Nasim Ashraf explains the changes the board has gone through ever since he has taken over

Osman Samiuddin01-Jun-2007

CI: You’ve had a tumultuous start. How has the experience been?NA: It’s a very challenging job, but I love it. My sense of this is that these months have been very hectic and, to say the least, interesting. There were some fundamental things that needed to be done. One was to bring corporate governance to the board. We have a proper personnel policy, we have brought in a chief financial officer and there will be a budget for this year for the first time ever, approved by the board for next year’s expenditure.Broadly, what sort of changes are coming in?The board has been completely restructured along corporate lines. We have brought in a modern, professional personnel policy. More importantly, there is now a proper structure for managing the game rather than a one-man show. It should not just be the chairman who does everything.We are looking at a new way of dealing with the players. I have made it clear to them that there will now be performance-based contracts. These are being finalised and the central contracts will be ready by July 1. They will be far more lucrative financial incentives, at least three times greater than before. But it is based on performance. We have introduced, for the first time, a significant incentive for run-outs and other fielding-based incentives as well.We are building a new team here and we want to bring in some fundamental changes, with regards to a fitness and training culture, with improving our infrastructure, by spending money on domestic grounds. We have rejuvenated the National Cricket Academy. We have programmes for U-16, U-18, we are running camps currently for fast bowlers and openers. As soon as this ends, we have a camp for future cricketers of Pakistan. The national team will be going around the country in a conditioning camp totally focused on physical fitness.And a new coach…We have had 13 serious applications which we are considering from within the country and outside. Some are fairly well-known. All of these are handed over to a search committee, who will go through this, shortlist, interview them and then make their recommendations to the ad-hoc committee. The ad-hoc committee retains the right to pick any of those 13 to interview. The final decision will be made by the ad-hoc committee.We are exploring the position of fielding coach too, maybe from baseball. I went to the US and made some inquiries. Their season is in progress right now so everybody has contracts. But they promised to give me some names. We are also looking at some other countries where baseball is developed like Japan and Cuba. Depending on what type of national coach we get, we might also need a bowling coach.We also want sports physicians and a trainer. This is really emphasising how serious we are about fitness. If anybody is not fit to play for Pakistan they are not fit to play elsewhere. Shoaib Akhtar had told me he was not fit to play in Abu Dhabi. He told me that he would be fit by September and that is a great motive for him. We didn’t want him to get injured in the Afro-Asia tournament. But our policy is very clear: if you are not fit to play for Pakistan you cannot play anywhere else.When you first came in, you made some comments about religion within the team. What prompted you to say that?The team is religious like many people in the country. I just made that statement, and I stand by it, that there should be no pressure on anybody that you have to say your prayers or that your selection is in any way linked to this. I was assured by Inzamam at the time that there was no such thing happening. In terms of focus, when you are playing for your national side, you should only have cricket as your objective. Of course, you will pray and so on, but I don’t think that necessarily is a major issue. There was an impression created that this team was praying all the time because they did it so publicly this perception was created.Did you have any reason to believe or any evidence that there might have been pressure on players?I don’t have any evidence or any knowledge of anybody forcing anyone. Inzamam assured me that wasn’t happening.The selection of Shoaib Malik, ahead of someone like Mohammad Yousuf, further fuelled those who thought that the religious element within the team was being dampened.We were looking for a captain who could lead Pakistan for the next 8-10 years. We needed fresh legs and a good clinical brain. We needed someone committed to fitness. Malik possesses all that. Hopefully, you will see, on balance, this will turn out to be a good decision. That was the only reason we picked Malik. He has put in place good practices. He talks to all of the team, he asks youngsters to give their input into match first and the seniors speak last. They support him fully.He’s an intelligent guy and only 25. If he keeps himself fit he can stay on for the next three World Cups and he could be a major stabilising factor for Pakistan. He is currently there till the end of the year which is the same policy we had in Inzamam’s time where we would appoint a captain by calendar year.

