hrgcricstats.com

Decision follows a meeting with Kohli and BCCI officials

Anil Kumble, a distinguished achiever as a player and as head coach of the Indian team for the last one year delivering outstanding results, has chosen to part ways from the National team with great dignity, but not in circumstances that he would have wished for.

From the time the 46-year-old took over the mantle of head coach in July 2016, with the first assignment in the West Indies, until the long home international season that culminated with the Test series against Australia, the cricketing fraternity felt that the Virat Kohli–Kumble combination worked wonders for the betterment of the Indian cricket.

Furthermore, there was also reason to believe that both the captain and he enjoyed a terrific rapport, which was not the case as it turned out to be.

Kumble was in for a shock when news broke out before the start of the ICC Champions Trophy that Kohli was gunning for his ouster, citing reservations about his style of functioning to BCCI officials and then to chairman of the Committee of Administrators Vinod Rai at a meeting in Hyderabad.

Although Kohli denied any such rift between him and Kumble at a press conference at Birmingham, BCCI officials knew that the situation had gone beyond rapprochement and that Kohli had indeed asked for a change of head coach, first recommending the name of Virender Sehwag.

The BCCI officials may have believed that something could be salvaged after a meeting with Kohli and Kumble at London on Monday evening, but sources said Kohli only reiterated his position vis-à-vis Kumble.

It was after this meeting that Kumble, although he had applied afresh for the head coach post, decided to step back. It must be said though that the CAC had strongly backed Kumble’s extension till the 2019 World Cup.

The BCCI confirmed the development on Tuesday saying: “Mr. Anil Kumble has withdrawn his services as the post of the Head Coach for the Senior India Men’s team. While the Cricket Advisory Committee had endorsed an extension to his tenure as Head Coach, Mr. Anil Kumble has decided not to continue as the coach.’’

M.V. Sridhar (GM, Cricket Operations) will supervise the team management for the West Indies tour.

G.Viswanath – Article courtesy – The Hindu

 

India and Pakistan first met in the final of a 50-over tournament back in March 1985, during the Benson and Hedges World Championship of Cricket, in Melbourne. India defeated Pakistan easily by eight wickets. Ahead of the 2017 Champions Trophy final at The Oval on Sunday, between the same teams, we look back at The Hindu’s match report of the Melbourne final, by R. Mohan. This appeared on March 11, 1985.

India’s wondrous capacity to achieve in overs-specific cricket was in evidence once again. It did not shock the cricket world or turn it upside down like it did in the World Cup in 1983. It was expected to win the final of the Benson and Hedges World Championship of Cricket against Pakistan.

It did so in another exposition of applied allround cricket Such a result of course, may have been least predicted when the side left home for this visit Down Under. The subsequent improvement in performance had installed India as the firm favourite for the final. The Indians lived up to expectations, achieving a conclusive win to fully re-establish their credentials in one-day cricket. The sport’s eternal elusiveness and its own inconsistency frustrated Pakistan. Its early batting debacle meant Pakistan could not give its bowlers enough to bowl with.

The Indian bowlers were not spectacular but they were consistent, the greatest virtue of their operation being their accuracy. In an average opening spell, Kapil Dev picked up three wickets. L Sivaramakrishnan had his best spell in the championship. His length, like that of the slow-medium seamers Mohinder Amarnath and Madan Lal was always right and he freely experimented with his line and his googlies to pick three for 35.

Pakistan’s main weapon fails: With Srikkanth playing a typically aggressive innings in his own patented style, there was little danger of India batting at below capacity. The only live threat was Imran Khan and he bowled too short at a time when wickets alone could have made any substantial difference to the state of the match at the Melbourne Cricket ground today. The atmosphere was ideal and free of tensions and the achievement of an anticipated result lent more credibility to India’s known potential to perform well abroad.

The very successful opening pair of Srikkanth and Ravi Shastri were associated in their second century stand in the championship. They saw through Imran’s opening burst with great caution. The rest of the Pakistan bowling could, under the circumstances, pose no challenge Shastri played in a cramped manner with the thought of being near winning a flashy car perhaps weighing heavily on his mind. He achieved his ends though.

Srikkanth blazes away: Srikkanth cannot be bound to conventional defensive methods for long. One extraordinary stroke saw him launch himself on a trial of brazen and aggressive strokeplay. Having taken his front foot forward against Naqqash, he found the ball pitch shorter than anticipated. He waited a mini-second before bringing his bat through on a massive and powerful downswing to clear the fence at wide mid-off for 6. The odd stroke may have just eluded the fielders on the on-side but Srikkanth can string together attacking shots in one-dayers as well as anyone in world cricket today. Srikkanth stepped down the wicket for a lofted offdrive off Wasim Raja for another 6. Poor Rameez Raja, running side on crashed into the hoardings and was lucky to escape with just minor injuries to his ribs.

Another lofted drive saw Malik help it over the fence (missing a clear chance) for what can be called an ‘assisted 6 . Srikkanth was denied that with umpire Tony Crafter signalling only 4.

Before he square-cut a kicker from Imran just to the left of Wasim Raja at point, Srikkanth had already compiled a knock of 67 off just 78 balls with the two 6s and six 4s. He had outscored Shastri almost three to one.

