Update 2: Woolmer was strangled. The world cup and cricket comes under a shadow.

Update: Cricinfo is reporting breaking news on Woolmer.

Pervez Mir, the Pakistan Cricket Board spokesman, told AFP: “The police suspect that Woolmer may have been murdered. They have started an investigation.”

A lot of people said to me after hearing the news of Woolmer’s death that cricket is just a game. However, with so much money involved in the game, cricket is far more than that today as is most professional sport. Modern sports generates so much money and provides employment to so many people, not just the sportsmen playing the game. It will be a sad day for cricket if Woolmer was indeed murdered regardless of who did it.

*****

Bob Woolmer’s death has come as a huge shock. As a keen follower of South African cricket in the 90s, I had the opportunity to see how brilliant Woolmer’s cricketing mind was. Cricket is a game which has plenty of room for strategy and innovations if some one is creative. Cricket suited Woolmer perfectly in this regard. He brought innovations and thought about the game with a modern perspective for which he was widely regarded as the best coach in the world.

As a coach he had success with Warwickshire county club and then reached great heights with South Africa. Australia has been the best cricket team in the world for what now seems an eternity. However, for a period in the 90s - 1996-99, South Africa had the best one day side in the world. No small credit for that goes to Bob Woolmer. Woolmer always had that new point of view no one could have thought about and it was evident every where - whether it was team strategies, field placements or team compositions.

All rounders and lower order batsmen started getting a new meaning in international cricket. South African lower order batting would have guys like Shaun Pollock, Lance Klusener, Nicky Boje. Even Pat Symcox made runs and was contributing to the team apart from his bowling. I remember a match versus Australia where Woolmer opened with Lance Klusener and brought Pat Symcox in at number 3. Klusener made 92 and Symcox made 26. South Africa ended up with 301 and won comfortably in the end. That’s just one match which shows how brilliant Woolmer was.

Many people suggested that Woolmer shouldn’t coach Pakistan but he followed his beliefs. Not that long ago, the team was progressing exceedingly well. Woolmer was creating depth in the batting and bringing in more options for the team in bowling. Woolmer always had a vision with a team and specific players were backed if it was believed that they could do a job which would add to the over all team strength of the team. So Shahid Afridi was brought back when no one gave him much of a chance. There were many other interesting things done in Pakistan cricket in that phase where they were looking good - things like Shoaib Akhtar being disciplined and then brought back which could extract the best output out of him. In his short time with Pakistan, Woolmer managed to create an attachment in the hearts of the common Pakistan cricket fan just like he had done in South Africa.

In 1999, Woolmer couldn’t win the world cup with South Africa. Pakistan in 2007 was to be Woolmer’s redemption. Sadly, Pakistan cricket went from one low to another in the past months culminating with the exit of Akhtar and Asif from the world cup. Without the bowling spearheads, there was little chance of Pakistan winning the world cup.

First as a player, then as a coach, Woolmer served cricket and added a lot to the game. RIP.

The two upsets will give hope to the minnows in cricket for many years to come. Hope can lead to formation of goals and goals, when aided with proper plan of action, can lead to great things. So 17th April, 2007, has the potential of having many positive effects.

There is another aspect I am wondering about. Pakistan is out of the world cup in the first round and India has a very real chance of following suit. So will this trigger off lowering of following of cricket? Has the lowering of following already started but we just do not notice it yet?

Earlier, people used to follow every ball when India played. Now, many are happy with just following the score. I remember how the Eden Gardens used to be full and you had to pay double the price written on the ticket to watch the game if you didn’t buy your ticket early. However, the last few years have seen lower number of crowds and empty seats - some thing unimaginable earlier.

People will not go on following a sport forever and are not immune to factors like results. Many years ago, hockey enjoyed huge popularity. However, losses and disappointing performances over the years has meant that hockey is a shadow of it’s former self in India. Wins are very crucial for increasing and/or sustaining the popularity of a particular sport in a nation in the long run.

Given the following cricket enjoys, India and Pakistan should produce far more successful cricketers and cricket teams. However, the lack of infrastructure over the years has meant that talent cannot be tapped or honed properly. 17th March should be a warning sign for the authorities in India and Pakistan to get their act together and chart out a proper plan for cricket for the people wont always keep following, the sponsors won’t always keep coming and the money won’t always keep flowing.

