How Baseball <I>really</I> developed from cricket

by csb10.top Uncategorized

1. The earliest developments
Most cricketers have heard that baseball developed out of an early form of cricket (called “rounders”). But the full story is more complicated, and says a great deal about early cricket in America as well.According to the United States Sporting Goods Manufacturers Association (US-SGMA), those English immigrants who had settled in New York spent their free time playing cricket in the 1700s.Up the coast in Boston, cricket was also played by English immigrants, notably those who considered themselves as gentry. But Boston had begun quite early on to acquire both a plebean and an Irish flavor. The game of rounders, an earlier form of cricket which seems to have been favored by the Irish, as well as by English children in the 16th century, became the game of choice among the youth.The Boston cricketers of the time encouraged rounders as a secondary diversion, and even allowed it to be played in their cricket fields by those who preferred an alternative to the more formal sport of cricket. So “early baseball” (ie ” US Rounders”) grew up in the USA under cricket’s benign umbrella. It stayed that way for about the first hundred years of its existence.2. US rounders in the 1750s
In the 1750s, US rounders involved only two bases, probably because cricket (of that time and later) used a two-base system as well. The pitcher was known then as the ‘feeder,’ the batter was called the ‘striker,’ and the fielders were referred to as the ‘scouts.’ Basically, the ‘feeder’ threw a slow, underhand pitch from one base to the ‘striker’ at the other, exactly where he was asked to deliver it. (If the ‘feeder’ failed to satisfy the ‘striker’s’ requests, the ‘striker’ could demand that the ‘feeder’ be replaced!) The ‘striker’ would hit the ball as far as he could, and this would enable him to run back and forth between his original position and the other stake, each successful run scoring a point.The scouts or the feeder would field the ball, and try to hit the striker with the ball before he could finish his run and grab the base he was running to (he would be “safe” as long as he was holding the post which served as a base).In other words, the major differerence between early rounders and cricket in North America was that the bowler/pitcher had no role in getting the batter out…the batter could only be “run out” or “caught”.3. The change towards 4-base play
As more participants joined the game, they set out more stakes around which the ‘striker’ had to run before getting back ‘home.’…giving the “scouts” more targets to throw at! With the changes in rules, came a name change as well. Instead of “rounders”, the game now began to be called “townball,” i.e. an urban sport… unlike cricket, which was then a bucolic and leisure-class activity.The stakes which functioned as bases in “Townball” were much closer to each other than the bases in a modern-day baseball diamond – 20 yards, as opposed to today’s 30 yards. Also, their disposition was “square”, not diamond-like. The number of bases or stakes were usually four by the early 19th century, although earlier they had varied from two to five. And the pitcher/ feeder stood only 12 yards away from the batter/striker, whose position was between the First and Fourth stakes, about 10 yards away from each.Look at the following diagram, comparing Boston’s 1850s Townball “square” with the standard cricket pitch.You can easily see, from the diagram, how a Townball “square” could develop from cricket net-practice sessions.