Shastri plays the anchor: After two early glides to fine-leg of Naqqash and Hafiz for 4s, Shastri crawled to his half-century in 131 balls. It was percentage batting that was slightly exaggerated but with Srikkanth on the path of aggression all Shastri needed to do was play the anchor.

A record crowd for a one-day match in Australia not featuring the home team (35,296) could have hardly noticed the sun had gone down and that the lights had come on. The tempo of the proceedings was not the kind to fire enthusiasm but as India neared victory, the crowd went into raptures cheering every run while it awaited another magic moment of India’s self-realisation in limited-overs cricket.

Mohammed Azharuddin had some problems with his timing on a wicket which was a shade slow but once again offered some movement. The bowlers enjoyed this. On one occasion, Azharuddin edged Imran’s outcutter and wicket-keeper Anil Dalpat let it through as he grabbed at the chance too avidly. Azharuddin stayed to play a lofted straight drive and a mid-wicket drive for 4s before Naqqash brought one back on him and bowled him through the gate. With the crowd booing the slow cricket that Shastri and Dilip Vengsarkar played, the opener smartened up to pull Mudassar Nazar wide of long-on for his third 4.

The victory came in the 48th over but there was no doubting its decisiveness as much as the quality of India’s performances throughout this tournament cannot be doubted. Shastri, who won the ‘Champion of Champions’ prize, gathered his unbeaten 63 off 149 balls. Srikkanth was adjudged ‘man of the match’.

The Pakistanis batted themselves into a corner with very poor shots in the opening overs. The substantial recovery was made possible by the 68-run stand between Imran and Miandad.

A cruel decision: It was a fortuitous happening in the sense that Imran was certainly caught behind down the leg-side off his gloves as he swung into a hook off Chetan Sharma before he had scored. Ray Isherwood turned down the appeal for no apparent reason and Pakistan, which could have been 33 for five crossed the 100-mark in the course of the 134-ball stand. The decision was a cruel one for India but it must be said that both Imran and Miandad were in no mood to repeat the mistakes of those who preceded them in the order. The early slide was not easily explainable in bowling terms save for the fact that there was much accuracy in the attack.

Mohsin Khan was the first to go flicking an intilted delivery (from Kapil Dev) without control and putting the bail right into Azharuddin at backward square leg. The somewhat nervous fielder just made the catch with the tips of his fingers as the ball was about to slip out. Mudassar chased a ball which might have been called ‘wide’ had he not nicked it to Viswanath in looking for a pointless square-drive against Kapil’s outswinger. Rameez Raja followed Mudassar’s example in flicking Chetan and Srikkanth made a good catch of it at backward square-leg, taking the ball ankle-high and to his left.

Earlier, Qasim Omar had played all a natural outswinger of Kapil on the middle stump to be bowled by a ball of full length. Miandad had caved the hat-trick just keeping a Kapil bouncer down. Of the first four wickets, perhaps only the ball that bowled Omar truly deserved a wicket.

Chetan bowls within himself: Chetan, who had to take Roger Binny’s place because the all-rounder developed high fever this morning from a viral infection, bowled well within himself. His early leg-peg line was giving away runs through flicks or leg byes. Once Chetan settled his line, he offered Kapil the right type of support. A gamble with spin at a point when Imran and Miandad were content to hang on and wait to reconstruct the innings might have been better indicated. Gavaskar chose the line of containment and since Madan Lal and Mohinder Amarnath bowled to a perfect length, rarely giving anything for the drive, his job of choosing when to have his spinners on was made that much tougher.

Of the two batsmen. Imran was the more dynamic. He drove hard into the deep for good-looking runs while Miandad battled in typical fashion with a secure defence and safe strokes. Till the 29th over, India was well in control but in the next four, when a Pakistan offensive was launched, 29 runs came in a flow. The fielding would have had to be more inspired if a break was to be made.

However Chetan was not quick enough to move in from long-leg when Imran swept Shastri in the air. Under the circumstances and when Pakistan was regaining the initiative. Imran virtually committed suicide.

Gavaskar’s direct hit beats Imran: Pushing forward to Sivaramakrishnan and working the ball directly into Gavaskar at point, barely 15 yards from the bat.

Imran came too far down the track for a non-existent single. Miandad sent Imran back but Gavaskar’s throw was perfectly on target as India’s captain hit the only stump he could see from that angle. A lofted on-drive off Madan Lal and a sliced cover-drive off Shastri were Imran’s only boundary hits in 67 balls. Miandad did not wish to drop anchor once some momentum had been achieved. He had one lusty sweep off Shastri for 4 while Saleem Malik had a charmed existence in the middle for 14 runs off 14 balls. Shastri put Malik down at extra-cover off Sivaramakrishnan. However, that missed catch did not prove expensive as Malik drove into long-off without quite getting to the pitch of a leg-break. Chetan made amends for the earlier lapse with a well-judged catch on the run from the fence to take Malik

Smart stumping: The batsmen had crossed before the catch was taken and immediately Miandad (92 balls, two 4s) was beaten by a superb leg break which floated away from the bat and broke sharply across to set up a stumping for the smart wicket-keeper Sadanand Viswanath who has not missed much in this championship. He had the bails off in a flash. Naqqash had a unique stroke to save the hat-trck. He lofted Sivaramakrishnan just beyond the reach of Mohinder near the long-on fence.

