Bleacher Report - Articles by Dave Harris

Cricket Ireland: Time To Join the Big Boys of the ICC?

Dave Harris — Wed, 04 Nov 2009 11:54:25 -0500

Following up on the success of the National team in the 2007 World Cup, the Irish Cricket Association, Cricket Ireland (CI) have taken the first steps to joining the ranks of the Full Members of the ICC.

Although they do not have any immediate plans to make a jump up to the highest level of the game, CI are clearly intent on taking the steps that will lead to them eventually playing Test cricket.

Performances on the field in the shorter formats of the game have shown that Ireland have made huge strides in terms of the abilities of the national team, and the defection of the likes of Ed Joyce and Eoin Morgan to play international cricket for England has shown that there is a need to be able to offer the best Irish cricketers a higher standard of cricket, whilst still retaining their roots and being in a position to play for Ireland internationally on a regular basis.

CI has quite a battle on its hands to educate and entertain the Irish pubic, for whom cricket is still very much a minority sport, and to generate the sort of funding that would enable the team to work on a full-time professional basis.

Indeed, part of that struggle will be in terms of getting the right level of television coverage, something that would be enhanced by achieving Full Member status and becoming a regular fixture for touring teams.

Some cynics might suggest that the last thing that cricket needs at the moment is expansion, and that the ICC should concentrate on maintaining the playing standards for existing members, but this is both selfish and short-sighted.

One of the current needs of the game is to have a balance of fixtures for the lower ranked teams so that they can continue gaining international experience and exposure without being trounced in every series—adding Ireland to the mix would provide appropriate opposition for the likes of Bangladesh, Zimbabwe and Kenya (who should also be considered good candidates for elevation).

Others may suggest that this would lead to a two-tier structure in world cricket, but we effectively have that already, with Bangladesh’s only Test victories coming at the hands of Zimbabwe and a severely weakened West Indies side.

As the top ranked Associate Member, a position that Ireland have held for about five years, they deserve to be given consideration for Full Member status, and the ICC should act accordingly.

This doesn’t mean that they should issue such promotion immediately—CI still have work to do in some areas to ensure the future of the game and that the infrastructure they have in place is sustainable—but the reasons for refusing the application in the medium term look to be receding fast.

The biggest obstacle might yet be political, despite the feeling of CI’s Chief Executive Warren Deutrom that the members of the ICC committee who consider the application would be fair-minded. Bangladesh’s introduction in 2000 added an important vote for the Indian-led bloc within the ICC, and Ireland’s ascension may be seen as a challenge to that.

Overall though, if CI can meet the criteria that the ICC have specified, and their on-field performance continues its current progress, I hope that we will see Ireland playing Test cricket sometime in the next decade.

Is this the End for Formula One's Car Manufacturers?

Dave Harris — Wed, 04 Nov 2009 07:59:00 -0500

Toyota’s decision to withdraw from Formula 1 Racing, announced today, has been speculated upon more about half the season.

Although some are blaming the economic climate for the Japanese marque’s decision, with the parent company’s descent into red figures for the first time in its history, it is not the only factor.

Since joining the series in 2002, Toyota has had only modest success, not winning a single race in the team’s eight full seasons. Despite the promise that the company was in F1 to win, and the promising start by Mika Salo in its very first race, Toyota never lived up to its billing or was able to justify the huge expenditure involved.

The question remains, however, is whether this will be a sign that the remaining manufacturers will pull out of the sport.

BMW has already announced their decision to drop out, and though Toyota’s decision could prove a lifeline for teams who are hoping to continue without manufacturer support, it may also indicate that the manufacturer era is coming to a close.

There are rumours that the Renault team will follow suit, and it is expected that they will announce their intentions over the next few days. With Honda quitting at the end of 2008, this would leave no standard manufacturers with teams of their own, except Ferrari, whose reputation is effectively drawn on its F1 success.

Admittedly, Mercedes will remain as an engine supplier, as it has done ever since its initial involvement with the Sauber team, but the future of the Renault and Toyota engines is in doubt, and questions remain over whether the rescued BMW-Sauber team will make its own engines or whether it will rely on a supply from someone else as Brawn has done this year.

Red Bull is expecting to extend their Renault engine deal, but will that attract the full support of the manufacturer, or will it be like a Supertec-type deal, where an intermediary is given control of the program?

And if this is the end of the manufacturer teams, is it a good or bad thing?

It was always speculated that F1 needed to wean itself off manufacturer support, as the car makers were liable to withdraw from the sport at their whim, or because of a change in senior management, while the garagistes of traditional teams' sole purpose was and is F1.

The reduced costs promised for 2010 and onwards are attracting a swathe of new teams that will hope to compete strongly, without major manufacturers hogging the limelight, this may provide them a greater opportunity.

However, it also leaves the front of the grid firmly in the hands of established teams, particularly McLaren and Ferrari, whose potential budgets are still massive, but also Red Bull. Brawn may not be able to follow up this year’s success without the funding that Honda withdrew, and they have fallen back as 2009 continues.

Although Toyota’s decision answers a number of outstanding questions about who will be on the grid in 2010 and what options drivers still have, it leaves many questions still unanswered.

Where will the sport go next from here?

Are we seeing the start of a new independent teams era? Or will car manufacturers return to F1 once the current financial crisis has been ridden out?

Renault's break from F1 lasted from 1986 to 2000—will these withdrawals last that length of time? If the new teams are successful, will the FIA welcome the manufacturers back with open arms as they have done in the past? Or are the manufacturers simply waiting for an opportunity to take over one of these teams and re-market themselves as a new success story?

Eleven of the Best: Foreign-born England Test Players

Dave Harris — Fri, 30 Oct 2009 19:46:41 -0400

With Michael Vaughan's recent comments in his autobiography aboout Jonathan Trott's "Englishness", here is a team of England's best Test players that were born overseas. These players have been selected from England Test teams since 1985, and although there may be some good omissions in that time, I don't believe there are any greats.

Begin Slideshow

Michael Vaughan Wrong to be Concerned About Jonathan Trott's Englishness

Dave Harris — Thu, 29 Oct 2009 09:53:25 -0400

With his revelations in his autobiography, Time to Declare , Michael Vaughan has again opened up the question of the suitability of players performing for an adopted country over the country of their birth.

Vaughan has criticised Jonathan Trott for allegedly celebrating with the South African team after their victory at Edgbaston (Trott’s home ground), when he had been twelfth man for the England team earlier in the series.

Vaughan described it as “a sad day for English cricket” and argued that “you might wish Trott was a bit more English” while complimenting the Warwickshire batsman’s ability, and suggesting that he might be “a more stubborn version of Kevin Pietersen”.

Trott, who made a very successful debut in the Ashes-winning England side at The Oval this past summer, ignored the specifics of the allegations in his response, merely noting that he was fully committed to England and had “spent seven years working hard to be able to wear the Three Lions”.

Yet, Vaughan’s comments are bound to re-ignite the question over the commitment of individuals who were born elsewhere to the England cause, though Vaughan himself apparently had few reservations in including Pietersen in his team, despite his well publicised decision to switch his allegiance to England to gain a better chance of playing Test cricket .

This is hardly the first time that such questions have been asked, but clearly they become more prominent in defeat than in victory. England’s 1992 14-man World Cup squad, which were runners-up in the tournament, featured eight foreign-born players (DeFreitas, Hick, Lamb, Lewis, Pringle, Reeve, Small, and Smith), and this was rarely mentioned.

Should Trott, Pietersen, or Strauss fail to perform in South Africa this winter, will they be subject to further scrutiny regarding where their true allegiance lies?

In the past, the likes of Chris Lewis and Devon Malcolm have had their commitment questioned as a result of their Caribbean heritage. It is not an issue limited to cricket—how many times do we hear of Premiership football imports being less enthusiastic during the colder months?

Yet, such accusations have never been bounded by facts. Nobody accused Malcolm of lack of commitment when he was reducing the South African batting to smithereens at The Oval in 1994, nor the background of Allan Lamb when he was making centuries in the West Indies.

No, these characterisations are merely used as an unproven stick with which to beat a player after he has failed to live up to expectations.

This is an issue that seems to resonate across the media—for some reason we like to build up our heroes just so that we can tear them down again.

We need to encourage our players, not vilify them. We should support them when they fail as much as when they succeed. We shouldn’t be questioning their commitment when they’ve simply had a bad day at the office.

By all means, if they prove not to be good enough to continue to represent England—if their performances on the field could be bettered by others—then of course their selection should be reviewed, but not on the basis of their origins, on their form.

That such players have chosen to represent England over their birth country should be seen as a compliment, not a threat. If their allegiance was ever in doubt, surely they would not have gone through the necessary qualifying period? They want to play for England, so let us not doubt that desire.

The debate is sure to rumble on.

Stumps For Shep: David Shepherd Dies, Age 68.

Dave Harris — Wed, 28 Oct 2009 12:03:28 -0400

For those who remember Test cricket in England in the 1980s, David Shepherd was a pivotal figure in our minds. He stood in 92 Test matches and 172 One-day Internationals. He died yesterday of cancer, at age 68.

Shepherd was a man of cricketing eccentricity who, once past his time, retired relatively quietly in contrast with his contemporary, the equally eccentric Dickie Bird.

Having served on the international, and later elite, Panels of Test umpires for many years, he retired in 2005 to a warm and thoughtful article of praise from David Foote.

Shepherd’s career as a cricketer began late—he made his Gloucestershire debut at age 25 and scored a century—and he went on to make over 14,000 runs for the county in First-class and One-day games, primarily batting in the middle order, across fifteen years.

On retirement he was quickly elevated to the First-class game, and soon to Test level, making his first appearance at Old Trafford during the 1985 Ashes series.

He was well thought of throughout the game as an umpire, known for his comical hop with the score on Nelson and multiples thereof, but also for his calm decision-making, geniality and good eye for the game. The ICC rewarded his consistently excellent performances by selecting him to umpire in six World Cup tournaments, and appointing him to stand in three Finals.

In 1997, Shepherd was awarded an MBE for services to cricket, and he was made an honorary life member of the MCC in 2006.

In latter years, some felt that his judgement began to lapse slightly—in 2001 he missed several occurrences of wickets being taken when he should have called no-balls for the overstepping of Pakistan spinner Saqlain Mushtaq—but the ICC and ECB backed him to continue, and he eventually continued for four more years, before calling it a day in the Test arena in June 2005.

His sense of fair play, often encouraging young players of all nations with a choice comment, or two of praise, and absolute integrity made him a popular figure throughout the game, and it is with sadness that I write as I recall the summer mornings in front of the TV with Shepherd’s rotund figure emerging ahead of the fielders for the start of a new day’s Test cricket.

WICB Face Selection Decisions Over Chris Gayle and The Contract Rebels

Dave Harris — Tue, 20 Oct 2009 10:04:02 -0400

The stand-off between the West Indies Cricket Board (WICB) and many of the key players has now almost come to an end. The players have made themselves available for selection once again, and the Board has agreed that, assuming they make themselves available to play in the regional One-day tournament that starts at the end of October, these players will be considered for selection.

This doesn’t mean that all the issues surrounding the players’ contracts with the WICB have been resolved, but at least the players’ union and the Board have reached agreement about how to resolve those that remain.

This is just in time, as well. The West Indies are scheduled to tour Australia starting in late November, for three Tests and a One-day series, and there were reservations about the likely strength of the West Indian side.

Ricky Ponting, the Australian captain, has made it clear that he would want to face the full West Indian side. He said, back in September, "None of us want to be playing against a second-rate or a B-grade West Indian side. We want to be playing against the best sides and the best players all the time. So let's hope it is sorted out. Australian fans over the years have really enjoyed seeing the West Indies team out there, so hopefully they get their best players out here."

Indeed, Cricket Australia had been considering whether the tour would take place at all if the dispute had not concluded, with Zimbabwe and Bangladesh potential replacements.

Despite stand-in captain Floyd Riefer’s and the new coach’s insistence that the team have not been a second string side, the results achieved since the players’ strike have suggested otherwise. Bangladesh’s tour this past summer saw the visitors win the Test Series 2-0 and the One-dayers 3-0, unthinkable with a full-strength side. Following that, the Champions Trophy saw the West Indies lose all three of their games convincingly.

The WICB now find themselves with something of a dilemma regarding selection for the Australian tour though. Darren Bernard, Travis Dowlin and Omar Phillips all took advantage with the bat of the opportunity they were dealt by the absence of the senior players, while Darren Sammy and Kemar Roach both performed well with the ball in the Test series. Roach followed this up with wickets in the One-day series as well.

It would be a surprise if some of these players failed to retain their place in the side. It will also be interesting to see which of those players who went on strike miss out.

After his comments on the captaincy during the West Indies tour of England earlier this year, it is not clear whether Chris Gayle would wish to continue leading the side. Indeed, the new Chief Executive of the WICB has expressed doubts as to whether Gayle is the right man for the job. Interim captain Riefer hasn’t really played well enough to justify his continued place, even without the returning players.

The batting will certainly be bolstered by the returns of Gayle, Shivnarine Chanderpaul and Ramnaresh Sarwan, the latter of whom is very much eager to get back into the Test side . On the bowling side, Fidel Edwards and Jerome Taylor will almost certainly come back in.