Just imagine a practice “pitch” on the side of a cricket field, and extend both popping creases 20 yards into the field. You will have a Townball “square”… and an excellent post-game cricket exercise in batting and fielding! And that was exactly how early baseball first developed, out of 19th-century US cricket…Not to be outdone by Boston, the New Yorkers renamed their version of rounders ‘The New York Game’. They fixed the number of stakes at four bases instead of two wickets.A complete batting order where all persons had batted was termed a ‘hand’, exactly as in early cricket, but batting would rotate between the opposite sides on every ‘out’. A complete trip around the bases was called an ‘ace.’ For the New York Game, the winner was the first team to score 21 aces, i.e. bring 21 runners “home”.As the New York Game became established, in 1845 a young surveyor by the name of Alexander Cartwright designed the first baseball diamond, departing from Boston’s “Town Square” design. A year later in Hoboken, NJ, ‘The New York Game’ was played on a field using Cartwright’s dimensions. The contest featured the New York Nine vs. the Knickerbocker Club.Each club had nine players, apparently for no better reason than that New York insisted on that number….and in those days, what New York wanted, New York got.4. Beginnings of modern baseball
The arrival of the Civil War helped spread the popularity of the ‘ New York Game.’ Many soldiers from the Northeast were seen carrying their equipment while on duty. After the Civil War, the game became a popular activity, as every hamlet, village, town, and settlement formed a team. A challenge match between teams from nearby communities was often the setting for a local holiday.As interest in baseball rose, changes were made to ensure the game’s continued popularity. For instance, by the early 1800s a round bat was used instead of a flat cricket bat. Modern cricket bats are expensive and individualized to suit the tastes of different batters, while baseball bats can be used by just about anybody who wants to play. All players (including the catcher) started using padded mitts and protective gear when necessary.More importantly, the rules were also changed to give back the ‘feeder’ or ‘pitcher’ more of a role in getting batters out. First, they were allowed to pitch as they wished, not how the striker wanted him to (as in rounders). Then, the batter was restricted to three “strikes” (i.e. “misses”) on accurate pitches, but earned a free base run after four inaccurately thrown pitches (the “four balls” rule)…meaning, a batter was on base for no more than 5 to 10 pitches every time he came in to bat.Scoring hits were soon restricted to the spaces between the bases facing the batter. Another change: Previously, the batting side would change on every “out”, but both sides would keep batting until 21 runners had been brought safely “home”. Now, the team bringing more runners “home” for a given number of “outs” was allowed to claim victory.Finally, allowing each inning to consist of three “outs” effectively replaced the old “hands” into three batting forays per side… and, by alternating these new “innings”, each team got the chance to match or surpass the other’s score throughout the course of the game. This increased the suspense of winning or losing, always an important factor in American sport.5. A final comparison
There is a hidden irony in the way things happened, in both baseball and cricket. Early baseball (i.e. US rounders) was supposed to give batters more opportunities than in cricket, by reducing the role of the pitcher/bowler to that of “feeder”. Yet todays’ baseball is a pitcher’s game….while modern cricket is the sport that really gives batters the major role !Baseball and cricket, then, came from very similar backgrounds. They looked a lot like each other, in baseball’s early days. But, after 1850, the two games drifted apart… and each assumed its own character and identity.Cricket became a longer and more leisurely game as batters (batsmen) began to dominate the sport, and wanted more time to display their individual skills.Baseball, on the other hand, became shorter and more abbreviated….pitchers assumed an active rather than passive role, then came to dominate the sport; baseball batters were allowed fewer and fewer options, could spend less time at bat, and the rules were changed to favor shorter games.By the 1900s, cricket and baseball were looking far more different from each other than in baseball’s earlier years.And by that time, it had become an issue of “cricket OR baseball” in the USA…and everyone knows what happened.

West Indies women's board to merge with WICB

by csb10.top Uncategorized

The West Indies Cricket Board (WICB) and the West Indies Women’s Cricket Federation (WIWCF) are set to merge, in time for the March 2005 deadline agreed upon by the ICC and the International Women’s Cricket Council (IWCC).Ms Anne Browne-John, a WIWCF representative, said the two organisations had agreed to move forward on the basis of a business plan that, among other things, will present options for integration as well as consider the financial, legal, operational and ownership implications for both partners. It is likely the plan will have input from a wide range of stakeholders in the game.She added that the WIWCF was aware the unification would call for great compromise and commitment from both parties at all levels, but believed it would be to the benefit of the sport.The WIWCF, in its 30th year, is a full member of the IWCC and an associate member of the WICB, and the West Indies women’s team is playing in the IWCC World Cup in South Africa next year.

Tikolo and Shah help Kenya fightback

by csb10.top Uncategorized

Faisal Iqbal put Pakistan A in a commanding position© AFP

Centuries from Steve Tikolo and Ravindu Shah got Kenya out of trouble on the second day of the three-day match against Pakistan A at the Simba Union Club in Nairobi.Kenya replied with 254 for 3, after Pakistan A declared their first innings at 495. Taufeeq Umar and Faisal Iqbal smeared the Kenyan bowling to all parts of the Oval and Pakistan A declared shortly before lunch on the second day. Tafeeq made 144 and Faisal finished on 119.Kenya’s reply was rocked early in the innings when Kennedy Obuya and HiteshModi fell in quick succession. However, Tikolo and Shah engineered the fightback with a third-wicket stand of 216. Shah struck 23 boundaries and continued his great form, after his 135 against Uganda a week ago, and notched up his third first-class century.Tikolo brought up his fourth first-class hundred with a single off Salman Butt and spanked 15 boundaries in his 140-ball effort. Thomas Odoyo got in on the act too but bad light brought the day’s proceedings to a premature end.