Naqqash had a swipe at Shastri outside the offstump looking to loft over the in-field and he was caught behind. Sivaramakrishnan fed Anil Dalpat with a deliberately floated leg-spinner wide of the off-stump and the batsman drove into Shastri at extra-cover. India had eight overs to preserve its record of bowling every side out in the championship.

Wasim, Hafiz hold on: Wasim Raja and Azeem Hafiz. who came in in place of Wasim Akram who had chipped an index finger at the nets last evening, added a useful 31 off 47 balls without being over-ambitious In fact. Wasim was content to ‘eave as much strike as Hafiz wanted. One lofted drive off Sivaramakrishnan in the final over was the only sign of Wasim’s true batting capabilities. Neverthelss, 176 was a long way from 33 for four and applied batsmanship was the key to the recovery.

An article by Australian journalist, titled “The night the Aussies couldn’t ignore”, appeared in The Sportstar dated March 30, 1985. Here’s an extract:

It really was a most odd evening in the annals of Australian sport. Here we had 10 Hindus and one Muslim representing India, and 10 Muslims and one Hindu wearing colours of Pakistan and battling for a gold cup and a purse of Rs. 2,88,000, an offer because the State of Victoria was celebrating its 150th birthday. It is unlikely many of the combatants could have provided a potted history of Victoria and confirmed that Melbourne was once named Batman’s Village after the English gentleman who founded it. This correspondent, who has been in India for the celebration of the Ranji Trophy golden jubilee late last year, was, like most Australians, sceptical about the chances of both India and Pakistan.

Disconcerting: Undoubtedly it was the most peaceful of the 15 exchanges between the two countries. There were a few policemen, but not thousands brandishing lathis. And there were no intruders on the field, no missiles were hurled and no shamiana or furniture went up in flames. Indeed, the players may well have found the quiet disconcerting.

Although they were, of course, delighted so many people attended. To complete the rare happening—the first meeting of the two countries away from the sub-continent and the UAE—we had the people feasting on meat pies and tomato sauce rather than samosas and pakoras and the like. The pies were washed down by beer.

While the evening may have represented a culture shock for all involved it was an occasion to savour, one that perfectly illustrated how this extraordinary game can embrace all people, in all situations, at all times.

 

Who is meant to do what and to what deadline seems to be unclear

Through its eight decades as the governing body, the Board of Control for Cricket in India lived up to the “control” in its name, often placing that aspect above all else.

The body as a whole, if not an individual, was in control and there was no confusion over who made the decisions, right or wrong. Some individuals were benevolent dictators, others merely benevolent and still others outright dictators.

Power tended to be in the hands of one individual — sometimes it was the president, at other times it was the secretary, and once it was even the man who introduced the IPL. Corruption — not always financial — followed such concentration of power.

The Supreme Court’s necessary intervention eliminated some of the ills, and through the Lodha Committee report, guaranteed the removal of many more. But it also led to extra layers of administration; it has now become difficult to figure out who is in charge.

Is it C.K. Khanna, the acting president, who was characterised by Justice Mukul Mudgal in his report to the High Court as a “pernicious influence” responsible for the “major ills” of the DDCA?

Is it the depleted Committee of Administrators, whose task it is to oversee the transition in the BCCI?

Are all answers in the Lodha Committee report — and if so, do we need clarifications and answers to frequently asked questions?

The recent (and continuing) muddle over the appointment of the national coach brings all the shortcomings in the system into sharp focus.

That the coach’s term was running out at the end of the Champions Trophy was known a year ago. Still, like municipal bosses in our cities who are surprised every year when the monsoons arrive, the BCCI behaved as if caught off guard. There was no attempt to be proactive and either decide on a new coach or give the incumbent his well-deserved extension.

This is not about Anil Kumble or Virender Sehwag or Ravi Shastri or any of the claimants to the post. They are professional men engaged elsewhere and need to know in advance if the plan is to have one of them take charge till the end of the 2019 World Cup. A matter of courtesy if nothing else.

By putting out stories in the media and hoping that Kumble would resign in disgust, the BCCI which has always felt uncomfortable by the no-nonsense approach of the great Indian bowler, has now painted itself into a corner.

Not so long ago, the Kumble-Kohli row was the headline grabber. Now the narrative has changed, and the current tune being sung is the lack of any problem between the captain and coach. Even the head of the CoA who was in England and met the two of them has said that he didn’t notice any rift.

The CoA has announced that Kumble will continue till the end of the short tour of the West Indies — something that ought to have been made clear to him well before the Champions Trophy.

It was a sensible call, but is that a part of the CoA’s remit? How does that fit in with its main responsibility of overseeing the transition?

C.K. Khanna, meanwhile, has said in a letter to the acting secretary that the selection of the coach should be deferred till the end of the West Indies tour. Again, a sensible call, but why could that not have been made earlier and before stories of the rift began to muddy the waters?

And where does that leave the Cricket Administrative Committee, another layer as far as the selection of the coach is concerned? The CAC was brought in by the earlier dispensation in the BCCI to give itself a modicum of respectability.

