Line and Length - Times Online - WBLG

Vote for cricket's Pillock of the Month!

By popular demand (well, one person asked me and the online editor thought it was a good idea), I announce the inaugural Line and Length Pillock of the Month competition. On the last day of each month, I will list the pillocks, twits and fools who have grabbed the attention and encourage readers to vote for the biggest prat. They could be intemperate players, blinkered officials or idiotic administrators. At the end of the year, in a packed gala ceremony, the 12 monthly pillocks will compete for the coveted Pillock of the Year award (putatively held for the past six years by Andre Nel).

The following list of nominees is in alphabetical order, vote for who you fancy and let me know through the comments who has been left out - or should be considered in February's poll. For those who think we are just being cynical, tomorrow is the start of my Hero of the Month competition.

The petty BCCI official (a rarity admittedly) who banned Nathan Astle, Daryl Tuffey and Craig McMillan from appearing in the Bollywood film Victory, being shot at the moment, because they had competed in the rebel Indian Cricket League. I missed this story a few weeks ago, but it sums up bureaucrats everywhere. Although who on earth thought Tuffey would be a big draw?

Paul Blanchard, sales and marketing director at the Brit Oval: for saying, even if it was true, that he had received phone calls from people complaining that tickets for internationals were too low and that there was nothing wrong with charging £100 for an ODI ticket.

Kevin Peake, head of marketing at npower: for forgetting that the last time England played Australia in the Ashes we lost 5-0, as he launched a triumphalist "we gave you a hell of a beating" campaign for 2009.

Mike Procter: for yet again being the match referee when a row flared up and failing to come up with a diplomatic solution that soothed both sides.

Harbhajan Singh: whatever he did or did not say in Sydney, he is a pillock for patting Brett Lee on the rump and thinking it was OK. That flag-waving after India won a Test in which he played no part was also a bit silly.

Andrew Symonds: whatever Harbhajan did or did not say in Sydney, there was no excuse for Symonds wading into the whole posterior-patting scene and swearing at Harbhajan. If Brett Lee was OK with his rear being fondled, then Symonds should have, er, butted out.

Opinion Polls & Market Research

ICC failed to tell Hansen of Harbhajan's previous misdemeanours

Well what fun all this is, eh? Comments left overnight by Edmund Hillary, Billy Idol, Nelson Mandela and a song by Burt Bacharach to boot. Much as it depresses me that far more comments have been made about Harbhajan's trial than were made about the four Tests combined, it is good to welcome so many new readers to Line and Length. Keep popping back. But let's try to keep our views to real people only, such as the strangely silent Andre Nel or Humphrey B Bear.

The ICC published Justice John Hansen's written report on the trial earlier today (I've been out of the office so apologies for not posting earlier) and some thoughts occur to me. Feel free to let me know what you think or just to call me a vile India/Australia hater (delete as applicable).

1) The most important thought was actually the last, buried on page 20 of the 22. Justice Hansen says the ICC had informed him of only one previous transgression of the Code of Conduct by Harbhajan Singh and that he discovered after announcing his verdict that there were three others, one serious. These were not passed to him because of administrative errors by the ICC (errors that somehow seem to have been ironed out once he had reduced the ban to a slap on the wrist). None of the other transgressions were to do with racial allegations, but Hansen says he would have handed a tougher penalty, possibly a ban, on Harbhajan if he had known.

While cock-ups are part of the ICC's usual modus operandi (excuse the Latin, it's all this legal talk getting to me), it seems strange they should come to light so quickly after Hansen's verdict. Given that he had seven days to consider his verdict (see point 4 below), why couldn't he have taken the time to do a cuttings search to see if there was anything else to consider?

2) Andrew Symonds alleged that he was called "a monkey or a big monkey". Why is the size of the monkey relevant? If Harbhajan had called him a "little monkey", would that have been ok? I've heard an Indian friend of mine call his nephew a "little monkey" and it was quite affectionate. Perhaps, from now on, players could specify exactly what sort of monkey they mean when insulting an opponent. Call him a baboon, orang-utang or lemur if you want. Anyway, quite clearly the member of the Australia team who looks most like a monkey is Ricky Ponting. Just look at that George W Bush-style mouth.

Harbhajan cleared

Harbhajan Singh has had his three-Test ban dropped after Justice John Hansen cleared him of making racial comments during the Sydney Test. I have to rush out and won't be in the office today so I leave this as an open thread for people to leave their views, which will be moderated later. But I make the following views:

1) If they felt that he had done nothing wrong, India were right to fight this to clear his name. They should now refrain from gloating or complaining about being picked on and get on with the cricket.

2) If Australia thought they had heard a racial slur, they were right to complain. They should now accept that they were mistaken, not complain about the verdict and get on with the cricket.

3) Regardless of racial abuse, the Test series was ugly in places, with both sides going a bit too far in tub-thumping and competitiveness. In Adelaide, India's jostling of the umpire was unseemly and, although I did not see this incident, there was an allegation that Karthik spat at Clarke. Clearly this is unacceptable. Harbhajan's exoneration should not overshadow the fact that Test cricket was not being played by grown-ups this winter.