What did you make of the report into the World Cup failure? The committee was made up of two board employees, so it was convenient to find a scapegoat and put aside problems within the board.I am glad that they completed report and made it public. The reason the DCO (Salim Altaf) was part of it was because he was most familiar with what was happening and would be able to give perspective to that committee. The others – the chairman (Ijaz Butt) was independent and had nothing to do with the board and Salahuddin Ahmed, at that time, wasn’t chief selector. The report is very independent. They have come up with recommendations, and we have incorporated many of them. Some like the paid selection committee we put in even before the report came out.Inzamam was heavily blamed, which seems an overtly simplistic view, overlooking many other issues within the team and the board.Inzamam is perhaps one of the greatest cricketers produced by Pakistan. As captain, he himself said he takes responsibility for the debacle and I think we should move on from that. There were lessons learnt, not just from the World Cup, but lessons that we have incorporated in our new policies. Take selection: the policy now is for home series, the selection committee invites players to the camp. Then the squad is selected in full consultation with the captain. But the final XI for a home Test will be done by selectors.For away tours we have a mechanism in place also, in which captain, coach, vice-captain and the manager are involved. The final XI on tour will be that of the captain. If there is a disagreement, the captain will prevail. There were some lessons we learnt in the past.The concept of selectors on tour has been dropped?The selectors themselves have said they will be available but if you have a manager and a coach on tour then you don’t need another selector, provided they have a real say in matters. It won’t be a selection based on one individual anymore, whether it is captain, or coach.The doping issue still hovers over Pakistan.The board is totally committed to a zero-tolerance policy to doping. The PCB strictly followed its own doping policy during the process because we had to – otherwise we would’ve been legally liable. We could not do anything outside of that – this was out of competition testing so those rules applied. The first tribunal found them guilty and the second had to be appointed – it wasn’t my wish. They had a right to appeal. That tribunal exonerated them on the basis that the first tribunal found them guilty on the basis of WADA rules not PCB ones. The ICC reviewed this and did not take steps, because legally they knew not much could be done. We accepted whatever decision the two gave.WADA challenged this at the Court of Arbitration Sports (CAS) – basically to test jurisdiction. Our legal position is that they do not have jurisdiction. Therefore, picking Asif and Shoaib is within the board’s rights. We are very clear that the matter is closed – CAS has no jurisdiction and WADA no right to appeal. While the PCB’s anti-doping policy was not WADA-compliant, we have taken steps and handed the policy to our lawyers to bring it in alignment with WADA.But you can see surely why so much scorn was poured on the decision to exonerate them?When we took the first step of banning the players, everyone applauded the decision and said three cheers. Well, I’m very sorry but why will those same people not say three cheers if the appeal panel also went by the book? It is totally unfair. Only four countries had a doping policy and we put ours in place back in 2002. WADA’s code has only been implemented by the ICC recently so the policies were inconsistent but it was the ICC’s responsibility to make sure all board policies were consistent.

On the eve of the biggest World Cup to date, we look back at the opening encounters of the previous editions