Yet, the comments from Dwayne Bravo about his future contract status with the board will have raised further concerns. Like others, he is eyeing up some form of freelance status to take advantage of the possible contracts available through the global proliferation of 20/20 cricket. Although Bravo is considered to be one of the stars of the West Indian side (when fit), and his Test batting average is reasonable for an all-rounder (32.73), his 70 Test wickets have come at nearly 40, somewhat disappointingly.

This level of bare adequacy is replicated across the West Indian squad, and is one of the reasons why, in the three and a half years prior to the Bangladesh series the team has won just three Test matches (Pl 31 W3 D13 L15). The series in England in May showed the very worst of the West Indies – a side that seemed as though they did not want to be there was bowled out four times with a best of 310, and conceded just short of 1000 runs in two innings themselves.

Perhaps, then, the West Indian team needs something of a shake-up.

Nineteen-year-old Trinidad & Tobago batsman Adrian Barath had a very good 2008/9 domestic season and has been unlucky to miss out on both the tour to England and the chance to make his debut against Bangladesh. So was his teammate Darren Bravo, with whom both Gayle and opposite number MS Dhoni were impressed on his One-day International debut in June.

With the failure of Ryan Austin to impress against Bangladesh, a case could be made for the inclusion of the Windward Islands’ Shane Shillingford or Odean Brown of Jamaica as a spin option, after good domestic seasons, whilst Darren Sammy should retain his place.

Whoever the WICB select are unlikely to pose a significant challenge to an Australian side who recovered some pride after the Ashes defeat by dominating the One-day series against England and then maintaining their pre-eminence in the 50-over format by winning the Champions Trophy.

However, the West Indians will have a lot of pride to play for, after such a tumultuous summer, and in some cases may well be playing for their careers.

It promises to be an interesting choice for the WICB selectors to make.

The Contrarian: Davies' Report Should Leave the Ashes Alone

Dave Harris — Mon, 19 Oct 2009 09:56:14 -0400

Patrick Hennessy wrote for The Telegraph recently that, as part of the Davies review of listed sporting events, The Ashes is to be re-classified so that it has to be aired on free-to-view television in England.

Following on from the recent controversy about England’s Football World Cup qualifier against Ukraine only being available via the Internet (for a fee) it seems appropriate to address the issue again.

Davies’ report is in the final stages of preparation, and there are members of his panel who feel strongly that The Ashes should be available for all.

I would argue the opposite

Undermining Sky’s contract

Quite rightly, any attempt to drag the rights away from Sky will be met with resistance. They have paid out in the region of £300million for exclusive rights to live broadcasts of England’s Tests, home and away, and will not be prepared to cede part of that to a free-to-air broadcaster.

They argue that, as noted by The Guardian’s Owen Gibson, a huge proportion of the value of the rights in that contract are related to the exclusivity of their deal, and it is one of their prime foci in driving subscriptions.

Although, in principle, amendments to the legislation to add The Ashes to the “A” list of sports covered by the protected list would not impact on existing contracts, there is still a danger that a future Minster for Culture, Media, and Sports would decide “in the public interest” that the principle could be waived.

The cost to grassroots cricket

The ECB will also argue that, since their own financial analysis shows that any free-to-air requirement would significantly reduce the value of any future contracts they could sign with broadcasters, any changes to the protected list ought to be fully costed out by the review panel.

Gibson notes that they will ask whether it would be acceptable, in the event of future contracts generating far less revenue for the game, for the hit to be felt by cricket at grassroots level and in the Women’s game, where costs are already tight and the ECB’s support vital.

The ECB put this potential cost at approximately £140million.

De-valuing other cricket

To the arguments above, I add another: why should The Ashes be so privileged?

At the very least, the availability of cricket against one nation and no others shows the continuing Anglo-centric dominance of the thoughts of both the Government and the ECB. Should series against South Africa or India, both significant powers in world cricket in the twenty-first century, be equally protected?

Already at odds with the BCCI over players involved in the IPL and the Champions League, how would this look to boards who consider their teams just as good as Australia? How are they supposed to develop any level of historical relevance to their games against England if The Ashes is privileged over them?

Don’t we have millions of Indian and Pakistani descendents living here who support the nation of their forebears when they come to play England?

Indeed, as a means of promoting cricket per se, the protecting of The Ashes could potentially risk the promotion of cricket by focusing on the promotion of The Ashes specifically.

The free market

Governments across the world still espouse the free market as the best method for establishing the price for goods and services. This is yet another example of the “West” telling the rest of the world what to do, then ignoring those strictures itself.

Indeed, it generates arguments about the format of UK Broadcasting as a whole—why do we even have “free-to-air” television? More and more people have “pay TV” in any case—more than two million people watched the 2009 Ashes on Sky, and every additional person buying the packages for this and other reasons (Premiership football, for example) is another reason why the protected list is becoming less and less relevant.

Conclusion

The arguments for putting The Ashes of the “free-to-air” list revolve around allowing as many people as possible to see cricket on television. Yet the ECB, who are surely a more appropriate organisation to determine how best to promote cricket as a sport than the Government, see no harm in having a contract with an exclusively “pay-TV” broadcaster. That is their right.

At the same time, the Government are effectively forcing everyone to buy a new TV (or a system that will convert their existing TV) by turning off the analogue broadcast signal.

The cost to cricket could be up to £140million over four years based on the current Sky contract.

The Davies Report needs to think very carefully about the recommendations it makes, but I would not want to see the “protected list” expanded to include The Ashes.

Heineken Cup and MLB Playoffs Highlight Stellar Sporting Weekend

Dave Harris — Fri, 09 Oct 2009 06:13:59 -0400

A packed weekend of sport delivers plenty of choices this week for both the armchair and pitch-side viewer in the UK and around the world.

Although there has been so much furore about the Ukrainian FA’s decision to sell the media rights to Saturday’s World Cup qualifier with England to a broadcaster with no intention of making the content free-to-air, there is so much else going on (and for England fans, with the team already qualified for the World Cup, much less to care about in that particular match) that the loss of coverage other than over the Internet is barely a problem.

For those desperate to know what’s going on, commentary will still be available on the radio (Five Live).

You can, though, pick up Russia’s vital match with Germany on ESPN. The winner is likely to qualify automatically for the Finals, whilst the loser faces a play-off. A draw favours Germany, although they do have the tougher final fixture (against Finland) in midweek.

On the same channel, Denmark take on Sweden later—A win for Denmark guarantees their place in South Africa, but a Swedish victory opens the door for them and possibly for Portugal too, if they beat Hungary.

The sporting weekend gets off to a strong, healthy, start though with the Heineken Cup. The northern hemisphere’s premier club Rugby Union competition gets under way tonight (Friday) with defending champions Leinster taking on London Irish in Pool Six, which also includes the (Llanelli) Scarlets and French side Brive.

The toughest group might be Pool Five though, with Toulouse, Sale Sharks, and Cardiff Blues potentially difficult opposition for Harlequins, controversially allowed their place in the competition despite "blood-gate". The Blues and Quins play Saturday lunchtime (Sky Sports).

Taking place all weekend, the Major League Baseball Divisional Series’ continue this evening, as well. The second game of the Minnesota Twins/New York Yankees matchup (ESPN America) looks a cracker, with the Twins needing to get back into the series, and Boston and the Los Angeles Angels also go at it in the late, late, night slot on the arguably stronger American League side of things.

In the National League, Philadelphia and Colorado split the first two games, and the wild-card Rockies are strong at home, so they might be favourites to edge past the reigning World Series champions. The winners will play either Joe Torre’s Los Angeles Dodgers or the 2006 champions, the St Louis Cardinals.

On Saturday, whilst the Premier League and Championship have the week off because of the International fixtures, Charlton will hope to take advantage of Leeds United’s inactivity and join them at the top of League One, whilst the FA Cup gets to the third qualifying round and the minnows of English football start to think about potential ties with former Premiership clubs like Southampton, Norwich and the aforementioned Charlton and Leeds in the First Round proper.

There’s plenty of motorsport from the United States on view this weekend as well, with the NASCAR Sprint Cup on Sunday evening getting towards the final stages of the Chase—Former F1 driver Juan-Pablo Montoya is still in a good position despite not yet having taken a victory this year, but he will have to contend with veterans Jimmie Johnson (winner of the last three titles), Jeff Gordon and Mark Martin, all driving for the dominant Hendrick Motorsport organisation.

Saturday sees the finale of the IndyCar season as well, with three drivers still in the hunt for the title. Scotland’s Dario Franchitti, New Zealander Scott Dixon and Aussie Ryan Briscoe are separated by just eight points heading into the final race at the Homestead, Miami oval track (Saturday night, Sky Sports).

Franchitti (2007) and Dixon (2003 and 2008), teammates at Ganassi Racing have both won the title before whilst Briscoe, driving for Penske seeks his first championship.

In the NFL, the intriguing match of the weekend sees Josh McDaniels’ surprisingly unbeaten Denver Broncos take on the New England Patriots. McDaniels took over the Head Coaching job at Denver this year after previous working for the Patriots.

However, the matches on Sky look less appetising this week. The later game between Atlanta and San Francisco certainly a more competitive contest than Cincinnati’s visit to the defensively-strong Baltimore Ravens will be.

Instead, you might want to catch the final of the Snooker Grand Prix (BBC2). However, with Ronnie O’Sullivan out of the event before the quarter finals, the favourites for the title are now the less-exciting John Higgins, Mark Williams and Peter Ebdon.

In cricket, the long-hyped Champions Trophy in India gets busy on Eurosport and Eurosport 2. Cape Cobras’ opening day victory over the Bangalore Royal Challengers may not have pleased the home fans, but there’s lots more cricket before the tournament comes to a climax. Saturday sees the Cobras play their second game, against Otago, whilst Somerset play the Deccan Chargers in Hyderabad.

Having started with Rugby Union, we finish with Rugby League. Whatever your feelings about Super League’s play-off system being largely redundant (and for the fourth successive year the Grand Final is being played between the teams that finished first and second in the league table), the end-of-season extravaganza at Old Trafford does at least provide a fitting and dramatic end to the season.

For a third straight year, Leeds Rhinos and St Helens face off, with St Helens looking to overturn the results from the last two Grand Finals when, having won the league they lost to the Rhinos in the Grand Final. If you can’t catch the match on Sky on Saturday afternoon, it is certainly worth catching the highlights on BBC2 at lunchtime on Sunday.

Diary of a Club Cricketer: Part the Third

Dave Harris — Thu, 24 Sep 2009 12:11:57 -0400

Some of the characters in this article may resemble persons real or imaginary, living or dead. However, you identify these at your own risk and the author takes no responsibility for any conclusions you may draw thereof. The article is purely for the purpose of entertainment.

25^th August

Two weeks of rain makes a cricketer a bored boy. The missus packed me off to London for the weekend out of her way while she had some of her girlfriends round.

Three weeks left in the season and the Firsts are almost certainly relegated. The Seconds’ promotion push more or less disintegrated with the promotion of Simon to skipper the Firsts despite Johnno’s best efforts, and the Thirds lie in fourth place after a promising start and some slip ups along the way.

A rumour is going around that East Mardon have been checking the websites to see which teams I’ve been playing for this year.

Kabir is back fit again, but Bondy’s wife has left both of them and moved away, and the Seconds are almost back to full strength.

1^st September

Dredge has persuaded Smithy to captain the Thirds this week as we play East Mardon again, at home this time.

Neither Johnno nor Simon seem to want me back in their teams so I should have been opening the bowling for the Thirds. The oppo skipper doesn’t look too pleased to see me, and spends most of the day muttering about First-teamers in the Thirds.

Smithy had other ideas though. Prompted by his relative success at Mardon, he elects to open the bowling himself, to the comical relief of the Mardon skipper, who immediately promotes himself to number 3 (a careful look at the scorebook after the match indicates that he’d originally pencilled himself in for number 11).

Mardon fall over themselves trying to take advantage of Smithy’s erratic pies and suddenly find themselves 80 for 4 off just ten overs, with Smithy having taken all four to fall with some of the worst bowling this side of a tour to Australia. Marky looks as annoyed as anyone, having taken none for six from five overs at the other end.

Their skipper is still there though. Whilst his teammates have been putting Smithy to all parts of the ground, then getting out, he’s stoutly blocked anything from the old dobber, then taken a single to get away from him when he can, afraid of Smithy as much as he was of me. At this point Dave has a quiet word with Smithy and I get the shout to warm up.

Suddenly the Mardon skipper is a flurry of activity, taking ten from Marky’s next over and sixteen from Smithy’s. I come on and bowl a maiden at the other batsman, and then Dave comes on at the other end and gets smashed for seventeen from his first over. The skipper takes a single from the last ball though, leaving him to face me.

I run in, thinking of putting a short one in just to wind him up, but in my delivery stride I hear a huge cracking sound and in agonising pain I crumple to the ground.

Meanwhile, the ball has landed more or less where I intended, shot up off short of a length and rattled their skipper on the nose, before dropping down onto his stumps.

Needless to say, I’m in no position to celebrate this victory and, after an overnight stay in hospital diagnosed a broken ankle and torn ligaments, even the high of the painkillers couldn’t give me any satisfaction in the fact that we won the match by ten wickets. Meanwhile, the Mardon skipper was carted off by his teammates to the changing rooms where I’m told he spend the rest of the day holding a cold compress over his battered nose to staunch the blood flow and whingeing about dangerous pitches

8^th September

I sit around grouchily and watch the Thirds win with my ankle in plaster.

