, but left with 93 after missing an inswinging full toss from Graham Onions. Until then he had splashed runs on the second morning, benefiting from England’s awful lines to drive, whip and pull, and showing no signs of the stomach problem which hampered him before the match.Steve Harmison dropped short early and was cross-batted to mid-on while James Anderson was struck straight with such force that the ball had already passed the bowler when he put his hand out. Clarke’s best shot was a flick from outside off stump to Anderson that sped through square leg. It was the sign of a batsman at his peak, someone who could do anything until that full toss arrived. He left with 445 runs in the series at 89.00, the best of the contest, and a convincing argument for promotion.Ponting’s career included an early elevation to No. 3 but it was not until England in 2001, six years into his career, that he made it his position. Clarke can follow a similar journey north when Ponting walks away.Valuing Clarke in this critical way is like examining a diamond to discover whether it’s medium or high grade. He’s undoubtedly a special jewel but has to decide whether he wants to become a national treasure.

Can Australia’s captain rebuild an empire ravaged by age and retirement?

John Stern10-Apr-2009Three days before the start of the Test series in South Africa the cream of Australian cricket are in the bar of their Johannesburg hotel; a dozen or so young men in jeans and designer t-shirts, most of them as unrecognisable as the France Under-19 rugby team also touring South Africa in late February. A few yards away at a quiet table their captain, one of the game’s greatest batsmen and an instantly recognisable face, is talking like the boss of an ailing business: re-evaluation, renewal and opportunity.
“We’re going through what any other international team, whatever the sport, goes through,” he says in a matter-of-fact manner that does not begin to do justice to the magnitude of the upheavals in Australian cricket over the past two years. Welcome to earth, Ricky.”Matty … Gilly … McGrath … Warne … Langer.” Ricky Ponting rattles off the names. He might as well have been saying “John, Paul, George and Ringo”, such is the stellar familiarity of these all-time greats. Australia’s line-up for the Sydney Ashes Test in January 2007 was: Justin Langer, Matthew Hayden, Ponting, Michael Hussey, Michael Clarke, Andrew Symonds, Adam Gilchrist, Shane Warne, Brett Lee, Stuart Clark, Glenn McGrath. Test caps: 787. Results since October 2005: P17, W16, D1, L0.Their side that faced South Africa in Johannesburg in February read: Phillip Hughes, Simon Katich, Ponting, Hussey, Clarke, Marcus North, Brad Haddin, Andrew McDonald, Mitchell Johnson, Peter Siddle, Ben Hilfenhaus. Test caps: 287. Results since start of 2008 up to the start of that Test: P15, W6, D4, L5.On top of the retirements Ponting had to make do in South Africa without Lee and Clark (both injured) and Symonds (suspended by Cricket Australia). Ponting puts a brave face on this landslide of talent, but he must have had to change the way he captains the side. “You absolutely do. Different scenarios come up in a game where once upon a time you’d turn to a guy to get a job done. Now that experience, and in some cases expertise, isn’t there.” He is being very diplomatic, but one senses that Anglo-Saxon words of one syllable might have cropped up in his innermost thoughts – or, in the case of the overheard expletive during the recent one-dayer against New Zealand, his outermost thoughts.Ponting became a father last year, but he is involved in parenting of a different kind with this Australian team. He must have used the expression “young guys” a dozen times during the course of the interview. It is a bit like Nasser Hussain when Andrew Strauss came on to the scene. He used to bang on about “young lads like Strauss”, who happened to be 27 at the time.Not many of Ponting’s “young guys” are actually that young, and at 36, the Victorian legspinner Bryce McGain is older than the captain, who is 34. But in terms of international experience many are novices and it is that immense challenge that Ponting faces.Allan Border faced it in the 1980s, but he had not enjoyed the all-conquering highs of Ponting and his peers. Border came in when Australia were almost at rock bottom. The only way was up. Ponting thought his side was through the worst of it six months ago, but “we’ve had another couple of retirements and key blokes on the sidelines which puts us right back in that transition phase”.