Cricinfo staff12-Mar-20071975: Amiss the hare, Gavaskar the snailIn the first World Cup match England batted first and racked up a record 334 for 4, then the highest score for a 60-over game in the country. Madan Lal delivered the first World Cup delivery and it was met by John Jameson, England’s opener who was born in Bombay. On a seaming Lord’s pitch India left out the left-arm spinner Bishan Singh Bedi. Amiss motored along to 98 at lunch to set the pace before Chris Old whacked a 28-ball 51 to launch the total. India’s reply was most anti-climactic – Sunil Gavaskar batted out 60 overs for an astonishingly slow 36 and India ended on a feeble 132 for 3.1979: Greenidge leads Indian routClive Lloyd won the toss and, as one would expect on a lively Edgbaston pitch, chose to field, allowing AME Roberts and MA Holding to party. Strangled by a cluster of fielders close to the bat, India were reduced to 29 for 3 and it was left to Gundappa Viswanath to prevent an abject surrender. India’s No.10 and Jack – Bedi and Venkataraghavan – surprised everyone with a battling 27-run stand but 190 was never going to be enough. Not with Gordon Greenidge controlling the chase. Greenidge, who was to end the tournament as the leading scorer, finished with an unbeaten 106, a point from where he and his side never looked back.1983: Lamb shears Kiwi skinsJust like they’d done in ’75, England’s batsmen got the World Cup off to a flier. While it was Amiss in the inaugural edition, Allan Lamb stormed The Oval on this occasion. His 103-ball 102 took the game completely away from New Zealand, whose bowlers were punished for their waywardness (203 runs off the last 25 overs). Whatever little chance New Zealand had evaporated once they collapsed to 85 for 5 and it was only thanks to Martin Crowe raging against the fading light that they crossed 200.Martin Crowe: on a Bradmanesque streak in ’92•Getty Images1987: Mahanama stands alone, Pakistan wrap it upRoshan Mahanama, then an unheralded Sri Lankan opener, almost orchestrated an upset in the opening clash of 1987. Chasing 268 in 50 overs, Sri Lanka were limping at 103 for 4 but Mahanama, along with the pugnacious Asanka Gurusinha and Aravinda de Silva, almost pulled off a heist before running out of gas in the final stages. Pakistan had built their total around a century from Javed Miandad, who was in the middle of a red-hot streak after piling up nine consecutive 50-plus scores. Imran Khan reached a special milestone in the game – when he nailed de Silva he’d reached 100 wickets in ODIs.1992: Crowe pulls the rug from under Aussie feetIn a clash of the hosts, New Zealand shocked Australia largely through Martin Crowe’s influence, first with the bat and then through his captaincy. On a sluggish Eden Park pitch, his well-paced century enabled New Zealand to overcome a horror start, which included John Wright being dismissed off the first legal delivery of the tournament, and guided them to 248. This despite a dodgy knee. Then, in what was an inspired move, he handed the new ball to offspinner Dipak Patel and saw him concede just 19 runs in his first seven overs. David Boon’s battling century kept the contest alive but Crowe marshalled his bowling options admirably to kickstart the tournament with a grand upset.1996: Astle too hot for EnglandEngland paid for their rusty fielding, allowing Nathan Astle to cruise to a century. Having sent New Zealand in, England’s butter-fingered fielders grassed four chances. Graham Thorpe, who reprieved both openers, committed the most costly blunder: fluffing a chance from Astle when on 1 and watching him go on to a composed 101. England got close through Graeme Hick, who cracked 85 despite a hamstring strain, but his run-out at a crucial juncture allowed New Zealand to sneak home.1999: Mullally swings out Sri LankaJust like the opening ceremony, the first match of the 1999 edition was a complete anti-climax, with the title holders Sri Lanka wilting in swinging conditions. Alan Mullally was dangerous with 4 for 37 and a middle-order collapse (five wickets for 23 runs) left Sri Lanka reeling at 65 for 5 before Romesh Kaluwitharana’s half-century lent some sort of respectability. England didn’t break much of a sweat while chasing 205 (the conditions were more batsmen-friendly in the afternoon) with Alec Stewart and Graeme Hick finishing the job.Brian Lara on song at Newlands•Clive Mason/Getty Images2003: Lara poops South Africa’s partyThis was the first time that a host team had been part of the opening game of the competition and not won. South Africa were favourites in this one but it was the genius of Brian Lara, returning to the side after a five-month break, that shone through. From 30 for 2 after 15 overs, West Indies motored along to 278 thanks to a scintillating century from Lara and high-voltage hitting from Ramnaresh Sarwan and Ricardo Powell. South Africa were always in the hunt, despite losing wickets at regular intervals, and it was up to the 1999 World Cup hero Lance Klusener to repeat his heroics. He was lucky to be dropped on 48, when Pedro Collins not only spilled a skier but also tapped it over for six, but his dismissal in the penultimate over left Newlands silent.2007: The next chapterPakistan have lost both games they’ve played at Sabina Park, the venue for the opening clash. The only time they were part of the opening match (1987), they didn’t go past the semi-final. West Indies appeared in the first fixture in 1979, when they not only won the game but went on to claim the title, and in 2003, when they won by three runs but didn’t make the Super Sixes. Batting first is historically a better option (only in ’79 and ’99 have teams chased successfully) but the unknown nature of the pitch may tempt the captains to field first.

The big battle in cricket is currently being fought in the board room, with the Indian cricket board making it clear to the ICC that it plays the game of commercial rights by its own rules. In the first of the two-part series, Sanjay Manjrekar has a good