The bubble can indeed burst.

A minor controversy has emerged in cricket with South Africans allegedly racially abusing Pakistani players. The South African officials are saying that the phrase used was they’re like animals... Footage shows that the exact phrase used also included go back to your zoo with plenty of expletives in between though it is not clear on whom the insults were directed at.

I don’t see why a player has to crop abusive behaviour on the field just because he is playing cricket. I don’t see tennis players mouthing off against each other for example and I don’t see it in any sport at least as openly as I see in cricket. Isn’t tennis a professional sport as well?

Kallis called an Indian batsman (I think it was Dravid) you *abuses* Indian during the recent South Africa-India series. Now why should a player tolerate such nonsense just because he is playing cricket?

I have been a long term advocator of playing cricket with the bat and the ball instead of the mouth and even though I might be in a minority, I feel firmly on the topic. I don’t see why sledging should be passed as part of the game.

Friendly banter is okay but sledging, particularly the racial kind, is not required in sport.

Update: Cricketvideosunplugged has the video of the incident.

In breaking news, Pakistan Television has just reported that Shoaib Akhtar has been banned for two years from international cricket while Md. Asif has been banned for just one year. Both had tested positive for the banned anabolic steroid Nandrolone just a few weeks back and according to the International Cricket Council doping norms, the ban should be for two years.

While arguments can be raised that the jurisidiction here is under the Pakistan Cricket Board and Shane Warne was also banned for just one year, both the points do not hold good. Pakistan Cricket Board should follow international norms and a mistake by Cricket Australia to do the same in the case of Warne does not justify Pakistan Cricket Board doing the same in case of Akhtar.

Also, why just one year for Asif when both were caught for the same substance while two for Akhtar? Maybe we will hear some justifications from the PCB but I am not sure they can give any valid reason for it. The only reason (and not a valid reason at that) seems to save Asif’s (who is just 23 years old) career. Akhtar, who is 31 seems to have played his last game in international cricket now.

Update: DNA has just reported on it:

The bans, effective from Oct. 15, rule both out of next year’s World Cup.

Update 2: Here is the CNN report. It says:

However, Bilal said the banned players under the ICC rules had the right to appeal, which would be heard by another independent committee…

Asif received a shorter ban because he had little knowledge about the usage of performance enhancing medicines, and “stopped using them when his physiotherapist asked him to do it,” Hamid said.

Ignorance is no excuse and so shouldn’t result it cutting down of period of the ban regardless of whether the story is true or not.

Update 3: The full report of the PCB Anti-Doping Commission can be read here.

The hearing of Inzamam has been delayed till the end of September. You would think that the ICC would want to resolve this matter as soon as possible as they were serious regarding the ball tampering issue. The ICC is more concerned that the one dayers at hand are played without controversy and the revenues from the tournament are not risked rather than taking bold steps. They prefer that the matter is cooled off and away from the public eye so that they can take their normal toothless approach of doing nothing.

One thing the ICC was pretty active in was to bring in Ranjan Madugalle for the hearings in place of the match referre for the controversial match, Mike Procter. Even if Mike Procter was a part of hearing the points of the Pakistan cricket or it’s management (Woolmer) or Darrel Hair, would that mean Procter is no longer a neutral? Procter was the match referee and he should have been in the middle of the decisions. The reason that the ICC now gives to postpone the hearing of Inzamam - illness in Madugalle’s family is hilarious and unbelievable. They could replace Procter in a jiffy so why not replace Madugalle in a jiffy as well now?

What to make out of the whole issue? Depending on which country you are in or which local newspaper you subscribe to, you can get views on the issue from every one from Steve Waugh to Javed Miandad to Dilip Vengsarkar to the cricket superstar of your block. I still do not believe so much has happened over nothing really. Had Pakistan accepted to let the 5 points go off their records, won the match and then protested over the verdict, not only would they have won the match, we would have been spared of a lot of nonsense.

The Pakistan cricket team is accused of ball tampering by the umpire and hence cheating. They refuse to come out to play for the post tea session.

Darrel Hair takes off the bails from the stumps and according to the rules, as Pakistan didn’t come out to play, the umpires could technically forfeit the game and award it to England. A bit later, the Pakistan team came out to play but the umpires refused to officiate.