Hodge takes Leicestershire to Twenty20 victory

by csb10.top Uncategorized

Scorecard

Down and out: Adam Hollioake trudges off in his last Twenty20 Cup match© Getty Images

Brad Hodge guided Leicestershire to victory in this year’s Twenty20 Cup final against Surrey at Edgbaston. After Surrey set a challenging total of 168 for 6, thanks to 64 from Alistair Brown, Hodge kept his nerve to take his side home with a cool and calculated 77 not out as Leicestershire took the trophy with five balls to spare.In front of another packed house for a Twenty20 match, Hodge was Leicestershire’s hero. He saw them home with help from Darren Maddy, who became the first player to pass 500 runs in the tournament, and Jeremy Snape, who chipped in with 34 not out as Surrey lost their title by seven wickets.It was Brown who made the early running for Surrey, though, with a typically brutal innings of 64 from 41 balls – his second successive half-century in the final – and Mark Ramprakash also contributed with 23 not out in Surrey’s total. Brown was in the party mood. He clubbed nine fours and two sixes, mainly through the offside, as Leicestershire failed to make an early impression with the ball. He added 80 with Scott Newman, who scored a quick 21 and kept Surrey’s momentum going.Brown, who was dropped on 39, was eventually caught by John Sadler in the deep going for another big hit, but he set the platform for the final fling. Rikki Clarke and Azhar Mahmood all chipped in, but Ramprakash held things together to guide Surrey to their healthy score.However, in the end it wasn’t enough. In their chase, Leicestershire’s two in-form batsmen, Maddy and Hodge made a flying start, punching anything loose to the boundary. They put on 62 for the first wicket, with Maddy scoring 22. Hodge continued to shine, bringing up his half-century from 25 balls, and seven fours.However, the introduction of Adam Hollioake, playing in his last Twenty20 match, in the 11th over pegged Leicestershire back. Darren Stevens came in and played some handsome shots, but he was miraculously caught on the long-off boundary by Mahmood for 20, and John Sadler then chipped Hollioake straight to Clarke at midwicket.Leicestershire required 35 off the last four overs, and two boundaries in the 16th over from Snape tilted the math back in his side’s favour. Snape then crunched a huge six over Hollioake’s head in the penultimate over, and Hodge smacked him back down the ground two balls later – and that was effectively that.The equation came down to four needed from the last over, and this time Mahmood couldn’t repeat his heroics from the semi-final, as Snape caressed the first ball through midwicket for the winning boundary to start Leicestershire’s well-deserved victory.
Scorecard

Darren Maddy: the leading Twenty20 Cup run-scorer© Getty Images

A blistering innings from Darren Maddy helped put Leicestershire into the final of the Twenty20 Cup. Leicestershire, last year’s semi-finalists, piled on a healthy total of 165 for 5, and Glamorgan’s innings never really got going, despite 44 from David Hemp, and they went down by 24 runs.After Brad Hodge won the toss and opted to bat, he and Maddy made a rollicking start, with Maddy smacking 72 from 40 balls, and becoming the first player to 500 runs in the competition. He brought up his half-century from only 25 balls, and scored six fours and four sixes in all.Hodge and Maddy put on 81 for the opening stand before Hodge was out caught by Hemp off Robert Croft for 22. Darren Stevens then chipped in at No. 3 with 27 from 20 balls, and although the middle order slightly lost their way during the closing overs, their total proved to be too much for Glamorgan.Mark Cleary made sure of that with two early wickets, including Matthew Maynard for 9. Hemp and Mark Wallace gave Glamorgan an outside chance with a stand of 49, but once Hemp was caught off the impressive Claude Henderson, his side were always up against it.The wickets continued to tumble as Glamorgan searched for the big hits, and Ottis Gibson wrapped things up when he had Michael Kasprowicz caught on the long-on boundary. Leicestershire now face Surrey in the final, and will be hoping to go one step further this time.
ScorecardSurrey made it through to their successive Twenty20 Cup final – but only just. In an enthralling finish to a low-scoring match against Lancashire, they scraped home by a single run.After Surrey had squandered a blistering start to make 133 all out from their 20 overs, Azhar Mahmood held his nerve to bowl the final over with Lancashire requiring seven to win. However, Chris Schofield could only manage a single and Surrey booked their place in the final.