Sachin Tendulkar, Sourav Ganguly and V.V.S. Laxman, three of the country’s finest, spent most of their tenure unsure about what they were meant to do. And then came the idea of these experienced men choosing the national coach. It gave them something to do apart from making the BCCI appear somewhat less political.

The CAC wants more time to choose Kumble’s successor, aware perhaps that it threw its weight behind him originally and the results do not cry out for a change. That overlapped with the BCCI president’s thinking too.

There was a suggestion meanwhile that the BCCI decide on the coach at its Special General Body Meeting on June 26. But that is not on the agenda now.

Indian cricket’s alphabet soup – BCCI, CoA, CAC, SGB – might have been funny in another context. But who is meant to do what and to what deadline seems to be unclear. It is a lack of clarity that plays into the hands of those who brought the BCCI to this sorry pass.

According to the Lodha Committee, the coach should be chosen by the national selection committee. If the June 26 meeting has been called to discuss the implementation of the report, there might be another twist in the tale yet.

Article courtesy – The Hindu

As soon as he dabbed Ravindra Jadeja towards point, Faf du Plessis set off immediately, saying “yes”, signalling partner AB de Villiers for a single. Hardik Pandya swiftly sent the throw down to MS Dhoni, who brushed off the bails even as de Villiers threw himself forward to complete the run.

Five balls later, du Plessis found was involved in another run-out – this time with David Miller. Both batsmen found themselves at the same end after du Plessis responded to Miller’s call for a single, but quickly turned back to make his crease, leaving his partner in an embarrassing position. Those two run-outs were the “turning points” of the match which South Africa went on to lose by eight wickets, according to India captain Virat Kohli.

Du Plessis was apologetic after the defeat and owned up to the fact that his call for a run with de Villiers was not wise. “I take full responsibility for AB’s run-out,” du Plessis said at the media briefing. “That’s my fault. Obviously he [de Villiers] is a big player for us and he was looking good and it was a crunch time in the game. Big mistake from my part running AB out.”

Asked if he ventured running for a single that another batsman would, perhaps, avoid, de Villiers said he simply responded to du Plessis’ call. “You see, I just tried to take a one with my partner out there and it didn’t work. I wasn’t searching for runs, I wasn’t even facing. So I wouldn’t say it like that. There was a call out there, and I thought we could get through for the one.”

According to du Plessis, India’s bowlers and fielders were mounting pressure quickly and with The Oval packed with fans, mostly Indian supporters, it was difficult to hear the calls in the cacophony. He conceded, however, that nothing could absolve him of his “error in judgment” which resulted in de Villiers’ wicket.

“I suppose, after that moment, Dave [Miller] came in and we discussed that it is extremely loud out there and difficult to hear each other so the communication between the two of us was just for the next five overs, just play it as risk free as possible. Try and get the partnership going in, settle the partnership because the last thing you want to do is go wicket, wicket,” he said. “And then two or three balls later, obviously a miscommunication, and then Dave came down and ran. Not a great sight to see two guys standing in the crease.”

Du Plessis said the run-outs distracted him from trying to focus on batting. Failing to read a slower ball from Pandya, du Plessis chopped on and lost his off stump for 36 runs. Within five overs, South Africa’s three most dangerous batsmen were back in the dressing room.

Du Plessis summed up the day as an “average” one for South Africa and gave credit to India to force the mistakes. “That five overs, in a game like today, five overs like that is very, very big,” du Plessis said. “You either settle and get through the pressure. Or you absorb it or you don’t and we didn’t absorb those five overs. I thought India bowled well in the first 10 overs, there was an opportunity there for us to maybe put them under pressure which we didn’t do. It was a day where possibly India dominated us in all aspects and it shouldn’t happen.”

He also pointed out that no amount of experience counts in such moments. “When India were batting they took the pressure, created momentum and then just ran with it. We had a similar opportunity where it was needed for someone, or, two guys to just put the pressure back on the Indian team and you run with it. We didn’t do that today. They put us under pressure and we made mistakes and we couldn’t get out of it.”

According to Kohli, India were confident of restricting South Africa to a modest target once they had sent back de Villiers and du Plessis. “I think his [de Villiers’] run-out could be the turning point. And David Miller’s [too]. He is a very dangerous player as well. They can drag the team up to 260, 270 from any sort of situations. Those two run-outs were the turning point today.”

Nagraj Gollapudi is a senior assistant editor at ESPNcricinfo – Article courtesy – espncricinfo.com

Star turn

Bhuvneshwar Kumar relishes playing on English soil. He had a significant hand in India lifting the Champions Trophy in 2013, taking six wickets in five matches, averaging 22.83 and giving away just 3.91 an over. A year later, he was India’s player of the series for his 247 runs and 19 wickets, even as his team were routed 3-1 in the Pataudi Trophy.

Given his ability to find prodigious swing, Bhuvneshwar was always going to be integral to India’s chances of defending their title. He came into the tournament with a bagful of wickets from the IPL and an enhanced reputation as a death bowler. In India’s tournament opener, he sent down an economical opening spell and broke through for India to set up their 124-run rout of Pakistan. Likewise, he struck early against Sri Lanka, and though they bossed a chase of 322, he still finished his 10 overs having gone at under six.