4) The ICC were aware of the quality of evidence before the appeal and whether there was the need for lengthy testimony and legal investigation. That the hearing was concluded after only one day bothers me. The ICC came close to bending their own rules to suspend the hearing until after the Test series, but there were more than six days between Hansen being appointed and the Perth Test starting, plenty of time it now appears to have allowed an appeal.

Associate nations fight for World Cup places

Contemplating the next World Cup so soon after the Australia v India Test series is a bit like going for a kebab on the way home from a Michelin-starred restaurant, but for the non-Test nations it is their one chance to grab a slice of the ICC pie and remind the rest of the world that they exist. Naturally, therefore, there is opposition from the minnows to any reduction in the number of smaller nations taking part in 2011.

The Malaysia Sun reported yesterday that several associate members - Canada, Ireland, Kenya, Holland, Bermuda, Scotland, United Arab Emirates, Namibia, Denmark and Oman - have written to Malcolm Speed at the ICC requesting that the chief executive block the plan, sponsored by India and Pakistan with Sri Lanka and Bangladesh's backing, to cut the number of teams at the next World Cup from 16 to 14. It may seem a futile gesture given Speed's general impotence in the face of the India machine (he plays the same passive role in proceedings as a toast-rack does when being stacked with hot crumpets), but you can't blame the minnows for trying.

Given the amount of money India and Pakistan lost by getting knocked out early in the Caribbean, you can understand their desire to change the system whereby one shock result (Pakistan losing to Ireland, India losing to Bangladesh) can see them heading home early - although both those sides lost two of their pool matches - but perhaps a compromise would be for a variant on the 1996 World Cup, with the main tournament featuring 12 teams in two pools of six being immediately preceded by a qualifying tournament for eight associate members to compete for two places in the tournament proper.

(Hat-tip to Andrew Nixon's Beyond the Boundary blog and Cricinfo's Beyond the Test World, both of which give more prominence to the smaller nations than the ICC's own website.)

A sight for sore feet

Newly-learnt fact of the day: Chris Gayle's nickname, according to his Cricinfo blog, is "verucci", which I thought was a mis-spelt plural form of verruca but apparently for the fashion-conscious West Indies opening batsman is a blend of Versace and Gucci (or should that be Goochie?)

Australia and India share the spoils

Michael Clarke was not named man of the series (that honour went to Brett Lee) but perhaps he should have been as it was his one over in Sydney that proved the difference between two great teams. Over four pulsating Tests (three actually, as Melbourne was disappointingly one-sided), India took on the best in the world and almost matched them. Honour was salvaged on both sides after the diplomatic angst of Sydney (although that still has a coda to play) and most cricket-lovers' appetite for the game has been revived.

Peter McGuinness, as he kindly has all series, sent in the following match report:

"Proceedings crawled along for 30 minutes, until Dravid got hit by Lee. The Wall's finger hurt too much to remain on the battlefield and he went off on 11, to be replaced by Tendulkar. Sehwag did nearly all the morning's scoring and duly posted his century, which would have thrilled Michael Clarke no end having dropped the maniacal opener on two. You've got to hand it to Sehwag. He punctuates periods of edging, missing and generally looking like Stevie Wonder swinging a stump, with strokes straight from the middle like blasts from a cannon.

Only Australia can win - but match heads for draw

Peter McGuinness watched Australia wrench back the initiative in Adelaide and sent in this match report:

"The Aussies crushed the tourists prior to lunch, as Ponting and Clarke went in at 3/425. Ponting a wonderful 124 and Clarke cruising toward his century on 91. Ponting's back had gone on him again, which was India's one positive amongst the leather chasing and dummy spitting. Sharma was the only Indian bowler who played to potential.

"Ponting should have retired hurt at lunch, because he needed a runner almost from the start of the middle session. He picked up the pace until 140, but was restricted by the time he played on off Sehwag at 4/451. Clarke cashed in on his excellent current form and a discouraged opposition, until Sharma's reintroduction when he was on 118. He edged a nicely shaped away swinger to second slip at 5/490. Gilchrist entered to a thunderous ovation on his last walk to the crease in Test cricket. His last innings was nearly notable for his manslaughter of umpire Bowden, who only just evaded a Gilly straight drive directed at his nose. The retiree went in typical fashion, unselfishly pushing the pace when he was 14 and the Aussies were 6/506. After tea, Symonds played well for 30 and saw the Aussies past the Indians before playing on off one of Sharma's rare innocuous deliveries 7/527.

Adam Gilchrist retires: a tribute

Read the tribute then cast your vote below to the poll: is Adam Gilchrist the best all-rounder ever?

Gradually, the greatest team of cricketers to have played the game is breaking up. Warne, McGrath, Langer and Martyn are gone and to their list is now added Adam Gilchrist, the man who redefined the idea that a wicketkeeper should only need to be a skilled glovesman, yet who batted for almost all his Test career at No 7, when any other side would have placed a batsman of his calibre in the top five.