Surrey celebrate their nailbiting win© Getty Images

Warren Hegg inserted Surrey at the toss, and Alistair Brown got off to a flying start, smacking seven fours in quick time before he was bowled by Andrew Flintoff for 32. Flintoff then picked up the wicket of Scott Newman for 12 as Surrey began to falter. Gary Keedy and Dinesh Mongia then spun Surrey into deeper trouble with five wickets between them, including Mark Ramprakash for 24 and Adam Hollioake for 1.Requiring 134 to win, Lancashire made a bright start as Flintoff hit his first ball for four. However, Azhar rolled out one of his effective slower balls, and Flintoff hit it high in the air to Brown at mid-off for 15. From then on, wickets continued to fall and Lancashire were up against it, especially when Carl Hooper was bowled by Nayan Doshi for 26. However, Dominic Cork entered the fray and smacked 25 from 13 balls, but the big moment of the match came when he skied Hollioake to Clarke at mid-off and Surrey held their nerve to close out a thrilling match.

India breeze past Kenya

by csb10.top Uncategorized


Scorecard and ball-by-ball-details

VVS Laxman sweeps on his way to 79© Getty Images

Almost everything fell neatly into place for India as they romped to a 98-run win in their opening match at Southampton. Sourav Ganguly and VVS Laxman piloted the innings with a responsible partnership, and a surge at the end meant that India were boosted to 290 for 4. At no stage were Kenya in the hunt, and Harbhajan Singh went about hammering the last nails into the Kenyan coffin.Kenya chose to field first in favourable conditions, but they were haunted by their old nemesis – Ganguly. In the last three games against Kenya, Ganguly had racked up three hundreds, and overall averages close to 72 against them. He had an even better record in the Champions Trophy, with an average of close to 82 in 11 matches. Just as he had done in the final match of the NatWest Challenge at Lord’s – when he also made 90 – Ganguly bided his time against a testing opening spell. His first four came as late as the 12th over in the form of a delectable caress through the covers, but he gradually unfurled a few specials. Walking down the track and simultaneously making room, he carved several balls over the infield.Laxman scraped off all the early-season rustiness and, like Ganguly, showed signs of vintage form. He hadn’t passed fifty since his memorable century in the decider against Pakistan at Lahore. He was on his way with some wristy strokes, but nearly threw it away after serving up a delicious appetiser. Martin Suji completed a splendid diving catch off a flick to short midwicket, but a no-ball call meant that Laxman survived. His fifty came up in 72 balls, and he cranked it up from then on with some crisp slaps and sweeps.Both Ganguly and Laxman fell while trying to up the ante. Ganguly yorked himself and lost his stumps as he charged down the pitch, while Laxman was stumped easily after he danced down the track trying to loft Steve Tikolo (213 for 4).But Mohammad Kaif and Rahul Dravid ensured that India took off from this launching pad, rattling up 77 from the last 41 balls. With a mix of whippet-like urgency between the wickets and judicious placement, they manufactured 41 runs in singles and twos. Rageb Aga, the debutant, was crashed to all parts, and was at the receiving end of Dravid’s scooped six over extra cover. Kaif finished unbeaten just one short of his half-century, but by then the momentum was well and truly with India.Irfan Pathan and Harbhajan picked up the baton and took India to the brink of victory even before the halfway stage of the Kenyan innings. Pathan’s darting swing left the top-order batsmen clueless, and there were a number of very close shouts for lbw. He finally got his reward in only the seventh over of the innings, when Tikolo was trapped plumb in front. Hitesh Modi fell soon after, as Ganguly judged a steepling skyer to perfection (21 for 3).Ravindu Shah plodded on and, with Thomas Odoyo, took close to ten overs to add 37. But Harbhajan sawed off the resistance as he picked up 3 for 11 in his first five overs. Shah fell flashing at a wide one, Aga completed a forgettable debut and offered a bat-pad chance, while Odoyo was deceived by the sharp turn and bounce. Dinesh Karthik didn’t have the best match, but he did snap up two smart catches amid the wreckage (74 for 6).Maurice Ouma and Brijal Patel delayed the inevitable with a 92-run stand, mainly thanks to Ganguly’s decision to give his part-time bowlers a go. Virender Sehwag, Yuvraj Singh and Ganguly himself sent down as many as 17 overs. Eventually Ajit Agarkar came back on, and had Ouma caught off the last ball of his spell for 49 (166 for 7).Kenya managed to play out the 50 overs and finished on 192 for 7. They now have three days to recover from this mauling. Pakistan, though, may turn out to be even more ferocious opponents.