The admission by Ponting that Australia were in transition and not simply suffering a blip (as Ashes 2005 was widely referred to) seemed a big public statement. “I was just stating the facts,” he says with a ‘what was I supposed to say’ smile.The state of the team has necessitated a total rethink in strategy and tactics. “We have to find ways and means of getting over those hurdles,” Ponting says. “I’m still learning a fair bit about some of these guys and what they can and can’t cope with. There are things that have happened to me in the last three months that haven’t happened to me in my whole international career. You have to sit back, evaluate and re-evaluate where you are and where the team’s at and make yourself a better person and a better player.”He explains that the team now is micro-managed in a way that would have been unthinkable three years ago. “I made it clear halfway through last [Australian] summer to the senior players and coaches that we have to be spot on with everything we do and that we can’t afford to have any confusion. This means that pretty much every week I am sitting down with the coaches to plan everything that is done and said. It’s time-consuming but it has to be done, otherwise you get all sorts of confused messages.”In the March issue of TWC, Mickey Arthur, the South Africa coach, revealed a similar approach but implied it was standard 21st-century practice. The implication, refuted by Ponting of course, was that this attention to detail was not standard practice in what might be termed the Warne-McGrath era. In reality there would have been more devolved responsibility because there could be: great players who knew how to prepare and how to perform.Ponting’s instincts are that players should learn for themselves, and he portrays his own cricket education as a triumph of self-teaching. “I’ve always been good at picking up things other people do. That’s how I learnt about the game. I’ve never had my own batting coach.” One senses that there has been a major cultural shift, a reality check that has been a monumental eye-opener for the captain.An official with the South African squad had noticed a change in Ponting’s demeanour since their series in Australia in December and January: that he had previously been aloof but had now “lightened up”. That observation tallies with the sense that Ponting is gradually coming to terms with the current state of affairs. As in other areas of society the boom years are over. Recession has kicked in.But mention of England and their bizarre month or so of mishaps brings a smile. “Yeah, there’s been a bit happening,” he laughs. “Everywhere they go something seems to go wrong.” But he resists absolutely the temptation for big statements on the Ashes. The old bravado and the McGrath-style 5-0 predictions have gone, relics of a bygone age.”We’ll see what happens,” Ponting says. Is he still optimistic about the Ashes? “Absolutely. The feeling around the whole of Australia has just been doom and gloom but we did some things really well [against South Africa at home]. The gap between our best cricket and worst was too vast. We’re not that far off.” He says he was encouraged, too, by the performances in India late last year: “We had chances to win a couple of Tests.” But these are slim pickings. They lost two major series 2-0 and 2-1, the one victory coming in a dead rubber.It is like listening to an England captain of the 1990s scrambling in the rubble in search of a jewel. The difference is that Australia’s fall, rapid and remarkable though it has been, left them still battling to retain their No.1 status when they began their series against South Africa in late February. All things are relative.A sea change from the last Ashes squad•Getty ImagesA Mike Gatting persona
Ponting arrives for the interview unsmiling and tense, though he relaxes quickly as we get chatting. In one of his annually published diaries he has written that he considers
himself shy and envies Adam Gilchrist’s ability to speak freely in all company. He is small but solid, compact and combative. His upper body looks strong, from thick wrists through swarthy arms to biceps emerging discreetly from his grey collared t-shirt as he leans cross-armed on the small table. His round face, taut and grim at first, creases quickly and often into a cheeky, twinkle-eyed grin. One can picture him easily as a sport-obsessed boy scrapping for recognition in Mowbray, the working-class suburb of Launceston, Tasmania’s second city. He has a steely, driven, self-starting look about him. It is not a huge leap of imagination to picture him getting into those infamous scraps a decade or so ago in India and outside the Bourbon and Beefsteak nightclub in Sydney’s notorious King’s Cross district, incidents that resulted in a very public carpeting by the Australian board.There is something of Mike Gatting about him in persona: both are sport-mad (Ponting, famously nicknamed Punter, owns greyhounds and loves horse-racing, golf and Aussie Rules); both have outrageous batting talent (though Gatting’s remained less fulfilled at the highest level); both appear uncomplicated, governed by instinct more than intellect; both have been captains of mixed success, relative to expectations, and been troubled by their reactions to politically sensitive incidents (Shakoor Rana for Gatting, “Monkeygate” for Ponting).Mark Ray, the cricket writer and former captain of Tasmania, remembers being told by Neville Oliver, the late Tasmanian cricket broadcaster, during the 1980s of a “kid in Launceston who was going to be better than Boonie”. David Boon, also from Launceston and now an Australian selector, was the benchmark for the young Ponting, though another batsman whose name began with “B” is a more legitimate comparison. Or is he? “That’s our game, innit?” Ponting says with a shrug. “Nobody’s comparable to him in our game. It was like he was playing a different game. It’s hard to believe anybody’s played better than Tendulkar or Lara, but there’s someone out there who was twice as good.” Ponting goes on to recount the “unbelievable experience” as a 15-year-old at the Australian academy of meeting Don Bradman at the Adelaide Oval in the early 1990s. Not once does he refer to Bradman by name.Boon was the benchmark but Kim Hughes was the idol. The young Ponting loved his flamboyance, “the way he took on the Windies, hooking and pulling”. It figures. Ponting is the most classically complete batsman in the world. He obviously loves batting and he
loves studying batsmanship. He paints word-perfect batting portraits of the Waugh twins, as if these analyses have been stored deep within his subconscious for years. “I’ve always studied older players. Why was Steve Waugh so powerful off the back foot through the covers? Why was Mark so good at flicking the ball through midwicket? Why was neither that good against the short ball? I analyse it and pick it to pieces.” But the suggestion that style matters is shouted down. “Not at all. It’s not how, it’s how many. That’s what I tell all our youngsters.”Does he have what it takes?
For those “youngsters”, the burden of succession, growing up in the shadow of great deeds must be unbearable. “That’s been the hard thing for our spinners, especially
coming into the side over the last 12 months. They’re compared to Warnie straightaway. It’s not fair on them and it’s important that I and the other senior players don’t look at them that way.” Up to the start of the Test series in South Africa Australia had used six specialist spinners in Tests since Shane Warne’s retirement two years ago. Between them they took 48 wickets at 52.

“I’ve always studied older players. Why was Steve Waugh so powerful off the back foot through the covers? Why was Mark so good at flicking the ball through midwicket? Why was neither that good against the short ball? I analyse it and pick it to pieces”

It is arguably Ponting’s misfortune to be in charge as a remarkable period of dominance comes to an end. He has convinced himself otherwise. “This is a pretty exciting time in my career. There’s a great opportunity for this group of guys to forge their own identity.” Managing the public’s expectations is impossible. “Publicly you want to back your team-mates and you want them to hear some of the positive things you’re saying about them. But by doing that their expectations become a bit higher. It’s a tough one to get right.”He claims not to have thought about packing it in, or indeed when he might end his career. There have been plenty of pundits over the past year who have thought differently, most notably Peter Roebuck who called for Ponting’s head after the Harbhajan Singh-Symonds “monkey” row in January last year in a sensational front-page article for the . It was a reaction that Ponting describes as “well and truly over the top”, taking solace in what he believes to be a supportive public.There are hardly queues of people to praise Ponting’s captaincy. He was made to look ponderous by Michael Vaughan in the 2005 Ashes. Asked if he is becoming a better captain, he says: “You have to think that. You learn things about your team-mates and yourself every day that make you a better captain. There are more challenges now than a couple of years ago but I certainly believe I’m becoming a better captain and a better leader of a younger group of players.”One can surmise that for the first four years of Ponting’s captaincy leadership came as much from within the team as from the top. Now things have changed so drastically that the requirements have also changed. This year will tell us whether Ponting has what it takes. It’s an opportunity for these guys to forge their own identity.

Salman Butt has intrinsically the mind to play a Test innings, but most always finds himself needing to secure his spot