Sanjay Manjrekar31-Oct-2006

Sanjay Manjrekar: Lalit, if you were asked to describe the BCCI, how would you do it?Lalit Modi: The current body at the BCCI is a combination of highly talented people. We’ve colleagues from all walks of life, who are proactive unlike in the past where the board was run by one person or two people. The enthusiasm level and the time that each one is giving is quite tremendous and we are getting towards being one of the most professionally run bodies in the world.<b.Tony Greig: Is it fair to say then that your perception now of this body, or what you are saying about the body, is that it has gone from being a bit of a dictatorship to more of a democracy?LM: It has, and to illustrate the point further we’ve with us experts whether its on the administration side like Mr [IS] Bindra or the finance side like Mr N Sreenivasan or legal side like Mr Shashank Manohar or myself in marketing or Mr [Ratnakar] Shetty on the administrative side.SM: Tony, I think it is important to bring you in here and ask how an outsider like you looks at the BCCI.TG: The way I sit here and get the feeling that on the one hand they had this guy who was obviously a sort of dictator as far as this game is concerned and on the other hand they’ve now got what is tantamount to what I said is democracy. However, it doesn’t seem to me that the problems have gone away: the world of cricket sits back there and looks at India as if India are the ones that are causing all of the problems. That seems to be one of the common threats or feel that comes from the old runners of the game like the Englishmen or the Australians or the South Africans. Every time there is a problem in cricket, and it has frustrated me to no end, they seem to be pointing their finger not necessarily or directly at India but it’s in this direction – it comes across here either directly at India or partially down towards Sri Lanka or up towards Pakistan. So because I love this place so much it has been a source of frustration to me…if you don’t mind me asking in one question here I want to know what Mr Modi perceives as the ideal situation in respect of India’s position and if he wants to elaborate on Asia’s position in terms of the ICC.SM: And also while you are doing that why is there this general perception that it’s always BCCI v ICC?LM: I’ll tell you. This is a very interesting question wherein lies the core of all the problems. The ICC doesn’t make members, members make the ICC. ICC has been for the past so many years got used to dictating to members of how to run the game and what to do with the game especially with our commercial program. ICC’s mandate is to run the game of cricket and to lay down the ground rules which are fair to everybody. It just so happens that cricket is not a passion; it is a religion in this part of the world. Of course we’ve a billion people who are crazy about the game and our sponsors and our advertisers want to reach out to them and they are ready to pay big bucks to do so. So far the dealings of the BCCI were somewhat shady, I would say. And all of a sudden when we opened up the Pandora’s Box and made everything transparent all the monies that were due to the game, which should’ve come years and years ago, have started to come back into the board coffers. That has woken up the world of cricket and all of sudden they have realised that the BCCI is making so much of money. Why is the BCCI making so much of money? There is an underlying fact because we have the population base.

SM: But why is there always a standoff. Why couldn’t this sorted out in meeting rooms and then you come to an arrangement that is agreeable to all boards. Does the BCCI fall short of diplomacy when it comes these sensitive matters?LM: It doesn’t because we have been discussing this with the ICC on a regular basis. Only when things have reached a high point or a crunch have these things have come out into the public domain. We started this prior to the Champions Trophy agreement, prior to the World Cup agreement and what happened is that the ICC only keeps throwing back at us the agreement which we had signed in the year 2000. Now that agreement comes to an end in 2007. All those past legacies or mistakes or issues that have been there have all been documented by the BCCI and the BCCI is now raising them because prior to signing any agreement we want to ensure that those things are taken into account or those issues are overcome in one way or the other. Of course there is going to be a flashpoint. As far as the ICC are concerned they are used to certain ways of doing business and now they want to extend that certain ways of doing business via certain more control form their point of view. When two bodies are trying to control that domain of cricket in their own sphere that is fine. BCCI is only worried about its own sphere, we are not worried about outside our sphere. Our sphere is limited to our country. Whatever benefits us, you got to understand, is going to benefit every other member.SM: That is something I’ve never understood. The chief executive of the ICC is actually an employee of a cricket board of which BCCI is a very strong member. How does this happen. How can the CEO of ICC set certain deadlines and put pressure on BCCI?LM: Deadlines are fine and deadlines are something we need to adhere to. But the pressure that the ICC chief executive wants to implement on India is something that the Indian cricket board is not amenable to or going to accept. And for him to try and dictate that is not something that we are going to lie back and listen to him. What happens is, and I have seen this, the agenda of the ICC runs into hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of pages with hundreds of pages of annexure. Now these are very complicated documentation. When the board members receive, or even when I receive it takes me weeks and weeks if not months to decipher them and to see what’s in these documentation. Majority of board members are told by the ICC this is in your favour, this is good for you, and these members sign on the dotted line. As far as India is concerned we like to get into the detail of it, our lawyers look into it and when we come across a grey area we point it out and then that becomes a major issue.SM: Tony, why doesn’t Cricket Australia have as much of a problem with the ICC as India does?TG: Lalit has actually explained that to be honest because it’s to do with money first of all. The first thing he talked about was the explosion of money in this place. This country has now become the banker of world cricket. There is no doubt about that: this is where the money is and everyone realises it. Knowing the abundance of money here all the world of cricket including Cricket Australia realise that if they want to implement some of their programs this is the key to it. So I perfectly understand how India …money is coming from India we want to have a little bit more of a say. That’s what I would do.SM: Do you think that’s why the Australian cricket board doesn’t make as much of a noise as say the BCCI?LM: I don’t think that is true because the Australian Cricket Board is very thorough in its documentation. In fact they have also refused to sign the MPA. I have the comments of the Australian cricket board which are identical to our comments. They sent their comments out only in the month September. And there are lots of issues that the Australian board doesn’t agree with. Also you got to keep in mind that cricket is the No. 1, 2 and 3 sport in this country while in other countries like Australia and England cricket is not the number one sport, there are other sports which overtake cricket in terms of rating, in terms of viewership where rugby or tennis or soccer is the predominant sport. And when you actually collectively look at the revenues of these sports there is a large revenue. Fortunately for us cricket is a major, major revenue source for us.SM: Are you worried sometimes that when you are having these negotiations with the ICC that some of the other countries will get together and alienate BCCI and Indian cricket at some point of time. And do you feel that could happen and you’ve got to tackle this a bit more responsibly or carefully?LM: We are. We are in touch with every cricket board. We are actually going out of our way. For example: the West Indies Cricket Board has a hole in their balance sheet. The Australian cricket board had to have five million dollars extra for their balance sheet this year. We went out of our way to accommodate the Australians to play the tri-series in Malaysia. They made five million dollars extra, the Windies made millions of dollars with us. Prior to that the tri-series in Sri Lanka was abandoned early on due to rains – we went out of our way, out of the FTP, to ensure that we play with the Sri Lankans so they make more money. The Bangladeshis with whom we are required to play one tour in six years are the ones with whom we have gone there to play three tours. The Zimbabweans, they have no money.