More than thirty minutes passed in the above stated ludicrious events. If a player or team is accused of cheating, he doesn’t become a cheat necessarily. Appeals can be lodged and strong statements by boycotting if not heard properly can be made later on. By refusing to play and cuasing commotion when there wasn’t need for it, the Pakistani cricket team did not see the larger picture of the responsibility of letting the show go on. The personal issue was given more importance than the good of the game at large.

That Darrel Hair was the umpire did not help matters. He prefers donning the hat of a police man in the middle, showing his importance. The good umpires, an old adage goes, are the ones who are noticed the least. Darrel Hair doesn’t believe in this adage and likes to be in the centre of every thing. He ignored the larger picture, not for the first time - the good of the game is vital above every thing else.

The fans who came to watch the cricket at The Oval on a Sunday chosing cricket over football or the ones who decided to watch on TV were left with the mockery for more than an hour. That is 2/3rds of the time it takes to finish a football match. That the crowd behaved calmly is complementary. The watching public, sponsors and the television companies are within their rights to get back their money for the day as the cricket, for which they paid, didn’t actually occur for 15-20% of the day for circumstances which could have been controlled.

Damage control needs to be done and the test match should continue tomorrow. If the egos of the men involved is so big that they cannot talk it out and the match is called off, it would disgraceful for the game. The persons involved in effecting the disgrace should be penalised but you would be a fool to bet that the ICC will do that.

Update: The test match has been forfeited and awarded to England.

Looks like Afridi has been assured of more security in the test side, or been convinced like a kid is usually, to announce his great come back. He goes one better. He says that he meant that he was retiring for only two weeks!

I said this when Afridi did retire:

Cricinfo’s Osman Samiuddin reports:

Shahid Afridi has announced his `retirement’ from Test cricket. In an announcement that caught most people in Pakistan by complete surprise, Afridi told a local TV channel that he was planning to concentrate only on ODI cricket to ready himself for the World Cup in 2007.

This has the cricket fans perplexed. Shahid Afridi is just 26 years old. He has been superb for Pakistan in both one dayers and tests of late. A case in point - in his last 10 tests, Shahid Afridi has scored 854 runs at an average of 47.44 with 3 hundreds. He has also taken 23 wickets at an average of 33.60. This, after being left in the wilderness for long from the Pakistan national cricket team. You would imagine that Afridi would want to play as much international cricket as he possibly could.

So every one is describing the decision of Shahid Afridi to retire as crazy, shocking, bewildering and every thing in between. I see it slightly differently. Confirmed tests Pakistan play between now and the World Cup are 4 in England and at least 3 in South Africa apart from the home tests versus the West Indies. England and South Africa have pitches which are in sharp contrast to the pitches the sub-continent has. Afridi is absolutely king on flat wickets where the ball is not moving, bouncing and playing cross batted shots is not as easy. But would only this make Afridi sit out?

You have to consider the second important aspect. To defeat England in England, or at least compete, you need solid specialist cricketers. Would an Afridi be preferred over a solid batsman in England? In most likelihood ‘no’. Would the playing XI be stronger by chosing a specialist or an Afridi (whose batting or spin wouldn’t be as effective in England or South Africa)? If there was any one except a Woolmer at the helm, I would be less certain regarding Afridi not playing in England given his recent track record. However, Woolmer is a superb strategist. Woolmer is the real reason Afridi and Akhtar were used so well by Pakistan in the recent past. Woolmer is a key reason why Pakistan is doing so well of late. But that’s another story.

Now Woolmer was instrumental in bringing Afridi back to the Pakistan side. So I would be surprised if Afridi didn’t consult Woolmer before announcing his decision. Even if he didn’t, Afridi had one of two paths to chose from here:

1. Play in the test team and risk being in and out of the side and lose the place by the end of the South African tour - a very real possibility.
2. The path Afridi chose to go with.

Another aspect to consider - in the crazy world of Pakistan cricket, no one is certain of any spot. So a Rameez Raja, a Javed Miandad or any one else can come and go from top level management. A Woolmer (who used Afridi very well in the Pakistan side) may not be there after World Cup 2007. He is contracted till 2007 as things stand.

By announcing his retirement now, Afridi almost certainly ensures himself a return to test cricket as soon as he announces that he is reversing his decision to retire after the 2007 World Cup. Heck, if Michael Jordan can do it, what is Afridi! Loads of people have retired before and made comebacks.