On Sunday, with India facing a must-win, Bhuvneshwar tied down a powerful South African order with a meticulous opening spell that was underpinned by immaculate lines. He gave the South African batsmen next to no width outside the off stump. His straight length balls meant Quinton de Kock was fed nothing to his strengths through the covers or square of the wicket. It left the South African openers to drive on the up or go for the harder option of dragging deliveries from outside off through the leg side. So accurate was Bhuvneshwar that Virat Kohli was able to afford Test-match fields. By the time he ended his opening spell of five overs, only 12 deliveries had been scored off and one boundary conceded.

With Jasprit Bumrah, too, proving to be equally potent at the other end, South Africa were limited to 35 in the first Powerplay. Their innings never quite gathered steam thereafter, and it meant that when Bhuvneshwar came back for his second spell, at the end of the 39th over, South Africa were hobbling at 175 for 6. He made sure the choke was maintained with a three-run over. Two overs later, he produced a couple of away-swingers to send back Kagiso Rabada and Morne Morkel off successive balls. South Africa were nine down and were soon sent packing for an underwhelming total.

The wow moment

Bumrah was ready to bowl the 43rd over when Kohli made a late decision to throw the ball to Bhuvneshwar. The change of ends worked almost immediately as Bhuvneshwar picked his first wicket with the second delivery of the over. It was a delivery that had wicket written all over it – on a length, pitching on middle, forcing the batsman to play at it and finding just enough lateral movement to kiss the outside edge of Rabada’s bat. MS Dhoni was equally sharp behind the stumps, diving forward to complete the catch with the ball dying on him.

Stats that matter

Bhuvneshwar is India’s most economical bowler this tournament, going at 4.44 an over, and it was the same today with a rate of 3.06.
Bhuvneshwar now has 11 wickets against South Africa in eight ODIs – his best against any team.

Akshay Gopalakrishnan is a sub-editor at ESPNcricinfo – Article courtesy – espncricinfo.com

 

The Committee of Administrators supervising the functioning of the BCCI will discuss issues of conflict of interest in Indian cricket, and specifically the role of Rahul Dravid, who has taken strong exception to the suggestion that he had been granted preferential terms to coach India’s junior teams while being a mentor to Delhi Daredevils in the IPL.

The matter was precipitated by a stinging resignation letter from Ramachandra Guha, who gave up his position in the CoA because of what he perceived as inaction from his colleagues against conflicts of interest in Indian cricket. While Guha didn’t directly name Dravid, he contended that it was “contrary to the spirit of the Lodha Committee” for coaches or support staff of India’s senior and junior teams, or staff at the NCA, to have IPL contracts.

When Rahul Dravid took over as coach of India’s junior teams in June 2015, he had asked the BCCI whether his involvement with an IPL team would be an issue. According to a BCCI source, Dravid was told there were precedents in Sanjay Bangar and R Sridhar also holding dual roles, and Dravid had consulted with lawyers, who assured him the arrangement wasn’t in contravention with the BCCI’s conflict-of-interest rules.

“It’s 10 months for BCCI work and two months for the IPL,” the BCCI official said. “Dravid’s contract is no different to anyone else’s. It is not like he has got a special dispensation.

“The debate over whether it is a conflict or not is a completely different issue. There are very good cases on both sides and it is up to the people in power to decide what works for them and what they feel and clarify that.”

In the BCCI’s current arrangement, coaches and support staff of India’s senior and junior teams are given ten-month contracts that run until the end of March. They are then free to sign a two-month deal in the IPL. Apart from Dravid, India’s fielding coach R Sridhar is involved with Kings XI Punjab in the IPL while Andrew Leipus, the chief physio at the National Cricket Academy, works with Kolkata Knight Riders.

Dravid had not made a public response until now, and he confirmed sending a letter to the CoA to explain his position. He was categorical in saying that he had abided by the prevailing conflict-of-interest regulations, and that there was a need for greater clarity on rule changes, if any.

“Yes, I have written to the CoA explaining my position and explaining the background against which this perceived conflict of interest has happened,” Dravid told ESPNcricinfo. “By the BCCI’s conflict of interest rules, I was absolutely not under a conflict of interest. If the rules have changed midway through the contract, then I think it is unfair to criticise me for breaking the rules or twisting the rules to suit my convenience.

“My simple point is that, not only me but there are five or six of us who are in the same position. There needs to be clarity. If there is clarity, we will be in a position to take an informed decision. It is disappointing the way this got played out in the public without much understanding of the background.”

The CoA, while discussing a fresh contract for Dravid, is looking to put in place a broad framework to address conflict-of-interest situations at its meeting on June 12. A BCCI official, however, said it wasn’t necessarily a reaction to Guha’s letter.

“It’s not that this has suddenly cropped up today. Nobody is against resolving any of these issues,” the official told ESPNcricinfo. “You have to do it in a holistic manner and that’s a work in progress. And certain things have a certain process. You will have to figure out what the right framework is. It is not a situation-specific thing. You need to develop a framework that addresses conflict based on principles.”

In firming up the rules, the official said, the availability of coaching talent had to be factored in as well. “That [increasing remunerations] is the point we are considering, in terms of increasing the contracts for Test players to the extent that it has to be something that is reasonable even if somebody does not get an IPL contract,” he said. “We have to think through what the framework is for coaches and support staff.