Weary Morgan looks for 'closure'

by csb10.top Uncategorized

Michael Vaughan and Kevin Pietersen unwind after arriving in Harare© Getty Images

After 48 hours in which he was locked in meetings with officials from Zimbabwe Cricket in a bid to save England’s tour, David Morgan, the ECB’s chairman, has expressed him hope that taking the field against Zimbabwe will bring "closure" of the whole affair.Morgan has come under intense criticism for his handling of the affair, being accused, among other things, of having “the timing of a top comedian" and acting with the authority of "a half-dead mouse". Some have called for his resignation, while polls in the UK are massively against the tour proceeding. But with the squad safely in Harare, he hit back."We firmly believe in order for closure of the Zimbabwe affair to take effect we need to play cricket here in Zimbabwe … and that’s what we’re here for,” Morgan told the Press Association. “We’re concerned this tour should go smoothly, that there should be no demonstrations, no injury."As for the more personal criticism, Morgan said that he wasn’t immune, but added that he had "had a fairly tough upbringing in business and industry and I’m just concerned I do the right thing. I cannot over-emphasise the importance of gaining closure on this affair, and that will come once we’ve played the cricket.”At least Morgan cannot be accused of talking a soft line with Zimbabwe Cricket over its attempts to reschedule Friday’s cancelled one-day international. It claimed that it would suffer financial hardship because of the decision. "We’ve made it clear we don’t think the ECB are liable for that loss," he said, adding: "It’s a direct result of the delay in media accreditation.”Faced yet again with demands that he should have cancelled the tour when the journalists’ accreditation was originally refused, Morgan stuck to his guns. “It has been very clear to me and our board for a considerable time that moral or political objections to touring are totally unacceptable within the international cricket community. Our business or trade is cricket, and our revenue-earner is international cricket. If we want to trade in international cricket then we have to do so by the rules of the International Cricket Council. People around the world, not just in cricket but in business generally, are fed up with Britain claiming it’s a special case. Internationally the rest of the world is unsympathetic to such claims.”Morgan might face another problem in the coming days. Rumours are circulating that Robert Mugabe, having been forced to back down over the matter of journalists, might look to embarrass the English by paying a visit to one of the games in Harare. Morgan said that his reaction would be difficult to predict but that he had had "confidential advice from the Foreign Office and that advice will be uppermost in my mind."The Foreign Office, however, said that what he did was up to Morgan himself. "We cannot tell him what to do," said a spokesman. "This is not a dictator state, it is the individual’s choice."

'We never got any momentum going'

by csb10.top Uncategorized

John Wright: ‘I think there was a bit of a comfort zone’© Getty Images

John Wright has a permanently craggy, semi-dissatisfied look on his face. After several long, and often trying, years as coach of the Indian team, he has gained the respect of a nation that once blanched at the idea of appointing a foreign coach. Surely we could find a coach among a nation of billion, went the chorus. We couldn’t get one like Wright, at least not one who could get as much out of the Indian team. Yet, there’s every chance that he may be on the way out.Wright looked back on the ups and downs in Indian cricket last year while speaking to Cricinfo. “I think the problem really was that we had that break of three months [after the Pakistan tour]. Though we had a camp the batters did not have any form this season. Our performances last year were built on outstanding batting performances so I think there was a bit of a comfort zone.”In many ways, the successes of the last season – a drawn series in Australia and a series win in Pakistan – got the expectations of the public and the media to an unmaintainable high. “You know sometimes success in India can be … not quite an enemy,” said Wright, searching for just the perfect words in his inimitable fashion. “But after the Pakistan tour there was a lot of celebration and perhaps we weren’t as hungry as we had been, when we played the Asia Cup,” he explained. “By then it was too late. We went to Holland, there was a lot of wet weather, the practice facilities were sub-standard. So we never got any momentum going. But that is in the one-day side.”Unusually for India though, while the form in the one-dayers has dipped, the results have not been so disappointing in the Tests. Though India lost at home to Australia – no disgrace – there was some semblance of form. “There have been signs that we were improving but it’s probably picked up since Bombay [Test against Australia] really. That batting form that we had last year just wasn’t there.”But Wright did not think it’s impossible to regain the kind of form India had on the Pakistan and Australia tours. “Oh yeah, definitely it’s not form, it’s just momentum really. We had players who just weren’t getting rhythm, and time in the middle and that can be difficult when you are solely playing a diet of one-day cricket. We pulled it back in Chennai, we played very well against Australia in Chennai. To be honest, there weren’t easy batting conditions either in Nagpur or in Bombay. The fact that they were different, one was a green, seaming wicket and the other was a square turner didn’t make it easy. That [form and momentum] will come, I don’t have any problems, it’s happening already.”[Virender] Sehwag is in good nick, [Rahul] Dravid’s got a hundred now, [VVS] Laxman played well in Bombay. Sourav was in reasonable form. The players are there and the class is there and I’ve never worried about it. It’s just that we just haven’t been at our best. “And Wright was quick to point out, correctly, that even though India lost 1-2 to Australia, it could easily have been different. “We didn’t do badly in that series either. We lost it and that will be judged accordingly but, to be honest, if we had some fine weather in Chennai and some co-operation in Nagpur, it could have been better,” he said. “It wasn’t that far away. We won the last Test in Bombay in interesting conditions and in Chennai, well, who’s to know? If you look at that form in the last year we were the only side who has taken a Test of them (Australia) or even got close to them really. So, though we lost the series, I still say we can give Australia a run for their money.”But that said, there certainly were signs of rustiness in the one-day tournaments India has played since the season-opener, the Asia Cup. “I don’t think we’ve played that good at one-day cricket in the last one year. We did reasonably in Pakistan but we just haven’t been consistent in that part of the game since the World Cup,” said Wright. “In the World Cup it all came together. I know that in big competitions it will come together. Generally our one-day performances are built around the batting, I don’t think our fielding has been as good as it has been or even simple things like running between the wickets. We’ve got to up those areas a lot more.”