Smithy tried to get me to umpire but got short shrift, the cheeky so-and-so. Dredge was also there bemoaning his broken finger and (carefully) hand-wringing at the outside chance of the Thirds getting promotion.

Young Marky comes over and gives me the scorebook since “you’ve got nothing better to do” then goes off to chat to his mates and text his girlfriend instead of watching the match.

Still, it was good entertainment as the lads chased down a challenging total of 240, with Colin notching up yet more runs and Smithy picking up three wickets but getting a tonking again.

I couldn’t have stood another day in the house – all my kit is washed and ironed ready for next season and the missus was far too happy about me not playing again this year, which is just making me depressed.

The Firsts lost again. Relegation seems inevitable despite Simon’s efforts, but what can you expect when half your squad (including the Captain) goes AWOL at the critical point of the season?

The Seconds win, with young Adam starring again with the ball – seems like I’m surplus to requirements there, too. Who knows where I’ll be playing next year, but I can see a repeat coming on...

15^th September

The season’s over.

The Firsts were relegated and there are all sorts of rumours flying around about yet more players leaving the club. Andy is talking up being re-elected as skipper, but Simon seems to have got a taste for it, and batted pretty well.

Johnno steered the Seconds to safety, but grumbled about me playing Third team cricket when he needed me – not that he picked me when I was available!

The Thirds ended up just missing out on promotion despite three wins to end the season. Colin ended up playing two more games in the Thirds and notching two half-centuries (and uncountable drops), while Dredge’s septic finger miraculously healed in time for the final game when he had a full squad to pick from.

Apparently East Mardon reported the club to the League Committee for “fielding first-team players in third-team matches” but were laughed off once the League realised who they were talking about. Not sure if I should feel insulted or not...

To my amusement Colin picked up the batting prize, which was enough to set Simon off on a rant about how many times he should have been out caught. Young Adam picked up the bowling trophy for some good performances in the Seconds, and no one seemed to give a damn about all the wickets I took.

Me? I’m just hoping for some consistency of selection next year, after one game for the Firsts, 6 for the Seconds and 8 for the Thirds.

And a new set of goolies.

And a new ankle.

And not captaining ever again.

See you next season!

The Contrarian: Ricky Ponting Must Continue to Lead Australia

Dave Harris — Thu, 24 Sep 2009 11:11:28 -0400

Ricky Ponting, Captain of the Australian Cricket Team, is a man under fire from various parts of the media following his team’s failure to defend the Ashes in England this Summer. Yet James Sutherland, the Chief Executive of Cricket Australia, is adamant that to sack the captain as a result of the series loss would be completely unfair.

Ponting is also backed up by former captain and regular media pundit Ian Chappell, who remarked in his column for Cricinfo that Ponting had done well to keep the side afloat as it began its rebuilding phase.

So why, amid calls for change do these two prominent figures support the captain?

Part of the reason is that he hasn’t really done a bad job—critics may argue that being the first Australian captain to lose the Ashes twice is sufficient reason, but then few have been given a second chance. Having recovered the urn in such decisive fashion in 2006-'07, Ponting certainly earned that right.

It is difficult to argue that he was at any fault for the loss this past summer either: the Australians outplayed England for large portions of the series. One of the most critical comments of Ponting’s captaincy was in relation to his handling of the bowlers as Monty Panesar and James Anderson held out on the final day at Cardiff. In the end he had little option as he tried to fit in as many overs (and therefore opportunities to dismiss the final pair) as he could before the close and had doubts over Mitchell Johnson’s ability to finish off the game.

Still effective as captain?

Others had derided Ponting’s effectiveness as captain, but given the outflux of world-class players from the Australian side over the past three years (McGrath, Warne, Hayden, Langer, Martyn) you can only conclude that the skipper was hamstrung by the quality of players available to him, and further compromised by Brett Lee’s untimely injury and Johnson’s sudden loss of form and confidence.

Indeed, having lost a series at home to South Africa at the turn of the year, Ponting was inspiring enough to his young side in the return fixtures in early 2009 to overcome that defeat and come away with a great deal of pride restored. This was hardly the act of an ineffectual captain.

Some criticised Ponting’s (and the selectors’) continued faith in Johnson, who let his side down badly in the first half of the Ashes series, but it was that faith that was repaid with a stellar performance in the Fourth Test that levelled the series at 1-1 and Johnson continued to make life a misery for the likes of Ian Bell in the Final Test, showing that he had regained some of his own panache.

Ponting’s options for replacing Johnson were limited in any case, although Stuart Clark may feel hard done-by as a result, and once the selection committee had chosen the eleven for each game, Ponting did what he could with it.

Time for a new man?

Another line of criticism is that the Australian side needs an injection of new enthusiasm to lift it, and that replacing the captain would be the best way to achieve that.

This seems something of a specious argument—the current side is young and inexperienced, with newcomers like Peter Siddle, Ben Hilfenhaus, and Phillip Hughes just starting to get their feet wet in International terms. Surely at this juncture continuity in captaincy is vital.

Ponting still leads by example, and is the best batsman on the team. We know that the captaincy doesn’t affect his performance with the bat detrimentally, and we don’t know about any potential alternatives.

Michael Clarke would be the most and probably only obvious successor at this stage, and there are just as many doubters of his ability to lead the side. Alex Brown wrote recently that Clarke needs to improve his hustle if he is going to be made a captain full-time, and Clarke himself still believes that Ponting is the best choice for the job.

The biggest concern about Clarke though is that, as vice-captain, if he had any wisdom or insight that he felt would have helped Australia retain the Ashes, he should have been passing it on to the Captain, and therefore he is effectively tarred with many of the same criticisms of failures that are levelled at Ponting.

The only choice

When it comes down to it, with both his record as a batsman, support from within the team, and lack of challengers to his position unquestioned, there seems little point in making a change to the captaincy simply for the sake of it, or on the basis of the lost Ashes series.

The crux of the past summer is not that Ponting let his players down with his captaincy—quite the opposite. The players that had been selected for him too often did not perform well enough, and it was they who let him down.

Ponting should stay.

The Contrarian: Justine Henin's Return a Symptom of Women's Tennis Problems

Dave Harris — Thu, 24 Sep 2009 08:03:03 -0400

The state of women’s tennis is shocking.

Kim Clijsters’ victory in the US Open shows just how limited the women’s game is at the moment: When a woman who has taken two years off can dip straight back into the sport and win a Grand Slam, it proves how little depth there is at the top of the sport.

Omer Jaweed’s recent article notes that there are currently six players on Tour who have held the No. 1 ranking and have won Grand Slams, but this serves to emphasise how fragile the competition is, particularly when compared to the men’s game, in which Roger Federer has long been the epitome of consistency and the pinnacle of ambition, and only recently has Rafael Nadal, for all his undoubted athleticism, power, and quality, managed to end Federer’s run as No. 1.

And now we hear that another former No. 1—Justine Henin—is also intending to make a comeback. Clearly she can see that she also has a good opportunity to get straight back in and compete at the highest level, because the game has not moved on since she retired.

The Williams sisters, whilst dominant when they are on form, play far too infrequently to provide the WTA Tour with the sort of commitment needed from top players, whilst the other “top” names—Amelie Mauresmo, Ana Ivanovic, Jelena Jankovic, Dinara Safina, and Maria Sharapova—are frustratingly inconsistent or regularly out through injury.

On top of this are a bevy of interchangeable, impersonal Russians and Eastern European girls whose heydays are the beating of a top name on their off day, before losing to one of the other top girls in the semis or final of a tournament.

Henin’s comeback -apparently her “fire has been relit”—has hit the headlines simply in the wake of Clijsters’ “unbelievable” success on her return.

One has to doubt how much her motivation has simply returned as a result of not playing, and how much is down to the obvious opportunities she has to return to her Grand Slam winnings exploits of the mid-decade with relatively little effort (including winning the French Open without dropping a set).

The Williams girls were once the dominant force in the Women’s game, but have retreated amongst the millions of dollars of prize money to pick and choose their events whilst focusing on their other interests—hardly a vote of confidence for the strength of the WTA Tour.

Whither the next dominant female player? The Navratilova or Graf?

It’s unlikely to be Henin or Clijsters, nor indeed any of the other pretenders at the moment. The world awaits the next true great in women’s tennis.

2010 International Fixtures Announced by ECB

Dave Harris — Thu, 24 Sep 2009 07:24:04 -0400

As the England Team prepare for their opening match in the Champions Trophy in South Africa, the ECB have announced the confirmed dates for the 2010 international fixture calendar for the National side.

Following on from the tour to South Africa that concludes on Jan. 18, the next engagement is a tour of Bangladesh to consist of two Tests and three One-day games that is scheduled to run from Feb. 28 to March 24.

This is bound to cause controversy, as it will clash with part of the 2010 IPL season, and players like Andrew Flintoff (who has not accepted a central contract) and Kevin Pietersen, who have commitments to the IPL may have a decision to make about their availability for the Bangladesh series that sparks yet further debate about the priorities of international cricketers in the face of financial inducements from provincial competitions.

The next International dates revolve around the World 20/20 in the West Indies, running from April 20 to May16, clashing with the early part of the English domestic season, and these are swiftly followed by the visit of Bangladesh for two more Tests (Lord’s and Old Trafford) and three One-dayers that conclude on July 12.

The second part of the summer sees England hosting a short series between Pakistan and Australia (two Tests—Lord’s and Headingley and two 20/20s), which follows a five match One-day series against Australia (June 22 to July 3).

Then the series against the Pakistanis begins, comprising four Tests (Trent Bridge, Edgbaston, The Oval, Lord’s) running from July 29 to August 30 and five ODIs (Sept. 10 to Sept. 22) as well as two 20/20 matches.

England’s cricketers would then supposedly get a break before the Ashes series in Australia starting next November.

This looks like a tough schedule for both players and fans.

There will also be concerns raised about the grounds scheduled for use, with Lord’s due to host three Tests next summer while new Test-level grounds like Cardiff, the Rose Bowl and Durham’s Riverside are restricted to One-day duty. If the ECB are keen to increase the use of these grounds for Test match cricket it seems obscure that when there are eight Tests in the country in 2010, the new grounds are not being tried out.

Diary of a Club Cricketer: Part Two

Dave Harris — Thu, 24 Sep 2009 05:53:38 -0400

Names have been changed to save me from a lynching down the club. Any resemblance to any person, real or imaginary, living or dead is purely for the purpose of parody and is not intended to reflect badly upon anyone, really!

15th July

Well the soap opera never ends, it seems.

With no Bondy or Kabir, the Firsts have struggled. Two weeks running they conceded over 300 and were bowled out for under 80. Now it seems that Andy isn’t going to be able to play for the rest of the season as his groin injury has been re-diagnosed as a hernia, and he’s having an Op in a few weeks.

Simon has been asked to take over running the Firsts, which means that Colin will no doubt be dropped again, though it’s probably just as well as he’s been out for 0 (caught) the last two weeks.

Dredge is even less pleased as it means that the Thirds will be well and truly gutted to fill the Seconds, who have lost three players for the next six weeks as they go on a tour of America, having just completed their Uni finals.

The Seconds just about hang on for a draw. New captain Johnno has me bowl 25 overs from one end (4 for 80) but can’t find anyone to do much at the other end as we concede 320.

We hold out on 200-9 and as visitors Slocombe have six slips and men all around the bat I edge one over the top of gully for four to bring up my top score of the season (4 not out).

22nd July

No play. The British summer unleashes its worst upon us on Friday night whilst we’re doing fielding drills and doesn’t let up until the following Wednesday.

Lost £20 playing cards while we waited for a break in the downpour. My wife thinks I spent it on beer. Not sure which one I’d get away with better.

29th July

Picked for the Seconds again as Johnno has to fill the side somehow. Colin is back in the team now that Simon is captaining the Firsts, and he re-debuts with his customary 30 with four drops as we struggle to 145 all out (0 not out) on a very damp, green wicket at Castleton.

Turns out to be just my sort of pitch, as I pick up 9 for 22 and a run out as we turn the home side over for 51. Johnno is shaking his head as we rattle through the Castleton batsmen. What does he know that I don’t?

The price of a jug seems to go up every time I buy one and you can’t please anyone these days between cider drinkers, lager louts and bitter old b*****s. It comes to £50 and I make a note not to take another “Michelle” this season.

Dredge breaks a finger dropping a catch for the Thirds as they lose again with a very inexperienced team and spends most of the evening buried in a pint (several pints) of Cider.

3rd August

I finally find out why Johnno was looking so downcast during our victory the previous week. Apparently Simon had been chewing his ear about how I was just the sort of committed player he needed in the (substantially weakened) Firsts, and my performance last week was the icing on the biscuit.

So I debuted for the Firsts this Saturday, at Strensham, where I’d had such a wasted day in June.

Didn’t bat. Didn’t bowl. Lost by 150 runs.

Back at the club Johnno had gotten over it—it seems that my replacement, a 16 year old named Adam, had scored fifty and taken three wickets as they beat Strensham in the reverse fixture.

I don’t even get asked if I’m available next week.

Dredge has decided that he’s not going to be fit to play next week as his broken finger has “gone septic”, and asked me to captain the side in his stead. I decide to accept just to spite Simon, who is already picking me in his side for next week despite the fact I didn’t do anything.

10th August

Now I remember why I don’t captain a side.