“There are pros and cons that need to be weighed appropriately and then a decision has to be made based on who’s available for these things. Not that there are unlimited number of people available or quality people available, so all that has to be kept in mind.”

Arun Venugopal is a correspondent at ESPNcricinfo. Article Courtesy – espncricinfo.com

It was not so long ago that Indian fans went into a World Cup honestly thinking that the final result was irrelevant. Reaching the final was good, winning would be a bonus, but beating Pakistan on the way there was non-negotiable. In Birmingham at the 2017 Champions Trophy there was a mildly anti-climactic feel to India’s comfortable 124-run win.

Here was a Pakistan team that neither mercurial nor unpredicatable. Here was an Indian team on top of its game in almost every respect. For once, India even had a fast-bowling attack far superior to the one it was facing. There was no Imran, no Wasim, no Waqar, no Shoaib, and only in Mohammad Amir’s first spell, especially the testing maiden over to Rohit Sharma first up did the match feel like a contest.

Coming into the match, India’s most significant area of concern was the openers. Although Shikhar Dhawan and Rohit Sharma have been largely unchallenged, it would not be amiss to say that the two had not done enough, individually or in partnership to suggest long-term success.

In that light, the 136-run opening stand, even if it ate up nearly 25 overs, was worth its weight in gold.

Rohit was especially culpable in keeping the scoring rate down, overseeing as many as 63 dot balls in his 119-ball 91. But, if he had lasted a little longer, there was every chance he would have hurt Pakistan and made his own numbers look excellent.

As it turned out, Rohit’s run out came at the perfect time for India. Yuvraj Singh, who was so ill recently that he had to be hospitalised, made the most of a dropped catch to hit the ball to all parts. Deliveries that might have choked other batsmen were dispatched with ease, as Kohli pointed out. “The way Yuvi batted, it was the game-changing innings, to be honest,” said Kohli. “That gave all of us the confidence to start striking the ball well. The way he batted was the way only he can strike the ball. Hitting low full-tosses for fours and sixes, and even digging out yorkers for fours, was outstanding.”

Kohli, who ended with an unbeaten 81 off only 68 balls, explained why Yuvraj’s hand was so influential. “I think till 40 I was easing into the game, taking my ones and twos like I always do. I could not go for the big ones because it was tricky. We went off about four times,” said Kohli. “When Yuvi came in, he started striking from ball one and that took pressure off me, and maybe I should have given him strike. That really deflated the opposition and that gave me a bit of time to settle in from the other end. When he got out, I took over. But I think his innings was a difference in the game.”

But, India were in front of the game long before their openers clicked or their finishers did their bit. Kohli, who had a potentially tricky job picking eleven out of a robust fifteen, got it just right. “The combination was something that we spoke about. We had named 12 yesterday, and then we decided in the morning that the surface was hard enough for the bowlers to keep hitting good, hard lengths and use the bouncer every over as well to create a bit of pressure,” said Kohli. “And we decided to play an extra seamer against Pakistan, purely because of the fact that becomes a wicket-taking option.”

Restoring the confidence of a set yet not always successful opening batting combination: check. Keeping faith in the lower order to score at pace, taking the team from a decent total to a matchwinning one: check. Playing Yuvraj, recovering from illness, ahead of the in-form Dinesh Karthik: check.

Pakistan’s captain, Sarfaraz Ahmed, wanted his team to think out of the box in order to put it past India. Instead, they never quite got sight of the box as India spent 81.4 overs ticking all the boxes they might have hoped to, setting themselves up perfectly in the tournament.

Forget about the statistics of India’s wins against Pakistan in global events, and don’t even point to the fact that India have won 17 of their last 18 matches in 50-over ICC tournaments. This was not about facts or figures. It was about one team bossing the other. And India’s players will know that neither Sri Lanka nor South Africa pose the same emotional strain as Pakistan.

In that sense, this Indian team has broken the mould. Beating Pakistan was a box to be ticked, but it is no longer the most important game in a tournament. The business of winning can be placed front and centre, the hearts of fans having already been won over.

This article first appeared on the Scroll website on June 5, 2017 – Anand on Cricket is a cricket blog with regular columns, reports, analysis, interviews, features, live updates, photos, match reports and breaking news. Anand Vasu is a cricket writer with two decades of experience writing for Cricinfo, Cricbuzz, Wisden India, Wisden, The Telegraph, The Guardian, Sports Illustrated India, The Hindustan Times and others.

Mushtaq Mohammad is in a hurry because he has to break his fast. It is late evening now and Attock CC has nearly shut for the day.

Only half a dozen players remain, playing tennis ball cricket barefoot in one corner of this quiet, green field. To one side is Moseley School’s old, Gothic building, towering over the land. Trees line the boundary; birds chirp; it is a gloriously idyllic setting.

Mushtaq, friend, patron and President of the club — named after the district in Pakistani Punjab its founders are from — takes his seat on a little bench outside the pavilion.

The former Pakistan all-rounder, who played 57 Tests for his country, scoring 10 hundreds and taking 79 wickets, has lived in these parts for a long time now. It always causes a stir in Birmingham (where nearly a quarter of the population is of South Asian descent), he says disapprovingly, when India and Pakistan meet in a cricket match.