The World Cup will be played in the West Indies - tracks which are usually flat. To support a successful World Cup (sadly runs is supposed to be excitment in cricket nowadays) flat wickets are a given. So Afridi has a good chance of having a decent World Cup 2007 individually.

Afridi is just 26. I will be much more surprised if he doesn’t play another test match in his life than any one who is surprised at him announcing his retirement from tests right now.

New Zealand - West Indies Day 2 at Napier is haulted due to rain. Doesn’t matter. At least we have the Sri Lanka - Pakistan test in Colombo. Any live test cricket action can do on a Sunday morning.

Next thing I know, I see Sanjay Manjrekar announces that the match is delayed due to rain. Agh.

I love that test cricket is nature dependant (cloud causes swing) and has so many variables (ball deterioates, the pitch wears, the pitch is always different). But rain is some thing which always irritates.

This is not Wimbledon and thus Cliff Richard will not start singing. So go away rain!

The English Team was at cross roads in Pakistan. I had written on the same nearly 3 months ago which can be read here. I titled it facing adveristy. In the period which has followed since then, England has enountered a lot of adversity. A menacing Shoaib Akhtar in Pakistan and a series of unfortunate events leading 4 of their first XI to withdraw from the tour of India being unquestionably the biggest external adversities. The internal weaknesses they have shown shouldn’t be forgotten.

With the collapse in Pakistan and throwing away a match England should have probably drawn in India in the second test of the series in Mohali, it has probably let slip the opportunity to challenge Australia for now. From being the unquestionable number 2 side, it has gone down a step in the close battle of the number 2.

In fact, it also finds itself at a position inferior to Pakistan. Pakistan appear to have lost Shoaib Akhtar for the immediate future. However there is some time to go for Pakistan’s tour of England. If Pakistan can manage even a draw in that series, it would mean that Pakistan has set itself above the current English side.

And what about South Africa? South Africa played superbly in Australia. It is now involved in the home series versus Australia. If South Africa can manage a victory or even a draw, it can be accepted as a strong team despite Glenn McGrath not playing in the current series and despite what Chris Fogarty has to say regarding only the Ashes mattering, test cricket is about more than just The Ashes. John Stern analyses the current situation and the mouth watering prospect which lies ahead of us much more judiciously.

India may be finding bowlers (Munaf Patel, Piyush Chawla) who might show some potency in times to come. However, with it playing just 2 test series in the run up to World Cup 2007 and having lost the series to Pakistan (despite it being like a 1 test series), India finds itself behind the pack in this chase. Did New Zealand not go behind a huge distance in one session in their home series versus Pakistan where Shoaib Akhtar wrecked them? It did India no favours that for them that the home series versus England was always going to be The Nothing Series. India in fact loosened their noose in the tussle they failed to win their last series in the West Indies. That they lost the home series versus Australia did them no favours. They have been chasing as a back runner since then and will have to keep persisting. They do not find themselves in the picture before the pyajama cricket - World Cup 2007 is done and dusted with.

Climbing up the ladder is difficult. It requires consistent brilliant performances. New Zealand is finding it out the hard way. It is doomed in mid table for the time being. Has England let it’s opportnity slip by two collapses, one in Pakistan and one in India? The importance is not in that England lost. England would be respectable losers after drawing their first test match in India. The importance was in the manner in which a match which should have been drawn was lost. A win in Mumbai is now needed for England to remain in the race. Very difficult but it is the only way England can stop the opportunity from slipping. No one said the battle was ever going to be easy!

Pakistan does have a small lead ahead of the rest of the pack - England, South Africa and India. South Africa has the best chance to contend with Pakistan. While all this is going on, Australia cannot work out who the right players are for their international side. A side which boasted of depth finds itself bringing back older warriors who were discarded after the Ashes war was lost. The batsmen are not showing consistency. There is no sign of a future Glenn McGrath or Shane Warne. Most importantly, Australia has set such high standards for themselves that they will themselves find it difficult to maintain these levels. Even if McGrath and Warne do manage to play for a few more years, it will be very difficult for Australia to not slip from it’s high intensity performances is now characterized with. Some would argue that the slipping has already started.

Very interesting times to be a test cricket fan.