‘The players are there and the class is there. I’ve never worried about it. It’s just that we just haven’t been at our best’ © AFP

But now with a win in the last Test against Australia, the series win against South Africa and a clean sweep against Bangladesh, India are building up a good head of steam ahead of Pakistan’s arrival in February for three Tests and five one-dayers. “I don’t think we are out of momentum. Our aim here is to go forward, win these matches [against Bangladesh]. We play Pakistan and we want to win both the Test and one-day series,” he said. “We’ve dropped some matches to Pakistan, two of those games have been very close, we need to get that back and I’m confident that we will. Definitely.”But, Wright is not ready, yet, to talk about his aims, and whether he did or did not achieve them in his stint as India coach. “I will tell you that when I’m finished,” said Wright. “There are a lot of objectives you have in mind. But there are sometimes issues that don’t help you achieve them but anyway that’s part of the job. So I will be judged when I finish my term really.”My contract goes till the end of May [2005] so people will judge me on whatever; they can judge me on whatever they like.”In the course of his journey with the Indian team, he has had to deal with difficult characters, stubborn board officials, and a system that was simply alien to transparency and positive change. Yet, Wright is not one to moan. He is constantly hounded by the media, and the nation’s expectations are often unrealistic. Steve Waugh recently remarked that four years was about the right length of time for someone to be captain of a high-profile team, because the job took so much out of you. Is four years about the right timespan for a coach? “Those are the sort of things that myself and the board will review when I come to the end of my contract. That’s something that I will think about and no doubt the board will think about at the end of the next term. You cross those bridges when you come to them. I know when I first took over the job a lot of people were saying ‘he won’t last six months’.”Well, Wright has not just outlasted six months but he has done so in such a manner that it’s now becoming difficult to find the right man to replace him, if and when he chooses to give it up.

`I don't think Lehmann will go to England': Waugh

by csb10.top Uncategorized

The writing is on the wall for Lehmann, says Mark Waugh© Getty Images

Mark Waugh, the former Australian batsman, expressed the view that Darren Lehmann’s international career is all but over, saying that it was highly unlikely that Lehmann would be selected for the Ashes tour later this year. Lehmann, 35, who was dropped for the one-day series in New Zealand, has had a poor run of form lately, managing a mere 87 runs in the VB Series.”I don’t think he will go to England, the Australian selectors are looking at younger players,” Waugh told AFP. “He’s a great player and a great team man but I think, unfortunately, age has probably just caught up with him.”Waugh, who retired on the eve of the last Ashes series in 2002-03, said that he expects a “pretty easy” triumph for Australia. “England might have a chance but I don’t know if they believe in themselves against Australia,” he said. “They could take a Test off us, but I think something like 4-1 will be the result.”Waugh, who is also likely to stand for the post of a national selector, was quite vocal about the contentious rotation policy of the Australian selectors. “I don’t think it works. It didn’t work four or five years ago so I don’t know why they brought it back in.”I remember being rotated against Zimbabwe two or three times — and I was batting pretty well and there was probably a lot of runs to be scored against Zimbabwe. At the end of the season, you sit down with the selectors and they are sorting out your contract and where we were rated with other players, and I remember them saying ‘you have had a fair year but you haven’t scored as many runs as we would have liked’.”I felt like saying ‘well, you shouldn’t have rotated me against Zimbabwe’.”