Osman Samiuddin at Bellerive Oval16-Jan-2010The short, interrupted career of Salman Butt tells a great, sad story of Pakistan cricket and its cricketers. It is about the talent of men, not
exceptional perhaps but fit enough to succeed globally, existing anywhere in the world in whatever circumstance. It is also about the poor habits that come with unchecked talent. But it is most about not knowing how the talent should be nurtured and not knowing how fragile it can be.Before the Sydney Test, Butt talked about batting well but not scoring big. Meekly he added that being in and out of the side hadn’t helped much. It is such a usual thing for Pakistan players to say that the significance of what they are actually saying is often forgotten. To remind, Butt has
already been dropped times from the Pakistan team in only 27 Tests. That means he has had to make his way back into the side eight times already by the age of 25 over six years, each time knowing that another edge, a leg-before, a little mistake might be the last, for a
while at any rate.Butt has been dropped when he hasn’t been scoring, and dropped when he has been; once, he scored a fifty and a hundred in Australia and was dropped one Test later in India. That will do as much for your self-belief as finding out your spouse has been cheating on you. A therapist might be more useful than a coach.He is here still after that first trip but he has gone a long, twisted way in five years to get back to where he began. The sadness is that he comes here his career not having gone much further. This series – like that first one – is still about securing his spot.Partly he must admit the fault is his. For such a player, he has careless ways. The running, as Pakistan again discovered, is far too lazy for someone so young. He doesn’t harry nearly enough for runs, content with singles where the more alert sniff out two. Already in his career he has been cautioned a few times for running down the centre of the pitch and in the run-out of Umar Akmal yesterday, he paid for it, running into Nathan Hauritz.The concentration can also be loose and usually at key moments. At the beginning of an innings, just after he has settled, soon after fifties or hundreds, these are dangerous times for Butt. He has good wrists but not the greatest hands, so keeping up a steady patter of singles – an essential batting discipline now – is difficult. More batting sense is needed. A little more in the field wouldn’t be amiss either.But Pakistan needs to know that the good much outweighs the bad and that these are materials that can be worked with. They should’ve known it five years ago but he has to be, from here on in, at least one half-answer to the vexing problem of their opening, in Tests and ODIs.Butt has intrinsically the mind to play a Test innings, to bat long, which is always priceless in Pakistan. He can bat long and doesn’t always get fazed by scoreless periods. Once in Multan, a solid England attack played with his head, placing two short covers and drying up his scoring. He held out for a second Test hundred and a fifty, batting nearly eleven hours in the process. Eight ODI hundreds, in a different way, say much the same thing.His captain reckons he plays better on difficult pitches. Certainly he has prospered enough in Australia now to become a part of that rarest Pakistan fraternity: batsmen who do well in the land of fast, bouncy surfaces.His third Test hundred has come far too long after his second, nearly half a decade. But it was an important one, for him, for Pakistan. Quite a typical one too: moments of carelessness, but prolonged bouts of beauty, patience and good sense. The leg-side game has sharpened and expanded. The touch on the off remains, as ever, finely measured.There came one moment, off Mitchell Johnson, when he no more than guided a ball off the bat, to the left of gully, the right of point and the left of a square, deeper gully as well, guided it as delicately as a cat burglar skipping through the infrared alarms at fancy museums; suddenly the
Bellerive Oval looked even more beautiful than it already is.The innings took some nerve. The dressing room cannot have been a fun place to be in after yesterday’s run-outs and the night would have been spent uneasily taken with the headlines morning would bring. The sense, all in all, was only how he is not more of a player than he has been so far?

The ICC’s new vice-president is a man who is careful to think before he speaks and won’t shy away from being described as a pragmatist

David Leggat10-Aug-2010Alan Isaac is used to cricket challenges. In his playing days, the man slated as heir apparent to the ICC presidency, was a well-respected left-hand batsman in Wellington senior club cricket. He was good enough to captain the province’s B team for three seasons, but that was as good as it got. Finding a place in the senior Wellington side in those days wasn’t easy. Wellington’s batting was strong in the 1980s. Bruce Edgar, Robert Vance, John Morrison, Jeremy Coney and Evan Gray, all Test players, had a lock on batting spots. It was, needless to say, a pretty strong outfit.Those in the know remember the man they call “Zac” as a solid, dependable batsman who knew his limitations and sold his wicket dearly. He had made age-group representative teams, and played senior rugby for three Wellington clubs, mainly at fullback.Isaac was made a partner of accounting firm KPMG at 24, and became treasurer of the Wellington Cricket Association around the same time. Fourteen years ago, he was made chairman of partners at KPMG and retained the job until stepping away in 2006. The 58-year-old businessman faces another set of stiff challenges in the years to come, assuming his path to the presidency, around June 2012, proceeds smoothly.These are testing times for the game. Isaac will serve as Sharad Pawar’s deputy for two years, learning the ropes before stepping up. He sits on a range of boards, including the high-profile Rugby New Zealand 2011 Ltd board, overseeing the biggest sports event in New Zealand since the 1990 Commonwealth Games – next year’s Rugby World Cup – and is well regarded as a seasoned, astute operator.He makes no bones about his disappointment that Sir John Anderson, his predecessor as New Zealand Cricket chairman, could not accept the Australasian nomination for ICC president at the second time of asking.Anderson was New Zealand’s nomination, alongside former Australian prime minister John Howard, when the two bodies first got together to finalise their choice. With the panel of five charged with settling on the candidate comprising three Australians and two New Zealanders, it was no surprise Howard got the nod. This despite Anderson’s long, credentialled career as a cricket administrator versus Howard’s zero experience, allied to Australia’s inability to come up with a cricket person.

“The realities are that when the ICC sells its commercial rights, a large proportion of that value comes from the Indian market. In my 22 months at the ICC table, I’ve had no problems dealing with the Indians or any other countries”Isaac doesn’t believe India’s clout is a problem

When Howard was deemed unacceptable to six of the ICC full members, it was time for Plan B. However, Anderson rejected overtures to put his name up again. Isaac was disappointed when Anderson gave him the news but he was encouraged to put his hat in the ring. Australia, though stubborn in defence of their first choice, have backed Isaac. But if it seems Isaac, New Zealand Cricket’s chairman for the last couple of years, got in as other preferred choices fell away, it doesn’t worry the man himself. ”I don’t feel like I’m second or third pick. I was encouraged through the process to be available by several people,” he said.So what will the ICC get? A chartered accountant who is careful to think before he speaks and who won’t shy away from being described as a pragmatist.Isaac knows the ICC’s reputation is not as good as it should be for a sport’s governing body. Polishing that reputation is among the goals he wants to achieve in the next four years. He defends the ICC against charges that it gets things wrong too often: “Often no one has the right answer, so people who have the responsibility have to get on and make the best of all the information they’ve got. When you’re sitting on the outside and haven’t got all the facts, or have a particular reason for having a different decision made, you are always going to be criticised. Often there have to be compromises as part of getting a more important decision agreed. That’s just life. It’s about being pragmatic.”He is a strong believer in treating others as you would want to be treated. ”It’s about trust and respect. If you don’t have that, you are going to struggle. “My priority is to get that trust and respect and then at the end of the day we can build a better reputation for the ICC.”The ICC will find they have a man who is unequivocal that the international game must remain top of the heap. Isaac cites other sports – rugby, rugby league, football – where club or privately owned franchises have pushed for top billing.In his mind, when it comes to priorities, the question of international versus domestic or privately owned franchised-based cricket is a no-brainer. He supports the idea of some form of Test championship, and in an age where India is singled out for criticism as having too much say in how the game is organised and wielding too heavy a wallet, Isaac takes a practical view. “The realities are that when the ICC sells its commercial rights, a large proportion of that value comes from the Indian market. In my 22 months at the ICC table, I’ve had no problems dealing with the Indians or any other countries.”If a Test championship can be worked into shape, he’ll be happy. “Market research, and the view of administrators and players, is that it would be better if there was some context, but we’re under pressure because of the volume and competing interests.”And those who suspect Isaac might push New Zealand’s barrow with a shade too much energy might be surprised. “The role of the ICC is to act in the best interests of cricket. If I’m elected, that is an honour for New Zealand, but clearly the responsibility is to act in the best interests of world cricket.”