SM: So why don’t you get the support from these countries?LM: Who says we are not getting their support, all the countries are behind us on the MPA. When the ICC says the agreement has been signed I’ll like to see one single agreement signed.TG: What do you perceive as the ideal mechanism to run world cricket? It seems to me you’ve solved the local issuesLM: We do have a white paper, we are working towards that. As far as world cricket is concerned, we think that there should be total democracy in the way we operate it, it should be equitable all the way across….everybody should get a chance to get equal number of games, equal participation and equal number of tournaments. And there should be equal amount of monies as far as global cricket in concerned for the development of infrastructure. If you don’t develop infrastructure in those countries they will lag behind, we won’t have a world body anymore – India can’t play by itself! It has to encourage others to develop their infrastructure. So, the governing body must have representation from all countries, it cannot be biased towards one country!TG: And you think that’s not the case at the moment. When you go to a meeting, around the table called the ICC, which makes these major decisions in world cricket you think that it’s biased?LM: I think the table is not biased. It’s the agenda making process that is biased, the secretariat that is biased.TG: How do you fix that then?LM: We fix that by making sure that there is equal representation.TG: It seems to me that there is a distinct possibility that the current chief executive at the ICC may in fact resign. If he did resign, Lalit Modi, in your capacity as a businessman, would you like to take that post on?LM: No, I really don’t want that. What we have to do is go out there and look for a good administrator across the world. It should be unbiased. And support him with a team who support cricket, and there should be infrastructure that will guide the people. And a liaison in the ICC working with the member countries.