“They always make a very big scene of it, a big issue of it. It’s only a game of cricket. Because we don’t play against each other so much, because we have political differences, and because there’s always tension between the two countries [is why there is such a fuss]. And the present circumstances are not good, it’s very fragile and very tense. Now all of a sudden Pakistan is playing India, and everybody is excited that something is happening.

“The rivalry is still huge between the two countries. In our days, it was a good friendly rivalry. We were able to bring harmony. Cricket built great bridges between the two countries. At times cricket was used to defuse the tension between the two countries. If cricket, which is a small commodity, can bring two nations together on a playing field, why can’t they do it politically?”

The 73-year-old recalls games against India with much fondness. “Playing India in India is a great memory in itself. Getting a hundred at Ferozshah Kotla (in February 1961) was special. That was my first Test hundred and it came against India. Then playing India in Pakistan (when he was captain and oversaw a Test series win) is also a pleasant memory, when Bishan Bedi brought the team over in 1978.”

Despite how that historic tour turned out — with Bedi conceding an ODI in Sahiwal in protest against Pakistan’s unchecked short-pitched bowling — the great left-arm spinner was only warm off the field, says Mushtaq.

“Bishan is like a brother to me. Both of us played for the same county — Northamptonshire. We lived together for six years in England. Whenever I go to Delhi, I stay with him. Whenever he comes to Birmingham, he uses this ground. He’s been here on a number of occasions. I get on well with Sunil Gavaskar too.”

These days, though, Pakistan does not play serious international cricket at home. It has hurt the team greatly, Mushtaq feels.

“We are unfortunate. We are forced to play our home season away from home in the UAE. Pakistan has not been able to produce players like (Javed) Miandad, Saeed Anwar, Inzamam (-ul-Haq), Wasim (Akram), Waqar (Younis) or Shoaib (Akhtar). These were the products when the team was on a high. Today’s youngsters haven’t seen their heroes play at home. That’s why Pakistan cricket has slumped. Once we start playing at home, Pakistan will grow.”

As he walks off, maintaining that Indian and Pakistani players have always been friends, Mushtaq reflects on a deeper, personal connection with India. “You know, I was born in Junagadh in Kathiawar (Gujarat) before we migrated to Pakistan in 1947,” he says. “We moved when I was a five-year-old. I haven’t been back since. I’d love to go to my Junagadh again.”

Article Courtesy – The Hindu

When Ramachandra Guha was appointed to the Committee of Administrators, there were sniggers from various quarters. What did a historian living in an imagined utopia know about running Indian cricket, it was asked. Having found the kitchen too hot, it will be said, he has quit. He has quit all right, and arguably without accomplishing the primary objective of seeing the reforms through, but he has left with an important piece of what all his detractors consider him good for: writing.

Not many pieces have said more about the state of Indian cricket administration than Guha’s resignation letter to Vinod Rai, the chairman of the CoA. The superstars of Indian cricket, of the recent past and present, stand exposed as lacking accountability and conscience. The BCCI has been reaffirmed as a manipulative body that allows the excesses of these superstars to keep them on its side. In the case of Sunil Gavaskar, Ravi Shastri and Kapil Dev, their cheerleading of the board comes as a bonus.

Not all of this is new but it is coming from a man who had the mandate from the highest court of the country, a man who spent four months in the system and was clearly frustrated by the inaction.

He saw the BCCI subvert a Supreme Court order, and he saw his colleagues not do much about it. He saw the old guard try to hold a world event hostage, and he saw his colleagues let it happen before swooping in at the last minute. He is seeing a coach being shunted out to supposedly appease a superstar captain, and he sees his colleagues – by the virtue of their silence – complicit in it. Perhaps the CoA can provide a counter-argument because the BCCI old guard will be happy with this chaos and confusion.

Guha would have done well to mention the irony that Kumble himself was appointed coach through the subversion of another process last year. Otherwise, from Dravid to Gavaskar to Dhoni to Kohli to Ganguly, Guha has mentioned them all. In Dravid’s case, allowance could be made that his BCCI contract allows him to work in the IPL for two months a year; and he has also asked the board for clarity on his role in the past. He might be making a fair point, but Guha might also have been better off leaving Dhoni’s contract grade to the men charged with these decisions: the national selectors.

However, in showing no bias in pointing out the conflicts of interest, in naming names, and in the clarity with which it does so, this is a bold and unprecedented letter. It says a lot that such a brave assessment can only be made by someone on the outside and with no designs of gaining materially from Indian cricket.

Rai and Limaye are practical men from the practical world who seem to be looking for practical solutions, but they could have done more to take along with them a man with intentions as noble as Guha’s
These are not concerns that have emerged overnight out of love for Kumble, with whom, and Bishan Bedi, Guha had once taken a selfie and tweeted, “two of my greatest heroes”. Guha has quoted emails in his letter to indicate that he has had these concerns ever since he joined the CoA, and that they had not been acted upon. Those who know him say he has been frustrated for a long time.

To be fair to Guha’s colleagues at the CoA, their hands have been tied in certain cases by what is, in parts, an ambiguous order from the Supreme Court. In many instances, the CoA was reduced to going back to the Court for instructions. For example, when the CoA intervened to prevent disqualified members from attending BCCI meetings, the court order put the onus on the members to judge for themselves if they were disqualified or not. Or else. Such “or elses” have clearly not worked because N Srinivasan and Niranjan Shah, to name two of the disqualified members, attended the BCCI SGM in Delhi.