The former batsman, umpire, coach and now commentator answers readers’ questions on bowlers who frightened him, being diplomatic, England’s dry run in the 80s and 90s, and more

19-Nov-2010David Lloyd has done everything in cricket: debuting for Lancashire in 1965 as a spinner, he ended up playing nine Tests as an opening bat for England, hitting a double-century against India in his second game, in 1974. Six months after that, Lloyd played his last Test, one of many casualties of England’s 4-1 Ashes trouncing down under by Lillee and Thomson’s Australia. The left-handed Lloyd was a key part of the Lancashire side that dominated English one-day cricket in the early 70s, winning the first two Sunday Leagues (1969 and 1970) and three Gillette Cups in a row from 1970. By the time he played his last game, in 1985, he had made nearly 27,000 runs all told in a 21-season career.In retirement Lloyd turned first to umpiring and then to coaching, first with Lancashire before being rapidly promoted, to the England job. He was in charge of the national team between 1996 and 1999 before retreating to the Sky gantry. His time as England coach was mixed. Using specialist coaches alongside his own Churchillian approach to team talks, Lloyd’s tenure laid foundations for the future: the win over South Africa in 1998 was England’s first in a major series for 11 years and the side was at least competitive despite losing the Ashes 3-1 the following winter. But failing to win a game on tour in Zimbabwe in 1996 and the debacle of the 1999 World Cup exit cast a shadow.Steeped in cricket and always entertaining, in his decade with Sky, Bumble has become the natural heir to Dickie Bird as cricket’s No. 1 maverick national treasure, and this month he embarks on a national theatre tour to meet his public. There’s plenty of them: at last count he had over 90,000 followers on his Twitter account.When you retired as a player, did you think you would be an umpire for the rest of your career?
No. I thoroughly enjoyed it. It was a good time in my life. But I probably knew I would go into coaching because I’d done lots of coaching badges. But when I was an umpire my ambition was to be an international umpire – and if I’d got that far, I would maybe still have been doing that, I don’t know.Who first called you Bumble?
John Sullivan, who was at Lancashire in the 60s. He gave me the nickname because I looked like one of the characters on Michael Bentine’s show, the that was very much like .When was the first time you spoke in public?
It would be when I was captain of Lancashire, mid-70s. I’d have a good guess at it being Liverpool Cricket Club. I think I just had to introduce the team and told a couple of anecdotes about each one. Someone in the audience said they’d like to book me to speak at a function and I said, “No, I don’t do any of that.” But it moved on from there…Do you think you should you have played more times for England?
[] No! I came back [into the one-day side] in 1980 and I should never have been picked. Botham was captain and you know how bad a captain he was – he chose me to play in that game. He must have been mad. I couldn’t see, for a start. I mean, I could see all right for county cricket but he brought me back against West Indies. And there was no chance of seeing them.

“Botham was captain and you know how bad a captain he was – he chose me to play in that game. He must have been mad. I couldn’t see, for a start”