Heroes are inevitably soon replaced by new heroes, who ease the pain of their parting. Australia will find another match-winning spinner before long; in Stuart Clark they have another Glenn McGrath; they have no shortage of excellent batsmen. Yet for all the promise of Gilchrist's likely successors, Brad Haddin, Luke Ronchi or whoever, it is hard to see there being another wicketkeeper out there who can average over 50, as Gilchrist did for all but 18 of his 96 Tests. In fact, there is one: but he is Sri Lankan.

By his brilliance with the bat, married to an undoubted reliability with the gloves, Gilchrist created an idea of what a wicketkeeper should be that few have lived up to, especially in this country. Would Chris Read have played 60 Tests for England by now if it wasn't for Gilchrist? Would Alec Stewart be regarded as a brilliant wicketkeeper-batsman because he averaged almost 40 when he was keeper, rather than a nearly man?

There are so many memories of Gilchrist as a player that stand out - winning a World Cup final with a squash ball stuffed in his glove to improve his batting; his 152 at Edgbaston in 2001 that set up an innings win and got the Ashes off to a bad start for England; his double hundred - at a run a ball! - in Johannesburg as Australia beat South Africa by the astounding matter of an innings and 360 runs.

Yet I want to share two memories of Gilchrist the man, because they reveal much about his character. He was not a typical Aussie cricketer. Competitive, yes, but he had a reputation too as a gentleman, an honourable man, one who always regarded playing for Australia as the most immense privilege. In a series when questions have been raised about the spirit of the game, Gilchrist always played in the right spirit.

He had a reputation as a walker and I remember when Australia arrived in England in 2005 for the Ashes, Gilchrist was cheekily asked at a press conference if that good attitude would stand in a close series. If it comes down to the Oval, he was asked, and England need one wicket to win the Ashes, and you get a thin edge behind, would you walk? He paused, smiled and then said: "Ahh mate, if those were the circumstances, there's no way I'd have edged it." He meant - and certainly it was taken this way by all the journalists - that far from feigning innocence to the umpire, he would simply not have played such a rash stroke.

The other memory comes from a week earlier on that tour. As they had in 2001, when Australia visited Gallipolli on the way to England, a team-bonding trip was planned, this time to the war graves and trenches of Normandy. I went along for The Times that day and wrote in this piece how I was moved by the occasion. It was a grim, grey day and the players walked sombrely between the rows of white tombstones. There was no larking about, just solemn reflection of how privileged they were to be representing the same country as these real heroes.

They stood by the war memorial at Villers-Bretonneaux, where Gilchrist was asked to read Laurence Binyon's ode for the fallen. He was the ideal choice: a prime example of "mateship" yet also a dignified figurehead for modern Australia. He was the statesman of the team. And at the going down of the sun and in the morning, we cricket lovers everywhere shall remember him.

Opinion Polls & Market Research

Australia fight back against India

Australia's revival in Adelaide has been rather overshadowed by the sudden, if not totally unexpected, announcement of Adam Gilchrist's retirement, of which I shall comment more later this morning. But first, I present Peter McGuinness's daily report from his poolside lounger. Australia batted astoundingly slowly by their standards and it is hard to see them winning from here, but they may have done enough to ensure the draw and a won series.

Peter writes... "The first session went as you'd expect it would on Australia Day. Hayden was in imperious touch and Jaques had left his carelessness in Perth. By contrast, the Indians were not fired up at all and looked flatter than the Adelaide wicket. Hayden's total dominance of every bowler and Jaques's gap-finding, clearly ate at the visitors' morale and their 'ideas cupboard' was bare well before lunch. The Aussies were a chanceless 0/158 at the break with Hayden 86 and Jaques 59. The one encouraging thought occupying dropped Indian heads on the way to the pavillion would have been that the pitch was finally starting to play at two heights and take some turn. 

"India needn't have been quite so deflated, as Jaques forgot to re-engage his brain between his last Vegemite sandwich and taking guard. Bowled playing a shot he'd rather forget to Kumble on 60, at 1/159. Ponting was as watchful as a rookie at first, thanks to his current, unaccustomed 'mini-slump'.

The run-fest continues

The trouble with these Test matches in Australia is that they take place at the wrong time. So for all my intentions of getting up this morning to watch the post-tea session, I roused too late and all there was on TV was a repeat of The Good Life (no bad thing, given the quality of Felicity Kendal's bottom, which, it is generally acknowledged, is finer than any Australian cricketer's, even Brett Lee's).

So you'll have to make do with Peter McGuinness's match report instead. I don't think he is too impressed with the wicket... Still, if India think that 526 is enough then they should look at the scorecard from England's Test in Adelaide last winter.

Peter writes: "Day 2 dawned as another perfect day for batting, with the pitch playing better by the minute. India made the most of conditions, easily compiling 24 from the first three overs. Against the run of play, Dhoni smashed Johnson to deep point but picked out Andrew Symonds. The Aussies would have been hopeful of tidying up the visitors for less than 400 at 6/336. An interesting mini-battle between Lee and Tendulkar ensued, as both champs went at each other hammer and tong. Tendulkar was masterful as he passed 150, Lee causing him discomfort that the other Aussies could not.