Perhaps, in a hyper-nationalistic age, the CoA didn’t want to come across as the one who lost the BCCI part of what it used to get from the ICC, though the BCCI’s insistence at the cost of globalisation is a bit like the USA pulling out of the climate deal. Perhaps it was also mindful of any disruptions to India’s showcase event, the IPL, which is why it hasn’t yet shown the old guard the full might of its mandate.

The CoA has also been looking at pushing for constitutional changes with minimal controversy as its primary objective. There is nothing stopping the committee from working on the issues Guha mentions – it did take up player contracts – but its bigger concern is the implementation of the Lodha Committee’s reforms, which the BCCI old guard keeps resisting.

Even having made these allowances, the CoA has been slow and cautious, arguably overcautious. Whatever the reasons, it had the mandate to block some of these unfortunate events. For example, it intervened only one day before the BCCI was set to pull out of the Champions Trophy.

Rai and Limaye are practical men from the practical world, who seem to be looking for practical solutions, but they could have done more to take along with them a man with intentions as noble as Guha’s. If a lawyer was changed – as alleged – without taking Guha into confidence, it could say a lot about what the committee thought of him and arguably, by extension, his concerns. If a man within the committee began to doubt the committee, those outside are bound to question whether the committee has forgotten its mandate.

It will be all too easy to say that if Guha cared so much he should have stayed and tried to change the system, but that is also to say that Indian cricket is no place for straightforward men with straightforward intentions, even if they come armed with Supreme Court orders.

Perhaps we are better off looking at the circumstances that led to this. Perhaps this jolt will bring the urgency that Guha wanted to see in the CoA. Perhaps this is, as ESPNcricinfo’s editor-in-chief Sambit Bal put it in the video above, a plea to the Supreme Court to unshackle the CoA a little. If that happens, it might be worth a couple of clinking glasses in the BCCI old guard.

Sidharth Monga is an assistant editor at ESPNcricinfo – Article courtesy – www.espncricinfo.com

It is reported Kohli and a few other Indian cricketers are not happy with Kumble’s style of functioning.

The alleged Virat Kohli versus Anil Kumble saga has a new twist as it is now reported that Kumble is unlikely to continue as Team India head coach post ICC Champions Trophy in England.

Kumble, who took over from Team India Director Ravi Shastri last year, was given a one-year contract which comes to an end at the conclusion of the ICC event in England. While Kumble has results on his side – only a series defeat across formats – the alleged differences of opinion with Kohli are likely to cut short his future as team’s head coach.

“The problem between Kumble and Kohli isn’t recent but has apparently been festering on for a while. The early signs were seen at the start of the England series in Rajkot in November last year. Not just Virat, we have been told that a few players are also not too happy with Kumble’s style of functioning. When the captain especially isn’t happy, then there is little that we or anybody from outside can do,” a report in Indian Express quoted a BCCI official as saying.

However, the same report quoted an unnamed member of COA criticising Kohli’s behaviour.

“Kohli is behaving like a spoilt child. The committee should be fair. Kumble has had great results and that should be a big factor when it comes to renewing his contract.”

While it is indicated that Supreme Court-appointed Committee of Administrators (COA) and BCCI officials are finding ways to broker peace between the two, it seems unlikely that the former leg-spinner will continue as Team India head coach post Champions Trophy.

It was earlier indicated that Kumble and Kohli were not on a same page over the team selection for the third India versus Australia Test in Ranchi. While Kumble wanted to pick Kuldeep Yadav, Kohli was not in favour of the same. The young left-arm chinaman bowler made his debut in Dharamsala Test as Ajinkya Rahane led the team in absence of injured Kohli.

“This may or may not be the reason. But we believe the people in the corridors of power have been told that Kumble is overbearing and doesn’t give freedom to the players. It’s sad that aspersions are cast on a legend of Indian cricket,” a BCCI official had earlier told The Hindu.

It was also reported that there were a number of cricketers who were not pleased with Kumble’s style of functioning.

“It’s just not the captain alone. A few months back, a bowler landed at the national cricket academy in Bangalore. Rest, recuperation, and some fitness work was on his mind. Some bit of bowling too. He was told he had to put in hours of bowling, get Test-match fit. He wasn’t initially keen but was told he had no choice. For what it’s worth, his bowling improved at the end of the stint. Sometimes, as a coach, you have to tread on fragile egos, be sensitive. A couple of players felt Kumble wasn’t,” said a report in the Indian Express.

The same report also quoted a source close to Indian team about Kohli’s apprehensions over Kumble.

“He (Kohli) would throw a word or two about what he thought about the new coach. You know, nothing bad, but there was enough there to realise he wasn’t sure or had some doubts. Kohli would have loved to have a team atmosphere like the one MS Dhoni had.”

A report in DNA also said that Kumble leaked private WhatsApp conversations with Team India cricketers to his friends in media.

“We’ve been told that there is a WhatsApp group created by Kumble of his few trusted media friends and few confidential talks between him and senior players were leaked through that,” a report in DNA quoted an unnamed senior BCCI official as saying.