Has anyone been as frightening to watch or play against as Jeff Thomson was on that 1974-75 Ashes tour?
One I played with who was ferocious was Colin Croft – and against, Sylvester Clarke [of Surrey]. He was frightening. Both nasty on the field. They didn’t like cricket, I think, basically. They thought the faster we can get this bloke out or kill him, the quicker I can get off.[]
Well, I hope all fast bowlers go out to hurt people. That’s part of the make-up: “I’m gonna hurt you, you’re not going to bat”. Having a ruthless streak is part of it. We had Malcolm Marshall come to Lancashire as a specialist bowling coach once and he said to the fast bowlers: “The first thing you do is break the spin bowlers’ hands.”Who had the best one-day team in the 1970s: Kent or Lancashire?
There’s only one winner there! Bloody hell! () They were good, Kent were a good side. But we kept having to go down to London to play in finals. It were bloody costly to keep going down there to play! You had to pay for your wife… you got a bob or two but you’d spend more than that. I don’t think we got a share of the prize money…Ian Austin opened the bowling for England in the 1999 World Cup. When you were England coach, were you biased towards Lancashire players?
[] No. In Austin’s case we canvassed every opening batsman in county cricket and asked them who were the two most difficult bowlers to play against and they said Chris Lewis and Ian Austin.Andy Flower’s set-up is very different to yours: could you be England coach now or would it not suit your style?
Central contracts are the be-all and end-all. That’s what made England a competent team. Andy Flower is a wonderful bloke, he has a wonderful team. His management set-up is perfect and he has a world-class team, a cracking team. We suggested central contracts when I was coach, then Duncan Fletcher took them on and now Andy is getting the full benefit of it.Is it true that being given a Fall CD changed your musical taste for good? Who gave you the CD and what were you listening to before?
Paul King, who is executive producer of Sky cricket, gave me the Fall CD. And he said, “You’ll either get this or you won’t”, and I got it immediately. But I’m still into the Rolling Stones. You’re either the Stones or the Beatles… and I’m the Stones. I mean, I like Sinatra, I think he’s terrific, but I’m a bit more punk rock.What has been your greatest achievement in cricket?
Beating South Africa, when I was England coach in 1998. They were a hell of a side: Cronje, Klusener, Pollock and Donald opening the bowling. They were a good set of lads and a bloody good side. They had a team and a half.Why did England go 11 years without a major series win in the 1980s and 1990s?
Well, we were playing fewer major series for one thing: we were just embarking on split tours – an odd game here and two Tests there – I remember in ’96 we were just getting our teeth into what would now be a fantastic series against India, but it was over after three matches. We won that 1-0, then Waqar and Wasim’s Pakistan came with a great side and beat us 2-0 and we beat them 2-1 in the one-dayers. The ultimate in that came straight after that South Africa series: we’d given everything to beat them 2-1 and then they stuck a single Test against Sri Lanka at The Oval onto the end. You might as well have played on Galle beach. We just gave Murali a pitch that he wanted. I was up in arms about that. He took 16 wickets and it was just like an exhibition: “Look at these lovely chaps.” They turned us over good and proper.Did you find it hard to keep schtum and be diplomatic when you were England coach?
I wouldn’t do it. I wouldn’t tow any diplomatic line. If that’s what they wanted when they employed me, then they had the wrong bloke. I come from an area where if someone kicks you once you kick ’em twice. So it wasn’t difficult for me! I wouldn’t change it. I wouldn’t be anything different. I assumed they knew what they were getting.”John Player cricket came in because the rest of it was completely on its arse”•PA PhotosWas that 1974-75 Ashes tour England’s nadir during your whole time following of being involved with or following the England team?
The result was terrible, but as a tour it was enjoyable… I’d never been out of England before. I come from a rough area. We didn’t go abroad. I didn’t come from Weybridge or Maidenhead, I came from Accrington! And there were plenty more on the trip who’d never been out of England. I know Ken Shuttleworth, who went in 1971, had never been out of England…How much have you grown into your role at Sky? How “cast” is it? Don’t you wish you could play the grumpy old man sometimes?
No, no, they pay for what they get and I ain’t changing. I like a bit of fun, I enjoy myself – but I can be serious and fight my corner. There’s no casting. But there are plenty of times where they despair and they’ve got their heads in their hands!Who is the funniest man in cricket?
The man who I think is fantastic – in fact, he’s on my ringtone – is Bill Lawry. “Got him!” I think he’s fabulous. Just the enthusiasm… he’s well into his 70s and his patriotism, his love of the game and his enthusiasm is fantastic. He was a dour player, a very dour player. But as a commentator he brings it all alive. But my all-time broadcasting hero is Fred Trueman. He was the first northern voice on commentary, as far as I can remember. The first one who didn’t speak like Mr Cholmondeley-Warner.Lancashire won the first two 40-over Sunday Leagues, in 1969 and 1970. Was that tournament the Twenty20 of its day: half of cricket people saying it will save the game and half saying it will kill it?
Duncan Edwards. I was 11 when he died in the Munich air disaster. But he was the complete footballer.Who is the best player you’ve seen who never made it at the highest level?
Don Shepherd of Glamorgan. Spin bowler. Just check his record: 2000-plus wickets! [2200 wickets at 21 each, between 1950 and 1972]. I played against him. He was playing into the 1970s and he’s still totally involved in the game now, at 80-odd. He overlapped Jim Laker a little bit, and Fred Titmus and Ray Illingworth, so he never got a chance with England. But he was a wonderful bowler. The lad who’s missed out right now is Glen Chapple. It’s just never quite happened for him: wrong place, wrong time… he’s been in that many squads and missed out.Should England players be banned from tweeting?
No. Definitely not. I’d be quite the other way. Engage with the fans. Graeme Swann and Jimmy Anderson are very clever with it. They tell you if they’ve had a bad day – but don’t go into any details – but there’s also little nice snippets. Swanny’s a card, he’ll have some fun. But they don’t go into anything in-depth that they shouldn’t do. It’s vital. In any sport, players are so isolated from the public – particularly soccer – you just never see them about now.

“My all-time broadcasting hero is Fred Trueman. He was the first northern voice on commentary, as far as I can remember. The first one who didn’t speak like Mr Cholmondeley-Warner”

Do you find it odd that we don’t have a 50-over domestic competition in England, when international cricket is still 50 overs?
Yeah. I think you’ve got to try and mirror international cricket. The 18 counties rule the roost because they are the ECB. But my mild criticism is that I’m not sure they put the England team on the pedestal. I think it should be.Everything should be geared towards the England team, and I’m not sure all the counties take that on board. I’d like the distribution of wealth to be a bit more thought out. Not to give 18 counties £1.5m every year and let them spend it on what they want. It’s unbelievable that so many of them are struggling, on those terms. I like the Australian model. Take the WACA: the money goes to the Western Australia Cricket Association and the state teams get money from the WACA, but a lot of money goes on grass roots. And – just in my opinion – the English game is awash with money, awash with it, and I’m not sure the money gets to grassroots the way it should do.Have you ever “died” when you have been doing after-dinner speaking?
Loads of times! Loads. But I haven’t done after-dinner speaking for years. This tour isn’t like after-dinner speaking. I don’t have to sit next to some bloke I’ve never clapped eyes on before for four hours and drink water… I got out of that game a long time ago because standards were dropping. People were chatting on their mobile phones while you were up there doing your best and getting home at two in the morning. So I took a view: why am I doing this? I could be tucked up in bed!

Delhi’s dumping of tradition, the story of Sreesanth’s career in an over and more in a review of the action from the third week of the IPL