Dredge picked an eleven for me on Friday night, which was fine, even though I didn’t know all the names I assumed he had contacted them all and told them when and where. Then, 9 AM Saturday I got a call from Johnno—Colin had apparently called him and couldn’t play because of work commitments, and the star sixteen-year-old Adam was sick, according to his Mum—asking for two players.

Fine—take whoever you want, I said, not knowing half the team anyway.

Johnno was cool with that and arranged for a couple of his son’s friends from school to come along and fill in.

I got to the ground in plenty of time, only to find that Jim, who normally does the Thirds’ wicket had had another row with Andy and had gone on strike, leaving me to cut, roll, and mark the wicket. Good job I got there early, what with drinks and teas and cones etc to sort out as well.

An hour before the start, Johnno phones back to tell me he’s lost another player to the Firsts, but, not to worry, he’ll take one of these extra kids he’s arranged for me rather than mess my team up further. I’m down to ten.

Ten minutes before the start my ostensible opening bowler, Dave, who is 60 but can still put it on the spot, still hasn’t turned up. A call to both his home and mobile phones yield only the answering service.

So, I have nine. Eight of them are under the age of 15, which doesn’t help—what I’m going to do for Umpires when we’re batting is up in the air at this point.

Dave turns up with two minutes to go—I’ve lost the toss and we’ve been asked to field so I ask him to hurry up and get changed as he’s opening from the far end. He looks at me askance and says he can’t bowl—hadn’t Dredge told me he’d put his back out and was only fit to bat.

The stunned look on my face tells him that, no, Dredge hadn’t told me.

Bad back or no, he changed quickly enough and we got out onto the field. I had no idea who was going to bowl, until Dave pipes up and tells me that Marky, one of the Under 13s in the team was a good bowler.

With nothing else to try, Marky gets a shout and the new ball chucked at him as I make my way to the slips and vaguely warm up to bowl the second over. As it turned out I had plenty of time to get loose: Marky’s first four balls were all wides, and I had a sinking feeling it was going to be a really long day.

Two balls later, I’m on my knees clutching my gonads—the opening bat edged one to me at slip and I must not have been concentrating as it went straight through my hands and into the aforementioned sensitive area. By chance it has stuck there and I get a hand round it (them) to hold onto the catch.

Everybody (except me) is laughing and celebrating Marky’s wicket. I’m dry heaving.

By the end of the over though, I’m feeling a bit more chipper. Young Marky has picked up another wicket, one that didn’t require the assistance of my dangly bits, and the oppo are in disarray. I polish the ball on the back of my trousers and try not to wince too much as I contemplate bowling at the No. 4.

Soon indeed all seems right with the world. I pick up three wickets and Marky’s replacement—another 13-year-old—picks up two, and eventually we bowl them out for 103.

Dave gets to open the batting regardless of his ability because I need him to umpire later, and it’s just as well. By the time he’s run out for 25 we’re 44 for 7 and I need to get my pads on.

Dave doesn’t hurry though, and by the time he’s changed and come out to take over the umpiring I’m in danger of having to bat without pads in order not to get timed out. I sprint off and after three attempts at buckling my pads up the wrong way, I’m ready just in time to hear the ninth wicket fall.

Striding out to the middle as confidently as a man with a best score of four not out and a bruised set of knackers can, I take an off-stump guard and prepare to defend for the remaining 30 overs.

Six overs later, Marky comes down to talk to me and asks if I’m alright—he’s picked up three boundaries and I’ve played at nothing that wasn’t on the stumps.

I reassure him that, yes, things are fine. He doesn’t look convinced and spends the next six overs peering at me closely every time I leave a ball outside off stump or block one back to the bowler.

Eventually I get one that’s just too good for me and I’m given out LBW by the traitorous Dave, who I suspect of being bored and wanting to get in the bar given the alacrity with which the digit went up.

We’re all out for 85 and I shake the oppo skipper’s hand and tell Marky he’s done well, but all I get back in return is that I’m a useless f***er and if I’d bothered to play a few shots we could have won. The oppo are carefully stifling giggles.

By the time I get in the bar and the other teams are back I'm copping flak from all sides about my batting and Dredge, who came along to watch the last few overs, is having a beer with the opposition and giggling along with them.

I tell Dredge someone else can captain next week.

Diary of a Club Cricketer: Part One

Dave Harris — Wed, 23 Sep 2009 14:02:34 -0400

Names have been changed to protect from libel. Any resemblance to any person, real or imaginary, is purely in the spirit of satire.

1st April

The weather is about to turn for the better, and we’re about ready to move outdoors for nets. The indoor sessions have been useful in dusting off the cobwebs, but the backdrop is appalling, or at least that’s my excuse for being terrible with the bat.

Simon, the second-team captain, seems quietly confident that his side will be better this year and could push for promotion.

Rumours abound that he’s hoping that he can drop Colin, our opening bat who seems to get dropped four or five times every week on his way to 30, to the Thirds. But I know what this place is like and by the midpoint of the season, he’ll be frantic for anyone who can hold a bat.

The club captain looks annoyed that so few of his first-team squad have turned up for nets this year, but I reckon that those who want to play will play, and those who don’t won’t. Just glad it isn’t my job.

On the positive side, there are a few good youngsters in the Thirds, and if the Seconds are strong, that’ll feed down.

1st May

The friendlies are out of the way- and largely enjoyed- and teams are being picked for the first league games. Nobody has called Colin to explain why he hasn’t been picked for the Seconds, which is going to mean trouble in a couple of weeks, I’m sure. Andy, the Firsts’ captain, has already started raiding Simon’s team for bowlers.

I don’t get picked for the first game, which isn’t a surprise, since I only got a total of eight overs in the two friendly games. Simon looks around the room and his eyes slide over me as he searches for his eleventh name to go on the team sheet before plucking out of the air the name of someone who hasn’t been seen around the club for two seasons.

Thirds skipper Dredge is looking nervous, even though he hasn’t got to pick a side for a fortnight. His squad is already being decimated as the Firsts and Seconds pick-and-choose.

1st June

A hailstorm and storm-winds greeted my first appearance of the season, a league match for the Thirds at East Mardon’s reserve ground, which looks suspiciously like the Council’s dumping ground, with huge piles of some indeterminate substance gracing various points just outside the (short) boundary.

We rack up 250 (Did Not Bat) before it hammers it down at tea and it looks like it will be called off. Miraculously, the sun comes out and the home side offers to complete the match, with a target of 125 off 25 overs.

After I take four wickets in four overs, the home skipper comes onto the pitch for a word with Dredge, insisting that I’m too dangerous for the conditions and should be taken off.

Amazingly, Dredge obliges, and their skipper disappears back off to the changing rooms to pad up.

Smithy comes on instead and the Mardon batsmen take full advantage, reaching 100 without further loss, until Smithy somehow inveigles an LBW from the umpire (one of the Mardon openers who was annoyed at being given LBW himself by this batsman earlier in the day).

Next ball, their skipper is in and top edges a full toss straight into our keeper’s gloves.

Smithy is amazed. So are we.

Their skipper looks like he isn’t going to go.

Eventually he wanders off and, as soon as he is out of sight, I get the call to warm up. Their skipper is sulking in the changing rooms and can’t see a thing. He doesn’t notice me taking the last four wickets until we’re in the bar and he’s copying up the scorebook.

8th June

After my heroics at Mardon, I’m picked for the Seconds to play at Strensham. Don’t bat, don’t bowl, field at fine leg most of the day.

What a waste of time!

Colin has finally figured out that Simon doesn’t like him and won’t pick him for the Seconds, and has taken my place in the Thirds, scoring 115 (and being dropped seven times).

15th June

I get two overs at the death for the Seconds as we barely manage to defend a sub-par score of 162 (0 not out). Not sure that Simon likes me that much, either.

Colin scores another century for the Thirds (dropped five times) and Dredge would be ecstatic, except that they couldn’t bowl the opposition out and earn the extra bonus point.

He "subtly" asks me to refuse to play for the Seconds next week so that I can bolster the bowling for him. I’m tempted.

The Firsts had made a good start, but seem to be losing a player every week. Skipper Andy has a pulled groin muscle and has spent the last three weeks moaning from the sidelines about the unavailability of other players and directing various spectators to get drinks, update the scoreboard, etc., generally making himself a pain in the backside.

This week, Jim, who helps out around the club with the ground and stuff now that he’s retired, basically told him to do it himself instead of whining.

He got a round of applause from eleven players on the pitch who’d stopped to listen and about fifteen spectators. I’m told that Andy won’t be watching this week!

1st July

Andy’s fit and well again, which is a mixed blessing.

It means that he’s around and grousing again, but also means one extra player for the Firsts. He’s also taken note of Colin’s scores for the Thirds, and even though Simon won’t pick him, has brought him into the Firsts.

Oddly, he made a stately 30 not out batting at No. 8 for the Firsts as they drew against local rivals Witchavon, without offering a chance.

Dredge fumed for a week (as the Thirds lost by 10 wickets) at the loss of his star batsman, but then Simon managed to find another guy who could bowl and field a bit down the pub, and dropped me back to the Thirds, where I promptly took five wickets as we skittled Ayscough Wanderers for 65.

On the social side, last night the club held a skittles evening at the Red Lion- which was well-attended- but ended in acrimony after most people had gone home when the Firsts wicketkeeper Bondy found out that his wife has been sleeping with the Vice-captain, Kabir.

The ensuing scuffle left Kabir with a broken collarbone and Bondy swearing that he would never play for the club again.

Tomorrow night’s selection meeting will be entertaining!

The Contrarian: FIA Got Renault's Punishment Right

Dave Harris — Wed, 23 Sep 2009 09:18:43 -0400

At the FIA hearing into the alleged race-fixing incident at the 2008 Singapore Grand Prix, where it was found that—on the orders of his Team Principal, Flavio Briatore, and Chief Engineer, Pat Symonds—Nelson Piquet, Jr. deliberately crashed in order to generate a Safety Car period that benefited his teammate Fernando Alonso, who went on to win the race.

The result of the hearing was that Briatore and Symonds were banned from appearing at FIA-sanctioned events indefinitely and for five years respectively, and the Renault F1 Team was given a ban from Formula 1, suspended for two years.

Many commentators have derided the penalty imposed on Renault as being a mere slap on the wrist and compared it with the sanctions that McLaren had imposed on them following a hearing into industrial espionage that included a fine of $100 million.

They suggested that a similar penalty should have been imposed on Renault, as the severity of the infringement was much worse, and included compromising the safety of Piquet, other drivers, and track workers by deliberately causing an accident. Among them is Damon Hill, who described the outcome as “a crying shame for the sport” and implied that there were political motivations for lenient treatment of Renault.

Yet, imposing a severe penalty on Renault would have been wrong for several reasons.

Firstly, there was no evidence that the wider team were aware of the plan hatched between Briatore, Symonds and Piquet. One other person, known as “Witness X” according to the BBC Sport website, was present when the possibility and details were mooted.

Radio communications between team members during the race (as published in Autosport, 10th Sept.) show that the call to bring Alonso in early was a surprise to the pit crew, and Alonso’s chief mechanic questioned Symonds on the strategy. After the verdict was announced, and in response to the apparent leniency afforded Renault, Max Mosley noted that “because Renault have demonstrated that they had absolutely no moral responsibility for what took place it would be wrong in the circumstances to impose an immediate penalty."

Secondly, even though the FIA hearing found that Renault were not specifically responsible for the incident, and that it was limited to a very small group of employees, the suspended ban sends a very clear and legal message to the team that no matter whether a link to the wider team can be found, should something similar happen in future the ban would take immediate effect. This links Renault’s liability into ensuring there is no recurrence.

Renault themselves issued a statement saying that "Renault F1 had no reason to believe that the conspirators were capable of this kind of behaviour. Clearly the conspirators acted against the interests of Renault F1 and the sport generally.

"If they had applied their minds to their actions, they could not have thought that their actions benefited Renault F1. The acts of the conspirators were so outside what they were employed to do and so contrary to Renault F1's interests, they ought not to be attributed to Renault F1. This is truly a case where the conspirators were on a frolic of their own."

There are therefore clear legal grounds to ensure that any penalty can be proven to be proportionate to the people on whom that penalty is imposed, and the FIA’s decision meets that criterion.

There are also pragmatic reasons for not immediately implementing a ban on Renault—given the negative publicity, there are already rumours that the team would be withdrawing from the sport, and with doubts hanging over Toyota’s long-term involvement and BMW pulling out maintaining such a high profile manufacturer is key to the development of the sport, especially since it is a company that supplies engines to other teams.

Similarly, reviewing the result of the race would be detrimental to other teams as well—how would you account for Felipe Massa’s pit mishap that cost him a points finish?

If you annulled the result of the race that would change the World Championship picture, handing the title to Massa—given the already mounting perception issues with F1 that have emerged in recent years, would the FIA really want to overturn the result of last year’s World Championship? Indeed, there is a precedent to set there, with Michael Schumacher’s points being annulled in 1997 after his deliberate collision with Jacques Villeneuve at Jerez, but no other changes to points awarded as a result (and Schumacher kept his wins that season).

So, why should Renault be penalised any further? Clearly the evidence shows no link between Renault and culpability in the conspiracy. No. The FIA have provided an appropriate level of sanction for the offense, and hit hardest those—Briatore and Symonds—who are primarily the culprits.