The 450th time

by csb10.top Uncategorized

Anil Kumble surprised himself with a stunning catch© Getty Images

Pakistan had pretty much saved the game, but Anil Kumble kept running in hard. Mohammad Sami thought he’d have a go at this tired man, took a step-and-a-half down the pitch, and drove him powerfully through mid-off. Er, it gone through mid-off, but a hand appeared in the frame and caught the ball, and Kumble’s body followed to the ground, his mouth opening in astonishment as the ball settled in his hand. Then he sat cross-legged and started laughing, his shoulders wiggling gently. This was his 314th ball of the innings; far more importantly, it was the 450th wicket of a great, under-appreciated career. All the players gathered around this man they loved and admired, and waited for the action replay on the big screen. (AV)Razzaq’s blowThe match had still not been absolutely saved. Pakistan were leading by 185,but a wicket then could still trigger a collapse. Abdul Razzaaq, a pictureof rectitude and self denial for much of his remarkable innings, succumbs tothe temptation. The ball from Kumble was been tossed up, the Razzaq gets iton the outer half and sends it soaring, not straight, but up. An entirestadium holds its breath and waits as Ganguly, gives chase from mid-on. Heruns, runs and runs, but Ganguly is no Mohammed Kaif, and it all ends withhim sprawled on the ground, the ball having fallen a few feet ahead him. Itwas a picture that described India¹s story of the day, almost there, but notthere. The next ball described Pakistan’s. Kumble threw it up again, andRazzaq took one step down the track and bat came down on the ball, heavy andhard, hitting it from the middle this time, and up it went, this time flatand straight, to the left of the sight screen. Almost all day Pakistanbattled to save the Test, but never did they take a step backward. When theball was there for the hit, it was hit.A blow to end two careersOn a day when the greatest wicketkeeper-batsman in the game confirmed the destructive nature of his skill, another of his brethren on the other side of the world, in similar circumstances was busy serving up notice of his talent.When Kamran Akmal resumed after lunch today, he was unbeaten on 75 and fighting cramp. At the end of the second over after tea, he went down, stretching andeventually needing treatment. Soon after, he ran hard for two and again went down. He got up and first swept, then late cut Kumble for successive fours tomove onto 99. Would he blink? Not a chance; he played out eight dot balls, before coolly driving Kumble through the covers to bring up a maiden Test century.As a wicketkeeper, he was already widely acknowledged as one of the best going, although his batting ensured that Moin and Rashid were always in the frame. Butwith that one shot, he may have achieved what match-fixing, various captains, player politics and poor form have been unable to: end both their international careers. (OS)

India ready for the challenge

by csb10.top Uncategorized

Mithali Raj is the key player for India, as they enter their first World Cup final© Getty Images

On not letting the occasion affect the team
We are just taking it as another match. We have told the girls not to take it as a final because that would put extra pressure on them. At the same time the Australians will be under lot of pressure because they have already been champions, whereas this is our first time.On Australian strengths
They are very good side but we had the opportunity of playing a home series against them in December 2004. And having beaten them in the last three games of that series, though India lost 4-3, the girls know they can match the Aussies and that is an advantage for us. Though both teams are balanced on the paper the Australians are mentally stronger than us.On the factors that helped us beat Australia in the home series
We were just working on the confidence levels of the girls. They needed to believe in themselves and retain their spirit even if things didn’t go their way. And the end result showed that they were positive and they have carried the similar spirit in the World Cup so far.On the wicket
There is no grass on the wicket and that is a plus point for us. It looks like it is full of runs.On India’s weakpoint so far
We were a little worried about our opening stand – our two openers have not clicked together. We would like a good opening stand. And we gave extra time to the batters during the nets today.On the strategy
If we win the toss we will bat. We just don’t want the pressure of chasing especially since this is our first final. And we will retain the same winning squad. Each member of the team has so far understood her responsibility and they should continue in the same vein and if they give their 100 percent we should surely win.