Abhishek Purohit29-Apr-2011Kotla’s green break with tradition
“Grass is for cows,” said Ivan Lendl. Curator after curator at Feroz Shah Kotla agreed with the tennis champion, and resolutely refused to let even a blade of green appear on their pitch. But the IPL has left hardly anything unchanged, and after consecutive losses at home, Delhi Daredevils decided to dump tradition into the Yamuna. Suddenly, the brown surface sprouted grass. It was the kind of green that suited Delhi as they proceeded to smash Kings XI Punjab for 231 in a rare win. More curiously than it had appeared though, some of the grass disappeared for Delhi’s next two games, bringing them two more losses, and keeping them in familiar territory, at the bottom of the table.The Shane Warne monitor
Taking a cue from Delhi, Rajasthan Royals took a look at their squad, realised they had Shane Warne, and gave him a dry Jaipur surface that had different-coloured patches, and plenty of unpredictable bounce. Warne, delighted by the Rajasthani hospitality, bamboozled his way to three crucial wickets against Kochi Tuskers. He tossed them up, he slid them in, he even welcomed former team-mate Ravindra Jadeja with a 109 kph bouncer. He also found time to doff his cap and shake hands with the endless assembly that was the presentation party as he collected his Man-of-the-Match award. All was well with the world.The aesthetic accumulator
S Badrinath is doing for the Chennai Super Kings what he usually does for Tamil Nadu. He comes in, pitches tent at the crease, splits the field with the most graceful of high elbows, and just refuses to get out. The man one commentator called India’s version of Mr. Cricket eased his way to 145 unbeaten runs in three games last week. He comfortably beat even Rohit Sharma, no small competitor, in the elegance stakes. Badrinath makes the mow over midwicket appear mellifluous, lofts languidly over extra cover, and slams the straight six with rarely seen serenity. And he makes truckloads of runs. Yet he’s been dumped from the India side after two Tests and three ODIs. Staggering.Thank you, come again
0-4-0 is the national dialling code for Hyderabad. Ishant Sharma decided to add 0-0-0 to it, and put it down on the Kochi scoresheet as Deccan Chargers’ calling card. Kumar Sangakkara had made a masterly half-century on a surface where the ball was talking rudely, and had given Kochi 130 to chase. Sangakkara needn’t have bothered. Ishant was in a tearing hurry, and delivered a spell that brought back memories of Perth 2008. He blew Kochi away with five wickets in eleven deliveries. At one stage, he had figures of 2-0-6-5, Kochi were 11 for 6 after four overs, and that was the end of that.My story, in six balls
If ever an over has revealed everything about the bowler, it was Sreesanth’s second one against Deccan. After seeing Sangakkara carefully defend two straight deliveries, Sreesanth, as has been his wont, went for something extra and the short ball ended up being pulled to the midwicket boundary. True to form, Sreesanth came back with an unplayable brute that pitched on off and took out middle stump. Truer to form, Sreesanth had over-stepped, and Sangakkara lived on. Truest to form, Sreesanth lost it and let the to-be “free-hit” rip, getting an official warning for bowling a beamer, albeit unintentionally. For good measure, he even bowled a wayward wide outside off. Firdose Moonda, ESPNcricinfo’s ball-by-ball commentator for the game, called it “a mixed bag from the Kerala Express”. It was the story of Sreesanth’s career in a nutshell.Sreesanth’s jaffa of a no-ball•AFPThe nail-biter
Royal Challengers Bangalore’s game against Delhi turned so many times that Bangalore’s owner Siddhartha Mallya was out of nails to chew by the end. After Bangalore’s seamers had made the Delhi top order hop around on the pacy Kotla wicket, James Hopes lifted them to a fighting 160. Delhi got Tillakaratne Dilshan second ball to start their ascendance but ran into Virat Kohli, who threatened to drown them in a deluge of boundaries. Delhi began another round of counter-punching with three wickets in three overs but Saurabh Tiwary and Daniel Vettori resisted again. Not to be outdone, Morne Morkel winkled out two in three balls as the Kotla crowd roared with anticipation. Before Mallya could turn his attention on Deepika Padukone’s nails though, Vettori and J Syed Mohammad somehow managed to drag Bangalore home.The double payback
After Chris Gayle gave it back in style to his former franchise Kolkata Knight Riders, it was the turn of Deccan to be paid back, twice over this time. Rohit and Andrew Symonds, who had prowled the cover cordon and scored prolifically for Deccan until last year, made their former franchise pay for not retaining them ahead of the auction. Rohit caressed, Symonds bludgeoned, and a wobbly 70 for 4 turned into a match-winning 172 for Mumbai Indians. Deccan were themselves reduced to 70 for 4 in the chase, but they no longer had the luxury of Rohit and Symonds to mend matters. Soon, a crushing defeat followed.

Did the term for cricket’s most exciting delivery originate from that of the county with the similar name? Or was it derived from slang?

Liam Herringshaw30-Apr-2011

Sporting Old Parson, “I didn’t ask you what a ‘yorker’ was – (with dignity) – I know that as well as you do. But why is it called a ‘yorker’?”
Professional Player, “Well, I can’t say, sir. I don’t know what else you could call it.”
magazine, September 23, 1882

Yorker: a delivery that can make the batsman look like he’s on skates going over a banana peel•PA PhotosWhat’s the most exciting delivery in cricket? A glorious googly? A brutal bouncer? A deadly doosra?All these will have their proponents, I’m sure, but all would be wrong. When it comes to a heart-stopping instant of sheer, visceral pleasure, there is only one winner. Nothing beats the yorker. From Lasith Malinga skittling Kenya with a burst of unplayable missiles, to Waqar Younis blasting Brian Lara off his feet, it is the quintessential death ball, and the most devastating weapon in a fast bowler’s armoury.But why is a yorker a yorker, and where does it come from? I play my cricket in York, where the natives are known, at least in some quarters, as Yorkers. Does this mean that this is the home of the delivery, then, and are the locals experts in bowling the ball? I donned my academic research hat, one that looks suspiciously similar to my regular cricket hat, and set off to find out.Even from a cursory online search, it is clear that plenty of theories abound. For proper etymological work, however, the only sensible place to start is the . There, three forms of yorker are listed – the bowling variety, the demonym, and the cryptically intriguing “something that is used to tie a trouser leg beneath the knee”.The cricketing yorker is first documented from August 1861, when reported that “Buchanan stopped some time, and bothered the bowlers much, as he would not hit even a ‘Yorker’.” Ignoring the fact that not hitting a yorker would surely end a batsman’s innings, rather than prolong it, it is clear that the writer assumed his readers knew what a Yorker was. Less than a decade on, and the inverted commas had gone, as well as any ambiguity, as the (1870) noted that, “A fast Yorker is as disagreeable a first ball as an incoming batsman could receive.”When it comes to why it is so-called, the OED plumps for a geographical explanation, suggesting that it probably was from York, as a ball introduced by Yorkshire players.Michael Rundell, however, finds this “really quite unconvincing”. In his (3rd ed., 2006), Rundell argues that the true story is one of deception; that the yorker is from Yorkshire, but only because “york” is a slang word for cheating.Rundell refers to the , compiled by linguist Joseph Wright at the turn of the 20th century. Wright found that, in various parts of the British Isles, “york” meant being shrewd or sharp, or simply “to cheat”. He cites an example from Warwickshire, where a disgruntled plaintiff complains of an unknown person: “He has yorked me”.Indeed, though this isn’t going to win me many friends in my new home, there is a substantial body of work relating to Yorkers being people whose personal dealings involve various unsavoury attributes. To outsiders at least, Yorkshire folk were always on the look-out for a new way to fleece someone.One of the first cricketing dictionaries to define the yorker (Steel & Lyttelton, 1888) states that it was “called in days gone by a ‘tice’, an abbreviation of ‘entice'”. It seems a simple leap of logic, therefore, to make the crafty-cricket connection, and many have made it.In its version of the yorker story, Wikipedia says “to pull Yorkshire” on someone was to deceive them, but as usual it is slightly wrong. The correct phrase is “to come [or put] Yorkshire” on someone, meaning to cheat or dupe them, as gleefully pointed out by the Lancashire CCC website.