That is justice.

The Contrarian: A Test World Championship for Cricket is a Lousy Idea

Dave Harris — Wed, 23 Sep 2009 07:14:13 -0400

The ongoing debate within the ICC about the merits of initiating a Test World Championship for cricket took another couple of twists this week.

Firstly, Haroon Lorgat, Chairman of the ICC announced that the ICC were very much in favour of such a tournament, but that two National boards—England’s and India’s were opposed to the idea.

This was followed up by the ECB countering that statement with one of their own, noting that it was the proposed format of the Championship, with unknown fixtures over a two year period that they were opposed to, rather than the concept as a whole.

Both stances are blinded by the implication that there is something “wrong” with the current format, where National boards arrange their own fixtures with one another. Although Test cricket may be suffering falls in attendance in several nations, this is not the case everywhere, and indeed largely follows the natural cyclical and economic fluctuations.

In England, for example, tickets for Tests are often vastly oversubscribed, particularly for tasty encounters against opponents like Australia, India and South Africa.

Indeed, if there is anything fundamentally “wrong” with Test cricket it is that there is too much of it, and it is accompanied by too much One-day cricket.

TV contracts have increased the fees payable, but have also driven a move towards more International cricket and less rest time for players.

Similarly, the Future Tours Programme, whilst rightfully earnest in its ambition to ensure that all the Test-playing nations face one another, has led to tours being crammed in next to each other so that the prime series’ can still be conducted as frequently as the National boards involved require.

Having a Test “World Championship” in any format merely adds to that pressure, and effectively involves additional matches, more travel and less rest time for players. How can this be a good thing, if our top players find that they are no longer fit to play as regularly as their paymasters require?

Not only that, but any such Championship devalues any other Test series played between two sides. How do you create the necessary framework for cricket to continue if some, sporadic, individual, games are more important than others in the series, or in the forthcoming or previous series, because they count towards a World Championship?

The ICC seem to be under the delusion that they need to be able to rank teams definitively, and that having a “World Championship” will prove once and for all which the best team is. Clearly this is a ludicrous scenario.

The form of one team on a given day (or over a period of five days) can make all the difference between winning and losing a Test match, one reason why the ICC’s own Test World rankings only includes series’ of two or more matches.

This was exemplified in the recent Ashes series, where the two sides were evenly matched in talent, and a few big days at Lord’s and The Oval turned the series England’s way.

The ECB’s proposal to the ICC in respect of a World Championship was someone slimmed down, effectively consisting of a play-off between the best two sides in the rankings. Yet, whilst this avoids the necessity of significant extra games, it still ends up as a one-off match, where luck may play as much a part as judgement.

There doesn’t appear to be a real dissenting voice in terms of the prospect of a Test Championship, and Lorgat seems adamant that he will convince doubters, though his argument is very weak. He proclaims that if a match between India and Pakistan was going to affect (say) Australia or South Africa’s ranking, then Australians and South Africans would take more interest in the match.

There is no evidence to back this up—I would expect that if an Australian or South African were interested in the match through its own merits then they will remain interested, whilst those who were not interested to begin with won’t sudden find themselves drawn to it because it is part of some Championship (after all, fans from Liverpool don’t go to watch Chelsea play Arsenal just because they are in the same tournament).

And the latter example seems to show where the idea has come from—football has league tables and an easy way to determine a “Champion” every year, whilst cricket, at the moment, does not.

Rather than follow football’s lead, which has a tradition of crowning a champion every year, why not focus on the traditions of cricket.

Clearly some Test series’ have a cache that National boards use to promote the game—this is what needs to be progressed, so that series between Pakistan and New Zealand become as interesting, important and historical and Ashes series’.

The ICC need to take a step back and see how they can help National boards improve the pulling power of their Test series, rather than interfering with an unnecessary and unwieldy additional complicating tournament of their own.

Third Test: West Indies Vs. England: Don't Blame It on the Declaration

Dave Harris — Fri, 20 Feb 2009 07:38:50 -0500

The finale to the Third Test between the West Indies and England at the Antigua Recreation Ground was as exciting as it could have been. One more wicket was required for England to pull off a series-levelling victory, and men were crowded around the bat.

The light was fading and the last pair of batsmen had conspired to hold out for 10 overs.

Being offered the opportunity to come off for bad light, the West Indian tail-enders leaped for joy in celebration of their achievement. In the context of both match and series, it was a superb result for them.

Yet immediately after play, talk from the likes of Sir Ian Botham was about how England should have declared earlier on the fourth day; how it was too tentative for Andrew Strauss to have put James Anderson in as nightwatchman at the close of day three and to have continued batting until halfway through the afternoon session the next day when the lead had reached 500.

To Sir Ian and those others who believe this was a mistake, I have to say that you’re wrong.

Strauss’s hand was forced by the injury to Andrew Flintoff and the illness of Steve Harmison—he could not afford to set a generous target because he didn’t know whether two of his bowlers would be in sufficient shape to defend anything smaller.

As it was, the West Indies racked up 370, whilst rarely breaking three runs an over (and even that was largely due to the indifference of the fielding side to the runs they conceded).

England’s bowlers did well, but not quite well enough.

In the final session they gave themselves the opportunity to win the match, and had 10 overs in which to take the final wicket–what more could you ask from the declaration? You would expect most Test sides to remove the final batsman within 10 overs.

Anderson’s insertion at the fall of the first wicket was a necessity. A collapse akin to that at Sabina Park to end the third day would have drawn the West Indies right back into the game, and instead of having to bat out for the draw they would have given themselves an opportunity to go for the win.

The crucial decision in this Test match was not the point of declaration, but the decision not to enforce the follow-on. This too was not a mistake by the England captain, but a necessity, given the lack of bowlers available to him.

If Anderson or Stuart Broad could have put their hands up and committed to bowling nine or ten overs each with the new ball on the third evening, Strauss would have had the chance to enforce the follow-on, but both bowlers were exhausted.

This isn’t to point the finger of failure at the two bowlers. Neither is a senior regular in the side, and that decision should rest with the captain, but you couldn’t help but feel that Ryan Sidebottom or a 100 percent fit Flintoff would have done just that, with their experience and tenacity.

No, the draw was the result of stubborn batting by Ramnaresh Sarwan, Darren Powell, Fidel Edwards, and others, along with the missing cutting edge in the England bowling attack.

The pitch played well, on the whole, and still had great pace and carry on the final day when Broad and Flintoff were bowling. Credit needs to be given to the groundstaff at the ARG for the work they put in to ensure the match could take place.

But appropriate respect needs to be given to the players of both sides for an enthralling encounter, not approbrium for a mis-timed declaration, the use of a nightwatchman, or not forcing the follow-on. Andrew Strauss and his England team did what they could with what they had. The West Indies responded and forced the draw.

Formula One 2009: Early Preview

Dave Harris — Fri, 09 Jan 2009 09:23:24 -0500

The 2009 Formula One season, only two months away from the first race, has more uncertainty surrounding it than for many a season.

Although the driver line-ups are more or less finalised with only Torro Rosso and Force India still to make a decision about their drivers, there are still many aspects of Formula One that are raising questions.

Off-season news and rumblings

The big news from the off-season is the decision by Honda to withdraw from Formula One and sell the team.

This leaves Jenson Button and Rubens Barrichello wondering whether or not they will have a team to drive for in 2009 as rumours of potential bidders for the team emerge. Even before the announcement, it was not clear if Barrichello’s contract would be renewed, and the new owners (if any) will wonder whether his salary can be justified.

This leads into the other main story—the global economic crisis.

Honda’s decision is merely the most obvious sign of the tightening of belts that will be required throughout the sport. The future of other teams will also come into question, notably Williams and Torro Rosso.

Williams has drifted away from the pack at the front of the field ever since their split with Renault after the 1997 season. The link-up with BMW that saw them win ten races promised much but never came close to winning a championship, and the relationship was always fractious, with the fragility of the engine costing the team several victories early in their partnership, and BMW unhappy with the performance of the chassis in later years.

Without a major manufacturer backing them, Williams have been unable to match the budgets of the bigger teams, and although they have confirmed that the vast majority of their budget for 2009 is in place, they do appear to be vulnerable in the current economic climate.

Torro Rosso is a slightly different case. The Red Bull subsidiary made significant progress in 2008, winning in the rain at Monza with Sebastian Vettel and generally outperforming their parent team. However, they look set to fall foul of rules outlawing the use of customer chassis, and without a significant budget and manufacturing team allocated to the separate development of their own chassis, the future of the team is uncertain.

In addition, former part owner Gerhard Berger has sold his share in the team to Red Bull, and their continued investment in two separate teams in Formula 1 looks dubious if they are unable to utilise a “customer” car.

More generally, there remains a concern that manufacturers may reduce their support for the teams given their problems in the commercial world, that sponsors may withdraw or default on their payments, and that promoters and race venues may find that the economic decline leaves them precariously placed, and potentially unable to deliver events.

What’s new for 2009?

The season looks set to consist of 17 races according to the official schedule, beginning later than normal, at the end of March, and concluding on 1st November.

The final race is set to be at a new venue, the Yas Island Circuit in Dubai, which is still under construction as of this article. Other changes include the move back to Suzuka for the Japanese GP, and no place in the calendar for either France or Canada.

The French race has been under threat, with Bernie Ecclestone frequently asserting that he wanted a race in Parisinstead of the circuit at Nevers. The Magny-Cours circuit has had many detractors over the years, concerned about the dullness of the configuration, the site (in the middle of nowhere in central France) and the ownership.

Magny-Cours was one of the pet projects of Max Mosley’s predecessor Jean-Marie Balestre and used by the former Ligier team as a test track after it had been refurbished in the 1980s, but has long been considered under threat because of Ecclestone’s commercial interest in the Paul Ricard circuit and, of late, his desire to move the Grand Prix to a more prestigious location.

The Canadian Grand Prix has also been one of the races that has been regularly under threat in recent years. In the case of the Circuit Gilles Villeneuve this has primarily been through commercial pressures, and with promoters unable to find the significant staging fees required by the FIA.

In terms of team structures, the most interesting change is that of Force India. Having used Ferrari engines in 2008, they have switched to Mercedes.

Rule changes

For 2009, a significant number of changes have been made to the rules.

In terms of the chassis, the most visible one is in the size of the rear wing, which has been considerably reduced.

There are also three technical changes which may or may not have a significant impact on the 2009 Championship.

First is the return to slick tyres. For the first time since 1997, the cars will run on tyres with no grooves. The prevailing philosophy that the grooves were required as a safety measure to reduce speeds has been overturned, with a return to maintaining a larger contact patch on the road and ensuring cornering stability.

Bridgestone will continue to be the contracted sole supplier of tyres and the FIA believe this means that as there is no competition between tyre brands, it should be relatively simple to control the tyre quality and ultimately to keep top speeds within reasonable limits.

The second technical change is that engines will be required to last for three races instead of two (following one allowed “joker” change of engine). This is intended to reduce the cost of supplying engines, but will probably not have a significant effect as the season progresses unless one manufacturer has specific issues with their reliability.

The final change is the adoption of KERS (Kinetic Energy Recovery Systems) that can be used to store energy generated during braking for subsequent use during acceleration at the driver’s discretion. If successfully created, this may give a significant advantage to those teams whose developments come on stream earliest or which are the most efficient, however there has been considerable scepticism from drivers that KERS can both be implemented safely and still provide any significant advantage.

The 2009 Drivers Championship

Given all the above, the only significant area left to discuss is the identity of the contenders for the Drivers Championship in 2009.

Following Lewis Hamilton’s success in 2008, it appears that he will once again have a slight advantage in 2009. Whilst teammate Heikki Kovaleinen managed to win one race last year, he was never a threat to Hamilton, and therefore the defending Champion knows that he is the clear number one driver in his team.

By contrast, Felipe Massa’s performance in 2008 has created something of a dilemma for Ferrari, as they now know that they have two drivers capable of winning the title. Kimi Raikonnen will still be considered by many to be the better driver and most likely to repeat his success of 2007, but he knows that his teammate will be very hard to beat in 2009.

BMW started 2008 very well, and Robert Kubica managed to score points at an incredible rate and keep himself in with a shout of the Championship until late in the season, but his prospects for 2009 may well depend much more on how he adapts to the new car than his rivals. Teammate Nick Heidfeld has shown flashes of brilliance in the past, but it seems as though he has missed his time and been overtaken by Kubica.

Renault benefited from BMW’s performance drop off in the latter part of the year, and Fernando Alonso drove two canny races in Fuji and Singapore to pick up the pieces of races that might have dropped to anyone. The car improved as the year went along, and Alonso’s performances also improved as he gained confidence that his car could reach the heights he was looking for.

Alonso will once again be restricted by the level of performance that he can get out of the Renault, but if they continue to make significant strides could emerge as a title contender when others fall by the wayside.

Those will be the main contenders short of a real jump forward by any of the engineering teams. Whilst the likes of Vettel and Rosberg showed what they could do in 2008, I don’t expect either to have the car to challenge on a consistent basis.

Ultimately I expect Lewis Hamilton to retain his crown, but that it will be a hard-fought battle in 2009.

Kevin Pietersen's Gamble Backfires

Dave Harris — Wed, 07 Jan 2009 23:41:14 -0500

Kevin Pietersen has been reading too much into Rudyard Kipling’s “If”.

Newly appointed as England cricket captain and with only three Tests and nine ODIs under his belt, he determined that the exclusion of Michael Vaughan from the touring party to take on the West Indies this spring was a big enough cause for him to “risk it on one turn of pitch-and-toss”.

It was a clear message to the ECB that he was determined to be in charge and that if he didn’t get his way he wanted to see the coach fired for disagreeing with him.

Never mind the later revelations about the concerns Pietersen claimed to have had about Peter Moores’ coaching style, it is clear that this was a ploy to get a man in that would bow to the Captain’s will on player selection.

As a “back me or I go” tactic it was bizarre, and ranks alongside John Major’s equally insecure ultimatum to the Conservatives in 1995.

Whilst Pietersen might be good mates with Vaughan and appreciate his experience in the side, his predecessor as Captain does not deserve his place in the team on the strength of his batting performances. Neither his form with England in the summer nor with Yorkshire after resigning as Captain were good, and he has had no opportunity to demonstrate that it has since improved.

Staking his own reputation on the selection of Vaughan was a remarkable thing to do, given this, and smacks of poor judgement. Not solely because of the merits of including Vaughan in the squad, but also because this was hardly the time to be making discord between Captain and Coach public.

While Kipling urged to “trust yourself when all men doubt you”, it seems that Pietersen has ignored the subsequent advice to “make allowance for their doubting, too”.

Having started to develop his skills and reputation as Captain with a good victory at The Oval and then a battling short series in India that spoke well of his and the team’s mental strengths, the West Indies tour offered a great opportunity to build confidence and enhance his reputation as a leader.

That series and the summer of 2009 would have provided both Pietersen and Moores with an opportunity to show that they could work together, and if not that they had at least made an attempt to do so.

Even if Pietersen go his way and Moores ultimately lost his job as a result, having to bring in a new coach prior to the Ashes would seem to be very short sighted.

Now we have the worst of both—English cricket has taken yet another reputational hit, and the ECB is getting much of the blame for not sorting it out earlier. Andrew Strauss leads what must be a divided team to the West Indies, and a new coach has yet to be appointed on a permanent basis.

Although this offers an opportunity for a new start, it would have been much better for that start to have occurred at the end of last summer, and I have no doubt that the ECB now regret appointing Pietersen ahead of Strauss at that time. Now the new Captain and Coach have their work cut out to ensure that the team that faces Australia in the summer is as well prepared as it can be, and that the right personnel are in place.

Pietersen’s place in the team itself is not in question, and should not be. He has probably ruined any chance of being considered for the Captaincy again, though.

If that is the way that he wanted to conduct himself and lead the team though, perhaps it is for the best that it became clear at this stage rather than after the ECB find themselves unable to attract a high-quality coach that would meet Pietersen’s demands for control.

It is unlike Pietersen to “lose, and start again at [his] beginnings, and never breathe a word about [his] loss”. In this celebrity era, it won’t be long, I’m sure, before the new autobiography emerges to tell “his side” of the story.

Yes, Pietersen’s gamble has backfired on him, and now all fans of the England cricket team need to hope that it does not prevent a serious challenge for the Ashes come July.

FIA Announces Tender For Spec Engines

Dave Harris — Fri, 17 Oct 2008 11:11:36 -0400

On the first day of practice for the Chinese Grand Prix in Shanghai today, the FIA announced that they were issuing a tender for engines for the 2010-2012 Formula One seasons.

Following months of speculation about the latest measures that teams would negotiate in order to reduce the cost of racing in Formula One, and spurred on by the current global financial crisis, a statement was released that "The FIA will today open the tender process for the appointment of a third-party supplier of engines and transmission systems to be used by competitors in the 2010, 2011, and 2012 FIA Formula One World Championship."

No technical details were provided, but the release noted that further information would be made available in due course on the FIA website.

Thoughts leading up to the announcement in this week's Autosport magazine included concerns from both sides of the argument.

Those concerned with the spiraling costs saw this as a potentially beneficial measure for small teams, allowing them the opportunity to compete with the major manufacturers without requiring a budget in the hundreds of millions of US dollars.

However, both McLaren and Toyota representatives questioned such a move, suggesting that it would lead to the manufacturers leaving the sport.

Quelling immediate fears, an FIA spokesperson indicated that the spec engine would not mean that teams could not build their own engines, but that they would have to be built to certain specifications in line with the spec engine, and that appropriate checks would be carried out on the parts.

FIA Bigwig Bernie Ecclestone has denied suggestions that a manufacturer pull-out would occur, on the grounds that he believes the new rule will save them money, but there is no doubt that the manufacturers will have to consider whether F1 is still the appropriate showcase for their wares if they are not designing and building their own engines.

Also in the frame for consideration as part of the cost-cutting measures has been the issue of customer cars.

Prodrive, who were originally awarded the 12th franchise as an F1 manufacturer were forced to withdraw their entry after Williams threatened to to legal action against them. Prodrive's intent had been to run year-old McLaren chassis, a ploy that Williams consider to be detrimental to its own status.

However, no announcement on the chassis issues was made, and teams are due to engage in further talks with the FIA during the weekend.

Concerns have raged over whether F1 would still have the cache as the pinnacle of motor sport if it resorts to standardised engines and chassis, and indeed, whether such would even make the spectacle any better or the racing any closer.

Mark Hughes, Autosport's Grand Prix editor, noting in his column this week that the levels of competition were much better when the rules on engine and chassis types were less restrictive in the Seventies and Eighties, and that genuine innovation is stifled by the current situation.

That may be the case to a certain extent, but the lack of diversity in the current style of F1 car has proven that close racing is not a particular problem, but the inability to overtake once a car gets within a second of another is.

If they can address this through spec chassis or engines, then perhaps the spectacle of F1 racing will return, if not the cache.

No Surprises in England Squad for India

Dave Harris — Mon, 29 Sep 2008 05:52:23 -0400

For once, a selection announcement passed with little surprise.

After it was made clear that former skipper Michael Vaughan would not be considered for selection—and rightly so given his form in recent months—there wasn’t much to be argued about the selection of players to make up the Test squad for India this December.

Should a back-up wicketkeeper be taken? Yes, clearly so, and given that Matt Prior was already going to be in India with the One-day squad his selection was no big deal.

The likes of James Foster and Chris Read might feel hard done by, but they haven’t been given much of a shot by the selectors over the past three years and clearly aren’t currently in the selectors’ plans.

With the batting line-up more-or-less nailed down to include Andrew Strauss, Alistair Cook, Ian Bell, Kevin Pietersen and Paul Collingwood, there is little in the way of controversy of the sort generated by David Gower’s omission from the 1992-93 touring side, let alone a D’Oliveiran crisis. Much more pressing is the question of the fringe elements of the squad.

Who should take the one batting place that was up for grabs? Owais Shah or Ravi Bopara?

Bopara may be disappointed given that he was in the squad for the last Test against South Africa, and had an excellent summer for Essex scoring over 1250 First-class runs at an average of more than 50, but he did not impress on last winter’s tour of Sri Lanka, scoring just 42 runs in five innings.

Shah, on the other hand, is considered an excellent player of spin, scoring 88 and 38 in his one Test the last time England toured India, and must be due another shot, having only had one chance since.

Your milage on this decision will vary on whether you think that Bopara’s skills or Shah’s will be more important to the team in India, but given that ultimately neither may play if five bowlers are selected, it may be a moot point.

Next we turn to the seam bowling department. Here there are a selection of players in good recent form. Steve Harmison clearly made his case at The Oval, and Andrew Flintoff will certainly play—whether he bats at six or seven is still to be decided, but he’ll play either way.

The third seamer should be James Anderson given his performances this summer, which leaves Ryan Sidebottom and Stuart Broad fighting for the final place in the team with the second spinner.

Matthew Hoggard misses out on the squad, more or less as expected. He had the misfortune to get injured earlier in the summer just as he was in good form and in the frame for a recall. Had he not broken his thumb in a county match, he might have regained his spot before Flintoff and Harmison got their call ups.

A haul of 45 First-class wickets despite the injury showed that he still hasn’t lost it, but now finds his way back into the team barred by other options. Darren Pattinson’s call-up for the Headingley match seemed to have finally convinced the Yorkshireman that he wasn’t in the selectors’ thoughts.

Kabir Ali will also feel disheartened that leading the Worcestershire attack to promotion and taking 59 wickets at less than 19 runs apiece was not enough for a recall, but he will have to wait his turn—he needs to show that he can take wickets in Division One as well, and convince the selectors that he’s a better bet than Liam Plunkett, Sajid Mahmood, Simon Jones, Charlie Shreck, Graham Onions, or James Tomlinson.

Finally we turn to the second spinner. Monty Panesar will undoubtedly bowl a lot of overs at Mumbai and Ahmedebad, but given England’s propensity for reliance on their seam attack, a second spinner may get far fewer overs.

Indeed, the BBC Website report on the squad announcement indicated that Shah may even be considered a spin option, let alone captain Kevin Pietersen.

As it is, Graeme Swann has been selected ahead of Samit Patel and Adil Rashid for the second spinner slot, a move that makes sense in my view.

Firstly, both Patel and Rashid spin the ball in the same direction as Panesar, so Swann’s off-spin adds variety if it is needed.

He is also a more experienced player, and there will be less of a negative impact if he doesn’t get to play. Whilst I can advocate taking along a new player to gain from the experience of touring with the full squad, this isn’t the sort of situation where it would do a great deal of help—there are only two Tests and with the uncertainty over the need for a second specialist spinner, it would only add pressure to a young debutant.

Swann’s role should be to reprise that of Shaun Udal two years ago, who helped whip out the Indian tail on the final day, but otherwise not to expect much in the way of participation.

Finally, Rashid has developed well this summer in a conducive environment at Yorkshire, scoring 500 runs and picking up 65 wickets in First-class cricket, and needs to continue the learning process if he is to develop into a Test player of high quality.

He’ll have that opportunity touring with the “Development” squad (an “A” squad by any other name)—he’ll be guaranteed plenty of overs on a surface that takes turn, and will get the chance to bat in the lower middle order. In the Test squad it’s uncertain whether he would get a game, and would be limited in his opportunities.

Overall, the squad is well balanced and has the necessary cover. There are no shocks despite the underperformance during the summer against New Zealand and South Africa.

My XI for Ahmedebad: Cook, Strauss, Shah, Pietersen, Bell, Collingwood, Flintoff, Ambrose, Anderson, Harmison, Panesar.

Hamilton Appeal Thrown Out

Dave Harris — Tue, 23 Sep 2008 04:16:20 -0400

Lewis Hamilton and McLaren's appeals against the 25-second penalty imposed at the Belgian Grand Prix were heard this afternoon and rejected.

There was considerable contention about whether or not Hamilton deserved to be penalised, having overtaken Kimi Raikkonen by cutting the Bus Stop Chicane and then temporarily allowing the Finn to regain the lead across the Start/Finish line before overtaking again at La Source.

Normally this would incur a "drive through" penalty where the offending driver would have to pass through the pits at reduced speed, but in the last three laps of a race this is converted to a time penalty instead.

However, the FIA Court of Appeal simply ruled that since the "drive through" penalty that was applied was not subject to appeal, then there was no case to make, and the penalty would stand.

Hamilton had argued that he had conceded the lead back to Raikkonen and the penalty should never have been applied by the stewards at Spa-Francorchamps, saying that "I've since studied the footage about 10 times and I can remember it vividly like it was yesterday. I believe I then gave the advantage back. I honestly, hand on heart, feel I did so."

However, this element of the case was not given consideration, since the appeal judge determined that "Article 152 of the International Sporting Code states that drive-through penalties are 'not susceptible to appeal.'"

With four races remaining in the season, Hamilton leads the Drivers' Championship by one point from Brazilian Filipe Massa.

Bangladesh Cricket Implodes

Dave Harris — Thu, 18 Sep 2008 04:36:53 -0400

Cricket in Bangladesh has been through some tough times recently, but this week’s announcements could make for a setback from which the sport will not recover.

Bangladesh was awarded full ICC-member status and included in the club of Test-playing nations in 2001, following pressure from the other sub-continental nations and their performances at the ICC Trophy.

Since then they have played 53 Test matches, and their record is not pretty: won one, drawn five, lost 47.

The solitary victory was against a poor Zimbabwe side in January 2005, and three of the drawn games were against the same opposition.

Only a drawn match with the West Indies in St. Lucia in 2004 provided anything close to competitive cricket for the Bangladeshis. The other drawn match was a heavily rain affected game with India in May 2007 which consisted of barely 220 overs play and which India came close to winning.

Given this poor record, it is difficult to imagine that there would be much that could make Bangladesh’s task in world cricket any more difficult. But on the eve of a tour by New Zealand, a wholesale change has occurred in the camp that may set Bangladesh’s development back several years.

This week, 13 of Bangladesh’s top players tendered their retirements to the country’s cricket board.

Knowing that they were about to put their international careers on the line by joining the rebel Indian Cricket League (ICL) in the guise of a Bangladesh-based franchise (Dhaka Warriors), and unhappy with the way that management had treated some of them, they effectively resigned en masse.

In theory, this should not prevent them from playing for Bangladesh as well. As their leader Habibul Bashar notes, the ICL has not required them to give up their national commitments, but the workings of the ICC and the Indian Cricket Board (BCCI) in stigmatising the ICL as unofficial mean that the Bangladesh Board kowtowed to that power and placed 10-year bans on the "rebels."