To be “yerked” or “yarked” is to be struck, smacked or hit; to have something thrown at you suddenly; or to have your shoes tied together. It’s entirely correct to mutter, after being yorked, that you’ve also been yarked

I asked David Hall, director of the Yorkshire CCC museum whether he could shed any light on the matter. He told me that they have gone back through the records to the start of the county club in 1833, but don’t have an answer. When pushed, the museum refers (or defers) to the (2006). They therefore prefer the idea “that the ball was invented in Yorkshire, [to] the fact that york was slang for ‘deceive'”.The third option put forward by Leigh and Woodhouse is that yorkers were originally bowled with a jerky action. Even though it is a dialect variation of “jerker”, I can find no evidence that the ball was ever called a “yerker”, so this is perhaps a leap too far.There does seem to some mileage in the many meanings of the verb, though. To be “yerked” or “yarked” is to be struck, smacked or hit; to have something thrown at you suddenly; or to have your shoes tied together. Many a batsman has suffered all these indignities as a yorker knocks them over, so I like the idea of the “yarker”, even if I can’t prove it is the true forefather. Either way, it’s entirely correct to mutter, after being yorked, that you’ve also been yarked.So what are we left with? Hypotheses still, but we can at least do a bit of clarifying. One website claims with certainty that the yorker gets its name from the device for tying your trouser legs below the knee. This doesn’t take into account that the cricketing term appears in the 19th century, whereas the trousering one is not recorded until the 20th. Given that it is quite difficult for an older word to derive from a newer one, barring some kind of quantum delivery, I think we can rule that theory out.We can also rule out 19th century Yorkshire and England star Tom Emmett as the original Yorker. Emmett was certainly a very influential and successful left-arm quick bowler, and, according to Anthony Woodhouse, “perhaps cricket’s greatest character”. Emmett didn’t make his Yorkshire debut till 1866, though, some five years after the yorker was first recorded, so there’s no way he was responsible for inventing the delivery. He did invent his own slower ball, though, one that pitched on a right-hander’s leg stump and then cut away towards off. Emmett called it the “sosteneuter”, and it is surely due for a comeback. Perhaps Zaheer Khan might like to add it to his repertoire?It’s interesting that none of the quoted examples are from Yorkshire, indicating that yorker was a term applied by outsiders, not locals. The early yorkers are also capitalised, suggesting a geographical noun. And as hinted at by the original 1861 quote, temptation and bamboozlement are what the yorker is all about. The deceitful Yorker with his deceptive yorker might just be the true story.Whatever its origins, it’s reassuring to those of us still trying and failing to master it, that Lasith Malinga “didn’t have any idea of how to bowl a yorker” when he was called up to the Sri Lankan national team. He’s certainly nailed it now, and Waqar Younis says his performance against Kenya in the 2011 World Cup “reminded me of myself in the good old days”.And, having apparently honed his skills by bowling at a pair of shoes in the nets, I can’t help but wonder if Malinga is inadvertently giving us a glimpse back into history, and returning the yarker to its boots.

The ICC’s revision of the rules to do with Powerplays, new balls in ODIs, runners, and obstruction of the field take effect from today. Former and current players weigh in on the changes

11-Oct-2011

Using Powerplays between overs 16 and 40

Alastair Cook, England one-day captain It’s certainly very interesting and it will change the tactics in those last 10 overs. It can be a bit of nightmare when the Powerplay is taken in the 45th over – you can feel a bit helpless. It will certainly change things now that they have to be taken before the 40th over.Ian Chappell, former Australia captain and current commentator I don’t think there’s enough foresight with the framing of all the laws. You need to think of the laws occasionally, but we are having major changes all the time, which means you haven’t thought through the rules properly at first. If I am a captain, this rule makes me feel, “Why don’t you come out and lead the side instead of me, because you are telling me what I need to do all the time – when to take the fielders, where to place my fielders.” This Powerplay legislation distracts from allowing the captain to lead the side.Michael Kasprowicz, former Australia fast bowler and now a Cricket Australia board member The Powerplays have worked really well for bowlers. There seems to be a lot more impact from bowlers, and I think that’s good for the game. Enforcing their use between the 16th and 40th overs increases the need to think about it in a tactical sense rather than just leaving the batting Powerplay, in particular, for the final few overs.Andrew Hudson, former South Africa batsman and currently South Africa’s convenor of selectors A lot of teams would just wait until the end of the 45th over to take the Powerplay, because then they would have no choice, but now it will make them commit to a game plan. It will probably create a bit more interest.Sanjay Manjrekar, former India batsman and current commentator Again, we can see some of the problems 50-over cricket has been having and this is an attempt to infuse some excitement into the middle stages. I’m not overly excited by it. It’s another little tweak. It’ll just shake captains a bit out of their comfort zone because they had been doing it the standard way [last five and after the mandatory first 10]. Very few captains actually used [Powerplays] to their advantage.Ian Bishop, former West Indies bowler and current commentator I think teams will eventually find a way to create some sort of equilibrium. I hope this ruling will create some more interest in middle overs. I have no empirical evidence to back this, but generally bowling teams take their Powerplay straight after 10 overs. Forcing them to take it in 16-40 will give the spectators something to watch, if sixes and fours are your kind of thing.I don’t think forcing batting sides to take it before the 40th over is a bad thing, or that it might end up being a double-edged sword. I have no sympathy for batsmen, not because I don’t like them, but they generally hold the advantage in limited-overs cricket. A lot of batting sides have lost their way in the Powerplay overs, but the problem was that their approach to the restrictions wasn’t clear; I don’t think when it is being taken is as much an issue as how it is approached. If you are reckless in the Powerplay, which was often the case in the World Cup, it can be a problem, but I think batsmen are going to get smart enough in time to learn how to handle it.