In addition to Bashar, the list of players involved includes Aftab Ahmed, Alok Kapali, and Shahriar Nafees, as well as the retired Mohammed Rafique.

The motivation for the defection has been speculated as purely financial, with some of the players, notably Bashar and Rafique, coming towards the end of their careers and seemingly out of favour with the current coaching regime.

Bashar commented on the lack of support he felt from the management team, notably coach Jamie Siddons, noting in the Dhaka Daily Star, “I wasn't receiving support from anyone. Even the coach's attitude was discouraging and I was in the middle of a lot of uncertainty and I was out of cricket for seven months.”

Nafees and left-arm spinner Mosharraf Hossain agreed that the system seemed to have let them down.

The Bangladesh Board subsequently rejected the “retirement” letters, claiming that the players had violated their contracts by not giving a period of notice. Hossain, however, claimed that there were loopholes in the contracts that allowed them to leave.

The stance of the Board was confused further yesterday when they placed 10-year bans on the players announced for the Dhaka Warriors team, claiming that it would “act as a deterrent” and would “set an example in the interests of Bangladesh cricket.”

Although the “rebels” have been harshly criticised in their own country as “traitors,” Utpal Shuvro argues in a guest column at Cricinfo.com that money is not the only motivation for the players’ exodus.

He notes that the sums that they are being offered for participation in the ICL are actually very similar to what they would receive for full international participation.

The problem is that none of the players concerned are guaranteed their places in the national side—one of the hallmarks of Bangladesh’s Test side has been the lack of consistency in selection. The lack of success has led to constant shuffling of personnel and regular inclusion of players who are simply not ready for Test cricket.

Shuvro comments on the lack of any sympathy towards the unsuccessful players and a tendency not to keep them informed of reasons for their inclusion or otherwise. The example here is Nafees, who was awarded the vice-captaincy after a good run of form including a century against Australia, but was then dropped for the Asia Cup series of matches with no explanation.

He reports that Habibul Bashar’s view is that younger players are not leaving because of the money, but because they don’t enjoy playing for the national team. All of this though is complicated by the insistence on treating the ICL as a pariah competition.

If international stars were being allowed to participate in the ICL and for their national teams as well, then this would not have become an issue.

But the BCCI are using their financial and political clout to try and maintain the supremacy of their own creation, the IPL, and herding the other international boards along their path of banning players who appear in the ICL from appearing in internationals.

Similarly, the refusal of the BCCI to allow Kent to enter the forthcoming Champions League of T20 is solely a power play by the board to protect their own competition. They fear that the ICL could become successful and that they would no longer have the monopoly on organising cricket in India.

That fear translates to an attack on the ICL.

Bangladesh has merely become a pawn in the BCCI’s power struggle with the ICL. Therefore, it is no surprise that Lalit Modi, the BCCI’s vice-president has offered support to the Bangladesh Board, promising more slots in the IPL for Bangladeshi players and an invitation to the 2010 Champions League tournament.

Bangladesh’s future is being played with by the Indian board, and it is time that other members of the ICC stepped in and balanced the power that the BCCI have.

At present they do not seem inclined to do so. Cricket New Zealand caved in to the pressure from the BCCI and dropped star paceman Shane Bond because of his ICL connections, and the Bangladesh Board appear to be bowing to the same pressure in making the decision to ban the Dhaka Warriors for 10 years.

We may now be approaching the darkest days of Bangladesh cricket.

Already struggling to make an impact at Test level, there are suggestions that Bangladesh’s Test playing status might be reconsidered at the next ICC meeting. That would not be a disaster, but it is one that could be avoided if national boards stood up to the BCCI.

Reducing the pool of top players from which the Bangladesh Test side can select will only weaken the team in the short term, and will damage the team in the longer term as well. The youngsters coming through will have fewer experienced colleagues to act as role models in the team.

This could be the end for any serious hope that Bangladesh could have any success as a Test team.

Chris Adams: Sussex Hero

Dave Harris — Tue, 16 Sep 2008 02:12:01 -0400

As Captain of Sussex, Chris Adams has had more success than many predicted when he first joined the county. As he announces his retirement from the job, I take a look at his sometimes turbulent career.

Adams started his career at Derbyshire in 1988, playing just one First-class game and broke into the team the following year, making seven appearances, but it was in 1990 that he made his breakthrough, scoring 932 runs and making his maiden century. His second full season was less successful, but in 1992 he broke 1000 runs and averaged 41.07.

Two more seasons of underachieving followed before 1995 saw a further breakthrough with three centuries, including his first double-century, and this was followed up in 1996 with over 1700 runs at an average of over 50, prompting speculation that he would be called up to the England side.

He was considered something of an upstart in the Derbyshire dressing-room, amidst an often unhappy bunch of players. The leadership of Dean Jones and Dominic Cork often threatened to tear apart the team who often seemed a strong bunch of individuals who were unable to get along, and it was no surprise when, after a number of confrontations, Adams opted to leave the club.

Somewhat more surprising was Sussex’s offer of the captaincy to him, along with a high value contract, but it appears now that they knew what they were doing.

An aggressive and somewhat confrontational player who liked to lead from the front, his aggression often got him into trouble. He had a confrontation with Wasim Akram in the 1993 Benson and Hedges Cup Final, and in later years was hauled up before the ECB on a fairly regular basis. In 2000 he was fined for verbal abuse of and pushing an opponent.

He picked up five Test caps for England on the 1999-2000 tour of South Africa, but only 104 runs in the series and a highest score of 31 in nine innings saw him discarded for the successes of the summer against the West Indies and he was never called upon to represent his country at Test level again.

But by 2003 things had started to come around for Adams, who had helped build a side at Sussex that gelled around him and coach Peter Moores: the batting was dominated by Matt Prior and Murray Goodwin, with support from Tony Cottey and Richard Montgomerie as well as Adams himself. The star turn with the ball was Mushtaq Ahmed who relished English conditions and picked up 103 wickets, while Jason Lewry and James Kirtley provided the seam attack.

This team surprised the opposition and won Sussex’s first ever County Championship title.

Adams himself stated:

“It is the biggest day of my cricket career. I was lucky enough to play for England, which was very special. But the stress we have gone through over the past two or three weeks makes this something else. It has been a long journey over the past six years, and we have worked very hard for it.

"This caps everything. It has been an outstanding season.”

Wisden saw fit to name him as one of its five Cricketers of the Year in 2004 for his achievement, and although Sussex couldn’t follow up their triumph immediately, finishing fifth, Adams was keen to continue as skipper and completed a set of centuries against all 18 Counties, becoming only the third player to do so (after Mark Ramprakash and Carl Hooper).

A third-place finish in 2005, with Rana Naved-ul-Hasan adding to the bowling attack, set up two more triumphs in 2006 and 2007, with Adams scoring over 1000 runs in each season.

Between these two seasons, Adams had briefly accepted a contract from Yorkshire to captain there, but changed his mind to continue to skipper Sussex. During the 2007 season he was also linked with a move back to his old county Derbyshire, but again ended up staying.

Adams’ final triumph as Sussex captain was victory in the Pro40 League this year, with Adams electing to stand down in favour of current vice-captain Michael Yardy.

Sussex will be pleased with the success that Adams has brought them over the last five years, even if he sometimes appeared to court controversy more often than strictly necessary. Although a key part of the Sussex batting line-up, he was not the run-machine that Murray Goodwin was; instead he provided crucial impetus in the middle of the order.

In the middle of the “Derbyshire crises” at the end of the nineties, it seemed unlikely that Chris Adams would be a man to make such a distinctive impact upon a county, but he has done so at Sussex, providing a level of success that rivalled that of Dermot Reeve at Warwickshire fifteen years ago.

The comparison is inexact, because Adams has been a much stronger batsman than Reeve ever was, and the game has changed since Dermot’s time, but he has managed to make Sussex a force to be reckoned with instead of a sleepy, friendly place to play cricket.

However, his captaincy and the solid relationship with Moores were the driving forces behind the county’s success, in the same way as Reeve’s and his relationship at Warwickshire with Bob Woolmer.

From the ashes of failure at Derbyshire, Adams transformed Sussex.

For that he should be hailed.

New Zealand Select Ryder: Can He Be Trusted?

Dave Harris — Fri, 12 Sep 2008 09:39:32 -0400

New Zealand's squad for the forthcoming tour of Bangladesh included 17 names across the selections for the Tests and One-Day Internationals, but one name stood out:

Jesse Ryder.

Ryder made his debut in International cricket against England back in February in the One-Day series, and was tipped to become an important part of the Black Caps' tour to the UK this past summer.

He opened the innings with Brendon McCullum and the two shared some dynamic partnerships at the top of the order. Ryder rattled up just short of 200 runs in the five match series at an average of 49, with a best of 79*, and looked set to have a bright future.

But Ryder's story doesn't start there.

After garnering something of a "wild boy" image in previous years, 2007 was the start of some more prominent concern about his psychological make-up.

After being overlooked by the national selectors, he felt undeservedly, he refused to take part in a call-up to the training camp that the New Zealand team held prior to the ICC World Cup. He later signed a contract to play for Ireland in the summer of 2007, and told the selectors that he was not available for selection for the New Zealand A Team's tour to Australia, but his contract with the Irish ended abruptly after he failed to turn up for a game against Surrey.

But even after this, the New Zealand selectors stuck with him, and his call up to the ODI side against England appeared to presage a new dawn for Ryder. His success was emphasised by the decline of some of New Zealand's foremost players (Fleming, Styris, Astle, Bond) and he seemed set to be a major piece in the country's rebuilding process.

Then came another incident.

Apparently after a night of drinking Ryder was attempting to gain access to a toilet by breaking a nightclub window, and ended up with severed tendons in his hand.

He missed out on the tour to England, and even though he was retained on a central contract for 2008-9, it was uncertain whether he would be considered for selection once his injuries from the incident had healed.

And so we come to today's announcement.

Ryder is in the squad for both Tests and ODIs. It appears all is forgiven in the hope of unearthing a talent that will provide New Zealand cricket with a new star.

But can he be trusted to behave himself in future?

Ryder himself seems to realise that he's being given an opportunity that might not have come along, having blown his first big break.

"I'm stoked to be given another chance," he said, according to the BBC Sport website. "It's been a long time coming. It was up to them (the selectors) to give me another chance and I'm just happy they did."

His compatriots must hope that he is able to keep himself in check, and that the boredom that seems to affect overseas tours. Bangladesh has been described as "a challenge", somewhat comically, by New Zealand selector and former Test trundler Dion Nash. He must hope for the team's sake that the challenge is on the cricket field and not in reigning in the antics of Ryder off the field.

Two of the players left out after featuring in the summer tour to England, James Marshall and Peter Fulton, will be wondering whether Ryder's behaviour is condoned, given that they were exemplary tourists. Marshall underperformed, but Fulton can probably consider himself unlucky, since he wasn't selected in any of the Tests.

Whilst Ryder's talent is evident, and indeed he performed well during the emerging players' tournament held in Australia, New Zealand's selectors and tour management will no doubt be monitoring his behaviour very closely.

It's rare in sporting circles that you get a third chance when your behaviour creates problems in your first two tries. Ryder has already earned a reputation for letting his attitude overshadow his talent. It's time now for him to let his talent do the talking.

If he does, he'll prove that New Zealand are right to trust him.

India-Australia: Australian Squad Includes a Couple of Surprises

Dave Harris — Fri, 12 Sep 2008 06:19:01 -0400

Australia’s squad selection for the forthcoming tour of India contains a lot of known faces, but also one or two surprises.

With Andrew Symonds still subject to the disciplinary processes surrounding his removal from the squad to face Bangladesh in the recent One-day International series, the inclusion of Shane Watson as the all-rounder is one of the less surprising changes.

Indeed, the batting as a whole is more-or-less as expected, with Matthew Hayden, Phil Jaques, Ricky Ponting, Michael Clarke, Michael Hussey and Simon Katich to choose from. The question is whether the Australians will want to go with five or six specialist batsmen, and if five, who misses out.

It may be Hayden if he is deemed insufficiently fit, still recuperating from an Achilles tendon issue, with David Hussey potentially to be considered as cover if he or Ponting, who missed the Bangladesh games for a wrist operation, are unable to participate.

Brad Haddin keeps his place behind the stumps, having averaged 30 with the bat during the West Indies series in May and June.

It is the bowling, however, that provides the surprises.

Brett Lee, Simon Clark and Mitchell Johnson retain their places as expected, and will be backed up as seamers by Doug Bollinger, who travelled to the West Indies but didn’t feature in the Internationals, and 23-year-old Peter Siddle, who impressed in the recently completed Australian domestic series.

The spin options are somewhat unknowns, however. Both Bryce McGain and Jason Krejza performed well in their brief opportunities in Australia A’s tour of India that has just finished.

McGain is a leg-spinner who took 38 wickets in the 2008 Pura Cup season, and is 36 years old. His selection demonstrates the lack of an obvious successor to Shane Warne, and comes at the expense of Beau Casson who played in the West Indies.

Krejza bowls orthodox off-spin. He is 25 and is very much a surprise selection, only taking 18 wickets in the Pura Cup last year. However he showed well in India, and is making the most of a second chance. Having switched from New South Wales to Tasmania to play his cricket in 2006-7, he was convicted of drink-driving in 2007 and served a suspension from the state side.

The Australian Chairman of Selectors, former Test opener Andrew Hilditch, commented that Krejza’s selection was more about his suitability to bowling in India than his recent state performances, noting that he "had a good season for Tasmania last year but is a selection very much for Indian conditions. The selectors felt right-arm finger spinners would perform well in India".

One of the two spinners is certain to play in India, possibly both if Australia favour two specialists in Indian conditions at the expense of Mitchell Johnson. Much will depend on whether they feel that Michael Clarke’s bowling justifies consideration as part of the attack (He took 6-9 in a losing cause in the Test at Mumbai in 2004).

Without Symonds to provide an off-spinning alternative, I expect the side to line up as follows:

Hayden, Jaques, Ponting, Clarke, Hussey, Watson, Haddin, Lee, Clark, Krejza, Johnson.

Reforming the BCS: Dismantle Current Conferences, Create Super-Conferences

Dave Harris — Tue, 09 Sep 2008 10:48:21 -0400

Two weeks of college football are in the books, but nobody is any wiser about the contenders for the National Championship.

Although most of the preseason hype about the top programs remains largely intact, teams like Florida, in victory over Miami, and Tennessee, in defeat to UCLA, have already had questions raised about their credentials.

Part of that is down to the early season scheduling that sees a large proportion of teams taking on non-conference opponents—in some cases even taking on Division I-AA schools—and a wide diversity in the strength of opponents on the schedule.

But that's not the only problem that pundits and fans alike have in identifying their team's strengths and weaknesses.

The fact is that the BCS ranks its teams based predominantly on the opinions of watchers of college football (coaches and writers), and the remaining element is taken from computer rankings.

None of these factors are able to take in performance on the field against the most likely other contenders—simply because these games never happen.

Granted, this year we see Ohio State and USC taking on one another in Week Three, but how many other matchups between likely Top 25 colleges will we see before the weekend of the conference title games? Very few.

Part of this disparity is down to allowing colleges to arrange their own schedules, but to take the subjective element out of the equation and crown a National Champion based purely on performance on the field requires something else.

The NCAA needs to completely dismantle the current conference system.

The only way that it is possible to genuinely determine the National Champions on the field of play is for all the main contenders to play one another—not in a playoff, but as a Round Robin exercise.

An initial selection would have to be made to identify the 20 teams most likely to challenge for the National Championship, but when this is done in Year One, it would never need to be done again.

Split the teams into two conferences, East and West, to reduce traveling time, and each team plays each other team within its conference.

For three weekends of the season (to be specified by the NCAA—perhaps one at the start, one at the end, and one at Thanksgiving), each college can play a non-conference opponent or take the week off, but any match would not count towards their overall standings. This allows for either a break or for traditional matchups and rivalries to continue.

The winner of the East and West Conferences play for the National Championship. Those that finish second to fifth would be eligible for what are currently the remaining BCS Bowl Games.

The remaining hundred Division I-A teams are then split evenly among 10 regional conferences, and the winner of each conference gets to playoff against one of the 10 least successful teams in the East and West conference for a place in that conference the next year.

What does this do for college football?

1. It guarantees that the National Champion will be decided on the field of play and not by the subjective opinion of voters.

2. It guarantees 10 games almost every week between teams that are potential National Champion teams. That's 90 games between Top 20 teams every year.

3. It allows retention of the existing bowl games.

4. It requires colleges to plan across two years instead of one by instigating relegation between the East and West Conferences and the rest of Division I-A. Those in the top conference will have to fight to retain their place all season, while those colleges who aspire to the Championship will need to earn their place in the East or West Conference by winning their existing conference games.

More than anything else, for me it adds a much greater sense of achievement on merit to the whole system. The determinants of who plays in the National Championship game would not be polls and subjective opinion about the relative merits of performances against colleges that may have no chance of competing, and the comparison of performances against completely different opposition.

Instead, imagine Ohio State having a conference schedule that included nine games against Florida, Georgia, Auburn, Michigan, Clemson, Kansas, Miami, Boston College, and Virginia, whilst USC had to win a division comprising Texas, UCLA, Oklahoma, Missouri, BYU, Arizona State, Hawaii, Boise State, and LSU in order to make the National Championship Game.

That, to me, would be worth paying to watch—but to achieve it, the NCAA need to take much more control over how college football is organized.

WWE Unforgiven 2008: Was the Championship Scramble Concept a Success?

Dave Harris — Tue, 09 Sep 2008 02:26:43 -0400

As a new format of match for the WWE, the Championship Scramble provided viewers of Unforgiven with a bunch of unknowns, not just in terms of who would end up as Champions at the end of the night, but in how the matches would play out.

Would the order of entry of the participants make a difference? Could any of the Champions going in retain their title all the way through the match? How would the strategy pan out for “current” champions, and those in the match trying to take that temporary title away from them?

Overall, I was disappointed with the way that the Scramble matches worked out. The results were fine, but the method of getting to them was somewhat dubious, and stretched the extent to which suspension of disbelief was possible.

In all three matches, pinfalls happened far too frequently: If these are supposed to be the best that each brand has to offer, they should not be getting pinned from one move after just a few minutes wrestling, particularly early in the match when they should still be fresh. How can we be expected to believe that someone is capable of kicking out of (say) Chavo Guerrero’s Frog Splash after 10 minutes of a one-on-one match, when it is enough to eliminate an opponent after five?

Similarly, Matt Hardy’s tactics in the last four minutes of the ECW Scramble should have been followed by all of the “current” champions—don’t get too involved yourself, but prevent anyone else from making a pinfall by breaking up each attempt.

This folly cost Dave Batista in the Main Event.

The continual picking on The Brian Kendrick was a cleverly worked tactic, with repeated pinfalls on him, but instead of covering him at the end, why didn’t Jeff Hardy simply break up the cover Triple H had on MVP—it would have won him the match. In fact Jeff’s tactics when “current” Champion were terrible: he seemed to think that he had to pin someone to win!

The start of the World Championship Scramble was a little odd. JBL seemed to be holding out against Batista’s Figure-four Leg lock for no reason at all—it wasn’t as though he had the title to lose at that point. He could have submitted with no cost to himself.

Chris Jericho’s introduction as the replacement for CM Punk was a surprise, yet one that worked very well. Knowing that whoever replaced the departing Champion had to be in the match for a reason mean that although it seemed that Jericho did very little, you always had to keep an eye on him.

It reminded me somewhat of Steve Austin’s turn on the WWE during the 2001 InVasion PPV when he spent a fair amount of the match apparently selling a knee injury—you knew something was going on, but just not what exactly!

In the end Y2J took a typical opportunists move to grab the World Title, whilst Batista was busy dealing with Rey Mysterio.

Overall the matches were entertaining despite the strange booking choices.

My biggest concern was the number of pinfalls (five, seven, and three respectively) in three 20-minute matches.

It was reminiscent of the cruiserweight elimination matches that used to be put on PPVs to give the cruiserweights a match but that had eliminations every few seconds. This cheapens the effect of longer matches, and with the lack of long matches given TV time these days, I find it worrying.

Overall, the concept worked reasonably well, but could have been better managed/booked to address the issues above, and I look forward to further Scramble matches in future.

Twice is Happenstance: Chris Jericho's Second Reign

Dave Harris — Tue, 09 Sep 2008 01:22:54 -0400

On Sunday 7th September, at Unforgiven, Chris Jericho finally regained the World Title.

After a gruelling “unsanctioned” match with Shawn Michaels that left him battered and laid flat out on the canvas, Jericho was inserted into the main event scramble match for the World Heavyweight Championship by GM Mike Adamle to replace the incapacitated champion CM Punk.

He took advantage of an opportunity that was presented to him in the final seconds of the match to pin Kane and claim his second WWE-styled Title, some six and a half years after losing his first.

Sure, he had numerous Intercontinental Title reigns in the intervening years, but it was the top title that he always strived for and that eluded him for so long.

Indeed, prior to his first "WWE" win, he also twice held the WCW World Title in the midst of a feud with The Rock that was a highlight of the dying days of the ill-fated Invasion angle; yet very few people remember those reigns even if the matches themselves were top quality.

No, what Jericho is remembered for is being the first holder of WWE’s Undisputed Title, defeating both The Rock and Steve Austin in the same evening at Vengeance 2001.

Moreover, the memories of his title reign from December 2001 to March 2002 are unfulfilling ones and he will be hoping that 2008 allows him to display a much more dominant character than he could the first time around.

To recap, although Jericho was given wins against the two top face performers of the day, two of the most popular characters that the (then) WWF had ever created, his heel persona at the time was being newly developed, and had much more of a cowardly, cheating slant to it.

Indeed, his slowly teased heel turn during the feud with The Rock was predicated on a rivalry between the two that turned into a battle, with Jericho portrayed as a jealous choker.

His win over The Rock came via distraction from Vince McMahon and a low blow, and the one over Austin after some refereeing shenanigans and then interference from Booker T, who hit Austin with the title belt.

Jericho’s tainted victories continued as Champion, with Booker helping him win the re-match with Austin, and cheating to beat The Rock at the Royal Rumble, before the nWo interfered in another title match with Austin at No Way Out 2002.

Not only was Jericho’s role one of “cowardly heel,” he was then made only the secondary focus in the Main Event, as Triple H’s feud with him was overshadowed by the involvement of Stephanie McMahon.

So, for 2008, Jericho will hope to be booked as a much stronger heel. His recent feud with Shawn Michaels has suggested that he is capable of playing such a role, and he was kept strong by the company by taking the Title win despite his earlier loss at Unforgiven.

He has a number of potential challengers that would provide ongoing feuds for several months over the Title (Batista, Kane, CM Punk, John Cena) even if the feud with Michaels is now considered over.

He also has the ability to play either heel or face, or mix characteristics—it’s not long since Randy Orton and JBL were a focus of his attention—and he can switch seamlessly between them.

Hopefully this is the start of a long reign for Jericho—one that once seemed an inevitability back in the days of his debut on Raw—and one in which he is given plenty of license to develop a character that comes across as a strong heel Champion, rather than the weak man he appeared in his first title reign.

ECB Need to Take a Stand

Dave Harris — Mon, 28 Jul 2008 00:38:38 -0400

Cricket is becoming a battleground. Not in the usual sense of the confrontation between batsman and bowler out on the field, but in the boardrooms of the counties and between international cricketing administrations.

As Twenty20 becomes yet more popular and lucrative, everybody is jumping on the bandwagon and seeking to make their own plays for local and international power.

In England some pressed for a structural overhaul of the present system, either to move to combining counties or to move to a franchise system for any new T20 competition. Others, mainly the county chairmen, fought desperately to protect the existing structure of 18 counties.

Why? Because they want to see the windfall that is associated with T20 coming directly to their counties rather than being another income stream for the ECB to be doled out as the national board sees fit.

The in-fighting has left a bitter taste. Traditionalists fear for the future of the longer game. Modernisers fear missing out on the opportunity to make changes that might generate new forms of revenue.

On the international stage this fight has taken a step further. The politicking between national boards threatens to disrupt the planned T20 Champions League (though, like football’s equivalent, the inclusion of “runners-up” does make the title somewhat ironic).

The Indian board and tournament organisers are throwing their weight around. They want nothing to do with any teams who include players who appeared in the rival ICL T20 league.

This reads as something of sour grapes that someone unofficial came up with a successful concept. It could also be seen, however, as an attempt to ensure that the Indian board recover their monopoly of all serious revenue-drawing cricket in the country.

Make it difficult for players to benefit from playing in the ICL because they are then barred from the Champions League, and suddenly the lure of the ICL becomes much less. It gives the IPL an additional edge that it didn’t necessarily need, but at the same time penalises players who took the initiative and committed to the ICL.

Is this fair? No, of course not. There’s no legitimate reason to bar these players from the Champions League tournament. It’s merely politics.

With the political power that the Indian board now wields internationally, they are taking advantage of a strong position to dictate terms to the rest of the world. Neo-colonialism turned on its head, if you will.

However much you may dislike the European Union’s rulings on player movement and restraint of trade that have brought about changes to football and cricket through the Bosman and Kolpak cases, this is the sort of case they should be more interested in.

It’s a legitimate case for restraint of trade, potentially for any county concerned (and Kent may be affected by this, having two ICL players in their squad that lost the T20 final to Middlesex this weekend), but specifically for the players.

To me, either the players are good enough (and therefore should be playing and providing the best possible tournament) or they aren't. There's nothing about their participation in the ICL that makes them less worthy.

That's the whole point of selecting the winners (and runners-up) of the national T20 tournament to participate in the Champions League. The likes of Justin Kemp and Azhar Mahmood should be exactly the sort of players that would exhilarate the fans and help make the tournament a success!

But some national boards have already backed down in the face of the threat from India—Shane Bond was removed from the New Zealand team for the simple crime of committing to the ICL. The Australian and South African boards seem not to be making a fuss about this injustice, probably because none of their (teams) players are affected.

The ECB have not yet delivered an ultimatum nor bowed to the pressure. The current situation is still in limbo, as horse-trading goes on both publicly and behind the scenes to find a resolution.

There is still hope of a compromise, though Lalit Modi, the vice-chairman of the Indian board and prime mover behind the Champions League, has given little in the way of encouragement.

So, a message to the ECB: Don’t bow to these demands, but please, please provide a structure for English cricket that works for everybody.