New balls from either end

Ravi Rampaul, West Indies fast bowler Playing with two new balls keeps the ball a lot newer, so from where I stand it is probably a good thing for the bowlers but not the batters. The two new balls might rule out reverse-swing later in the innings, but you will have a harder ball to bowl with later on in the innings.Bishop This rule will suit different people in different conditions. In the subcontinent, where you have dry and flat grounds, it is going to favour the batsmen, but in England, Australia and New Zealand it will help the bowling side, since the balls will seam and swing through the course of the innings. The disadvantage that will come into play will be that bowlers will struggle to achieve legitimate reverse-swing in most conditions, and that disappoints me. This rule seems to have come about to do away with the practice of changing the ball midway through the innings due to discoloration, and we might in the process lose out on one or two aspects, like reverse-swing.Kasprowicz I never thought the compulsory change of ball was a good thing. If the ball is worn and batsmen can’t see it, then fair enough. But to go to a ball at each end is a good move, and is one of the few changes we’ve seen over the years that is going to help the bowlers, fast bowlers in particular. We didn’t really see much reverse-swing in recent times anyway, because of the change of ball, so I think we will see more of that, as teams can work on the ball.

“If I am a captain, this rule makes me feel, ‘Why don’t you come out and lead the side instead of me, because you are telling me what I need to do all the time – when to take the fielders, where to place my fielders'”Ian Chappell

Chappell Australia tried the new balls from both sides and gave it up 10 years back. So where has it come from again? For god’s sake, get the white ball fixed so that it retains its colour and character, instead of tinkering with everything else. This rule is surely going to favour bowlers more in certain conditions. And that affects the balance between bat and ball, which is a bad thing.Chris Woakes, England fast bowler The new rule looks good. The ball keeps shape a lot longer, and with the ball not changed towards the end, you have a good feel of it through the innings. The ball did start to reverse towards the end, and that, I think, would happen here because of the outfield.Manjrekar I have absolutely no issue with two new balls. The mandatory change after 34 overs exposed what happens with the ball. It just didn’t look good that you had to change the ball because you didn’t have the quality of balls that could last the distance. A lot of modern-day spinners are able to use the hard seam of the cricket ball to work to their advantage. R Ashwin recently made a statement that he found spinning the ball easier with the hard seam because he was able to grip it better and it was responding well off the pitch. So the old-school [belief] that the ball has to be old for the spinners doesn’t necessarily hold true now. Also, I saw Umar Gul get reverse-swing as early as the ninth over in England during the World Twenty20. If you’re good enough, reverse-swing can still be part of a 50-over innings despite the two new balls.In livelier conditions, the effect of the new ball and seamers will put pressure on batsmen for longer, but if you look at world cricket generally, we have placid pitches. It’ll work in favour of the batsmen a bit because they’ll constantly have the hard ball to smash around. We won’t see the stage of 25 to 34 overs where the ball was at its softest. Hudson It was not ideal to be changing the ball at 34 overs, so it takes out that variable. It could have an impact on reverse-swing, but at least discolouring won’t be a problem, particularly for night games. It will also give the bowlers a slight advantage, which is a good thing since it has been a batter’s game for so long.Murali Kartik, former India left-arm spinner Earlier there was a chance for spinners that the old ball wouldn’t go off of the bat. Now with two new balls they will remain fresh a longer time. Yes, at the same time spinners can grip the ball better, but I am sure even this rule is only for batsmen.

Obstructing the field

Bishop I think this ruling is absolutely correct. Changing direction and getting between the stumps and the throw has become an acceptable practice. I think that is wrong and is tantamount to cheating. It is the nature of the game that if you run, you are taking a risk. Your challenge is to back that judgement by reaching the other end. If your judgement is poor, you face the consequences. And doing anything to preserve your wicket is cheating. So I think if batsmen change direction to impede the fielding team, they should be penalised.Chappell This one is plain ridiculous. Batsmen have been allowed to come in between the throw and the stumps right from the time I started playing, which is bloody long ago. Fielders are going to now throw the ball at the batsman needlessly, purely in the hope of getting a wicket. Even if he doesn’t get the wicket, it is going to go up to the third umpire and take another decision away from the on-field umpires. The rule needlessly tries to legislate for a one-in-a-million chance. It is even more ludicrous since there is already enough in the law to allow the umpires to legislate that rare case. This is going to create controversies that are totally unnecessary. It is just another example of the stupidity in the law-making. The best example for the ridiculous law-making is the Mankad law. The man who changed that rule needs to be lined up against the wall and shot. The administrators need to rewrite the laws to simplify them as much as possible and not complicate them even more. I’m afraid that’s what they are doing right now – complicating things too often.Kasprowicz I’m not sure how they’re actually going to dictate that or determine what the line is [for the batsman running between the wickets]. Trigonometry might come into it as to point A and point B. I can’t recall too many instances when it was a major issue, but it must have taken place often enough in an international match for it to be one.Manjrekar I think it’s fair. You have a law that says you can’t deliberately obstruct a fielder who’s trying to take a catch unless you have a right to be in that area at the time. Some of this escaped all these years, that a batsman, while running, could change his direction deliberately to get in the path of the ball. There was a slight amount of gamesmanship and cheating involved. But it’s another thing that the umpire will have to watch out for, another nuance in the game that will have to be monitored now – to determine if the change in direction was deliberate.

No runners

Will we never again see three batsmen on the field at a time?•AFPThe MCC MCC feels that not to allow a runner for an incapacitated batsman does not comply with the spirit of equity within the Laws. If a bowler is incapacitated, another bowler can take over; if an incapacitated batsman is not permitted a runner, this effectively means the loss of his wicket, which is a disproportionate effect.Hudson In terms of injuries, there was always a bit of a dilemma with guys who got cramps, especially in the subcontinent. Sometimes the idea of a runner could have been abused and misused. Outlawing runners may be a bit harsh on genuine cases, where there is an injury, and with so much cricket being played, genuine cases may suffer, but overall it will prevent any abuse the system was taking.Kasprowicz I think the abolition of runners is a tremendous rule change, because for a team, if a bowler gets injured you weren’t able to replace a bowler, and in some circumstances that could be damaging to the team’s performance. Whereas with a batsman, he always got the luxury of someone else to do the running for him. So I think that’s a good one, and unfortunately if you do suffer an injury, somehow you just have to manage it and get through it. It has seemed like it was a bit too easy at times for some batsmen, and as a former fast bowler I certainly applaud it.