TG: You see what they are saying at the moment is “Aww, look, all they want is to get an Asian into that position.”LM: That is unfair and I don’t think that is the case. There should be Asians within the group and currently that is negligible, may be one accountant and one lawyer.TG: Can I ask you about the TV rights issue and how you perceive that its playing itself up?LM: I am assuming you are talking about the ICC TV rights. You see in 1987 and 1996 India conducted the World Cups and marketed the rights and we did a pretty good job. Currently what have been finding is that ICC has a partner called Global Cricket Corporation (GCC). GCC is in conflict with the ICC in certain cases and with us as a board on other issues. If we had our own rights and we marketed them I don’t see any reason for conflict. Secondly whatever conditions we are imposing in the MPA or to the ICC we are trying to live by it as a sponsor on the other side and adhere to those conditions and ready to pay top dollar for it at the same time. So when we have done a great job in marketing our cricket, all the sponsors we know by the first name – these are the same sponsors who are actually going to bid for the ICC rights and are sponsors of the Indian cricket board. There is nobody unique out there, they are all going to be bidding for the same rights I think if the event is going to take place in Indian in 2011, and hopefully 2013 Twenty20 World Cup, then we should be able to market those rights and we are ready to pay top dollar for it.SM: Are you trying to suggest that the ICC should just govern the game of cricket and leave the marketing to somebody else?LM: The money goes to the ICC for the events it conducts. They can deploy it any way they like. But in terms of marketing we should get a fair chance to market it as any body else. Our money is as good as anybody else’s.SM: Would the other countries have the same views or they would rather have the ICC hold the power which means they can also have the power to take on one country which is getting so powerful which is India?LM: We are not saying it is all about power – it has to do with the marketing of assets in your country. Similarly when the World Cup goes to Australia, the Australians will be ecstatic to market themselves – they are very professional board and very capable. So is the ECB, so do the South Africans. So I really see no reason why there should be any conflict on this issue. I know that between us four countries – India, Pakistan, Sri Lanka and Bangladesh – in our meetings it has already been decided that we should market it. and I see no reason why we should not.TG: How much of importance do alliances play now as they play important roles in business and things like that. India now have effectively seven of the major countries on side. Is that a fair comment?LM: No, it is not true. It is not seven, actually it is a higher number now. Australia is an alliance partner of us and we are playing them every year; we are working with New Zealand and how we can accommodate them in our FTP as they have got a raw deal with the least number of matches with India. But you got to keep in mind that when we look at their schedule, when we look at their balance sheets, whether it’s right or wrong, majority of these sports are making their money only when India plays with them and that’s once in four years. And if you see at the rest of the matches you will see a big spike: two million dollars a game when India plays, when India doesn’t play it is 100,000 dollars a game. So they actually make money only when India plays except for the Ashes. Apart from that none of these boards make any money. So we are trying to find ways and means of how increase their money. Now we can only play X number of days in a year and on top of that we have been thrust upon with various ICC events every year – previously these ICC events used to be every four years then it became once in two years and now it is every year.

In picking Tim Nielsen as John Buchanan’s replacementAustralia have compromised left-field vision anddistinguished on-field service

Peter English05-Feb-2007

Tim Nielsen’s player-centric, skill-based approach should help the new crop of Australians © Getty Images
In picking Tim Nielsen as John Buchanan’s replacementAustralia have compromised left-field vision anddistinguished on-field service. Seven years ago theAustralian Cricket Board ditched the logic that said acoach had to have appeared in more Tests than trainingseminars and appointed a university lecturer. Thetraditionalists were as confused as the players intheir early meetings where Buchanan outlined hispowerpoint plans, but the gamble pushed Australia tounreachable levels.What Ricky Ponting does not need as he rebuilds a teamthat has lost four pillars in a series is anothertechnophile. And in the absence of a recently-retiredplayer such as Steve Waugh, who could have filled aGeoff Marsh-style role, a man was picked who knows thepresent, the future, the science and the practice.Nielsen speaks of himself as hands-on, but he alsoconsiders Buchanan as a mentor and the merging of thespheres is what strengthened his credentials in afield that speculatively included Tom Moody, GregChappell, Dav Whatmore and Bennett King. Over the lastseven years Australia was jammed with outstandingperformers who needed gentle guiding instead ofreality-show makeovers. As Ponting develops his ownsquad of generation whys there will be many questionsthat a cricket coach rather than a man-manager will bebetter qualified at answering.Like Buchanan, Nielsen has never representedAustralia, but he did spend nine seasons as awicketkeeper-batsman at South Australia, and that earnshim credibility Buchanan could never achieve with hisseven first-class games. When a player wants to knowwhy his left knee is collapsing during a cover-drivehe will be confident in quizzing Nielsen. Aged 38, hehas developed a successful new career, but his playingdays were not decades ago and the understanding ofthose on-ground feelings will help make him aconfidante instead of a school master.Nielsen ended a three-year stint as Buchanan’sassistant after the 2005 Ashes series and took anin-house promotion to head the Centre of Excellence inBrisbane. It was a strategic move as many of theplayers who attended the Academy since then weretargeted as short- and medium-term internationaloptions. Unlike Buchanan or a coach called home fromoverseas, Nielsen knows the potential yields of thenext crop and how to foster them.Sitting in a suit and flanked by Cricket Australia’schief executive and chairman, Nielsen accepted the jobafter being approved by the board at a meeting inMelbourne. His family sat in the front row and watchedhis opening lines as the coach-elect. There were nomajor announcements or plans and he is unlikely tobecome a convoluted baiter of the opposition.Australia evolved dramatically with theirno-thought-is-not-worth-a-thought guru. However, nowthe self-sufficiency of the squad has diminished it isnecessary to find someone more orthodox. The new-agephilosophies will not be binned, but in Nielsen thesquad has a player-centric, skills-based coach. It isa low-key choice that is safe and sensible.

We look back on five occasions when an English word out of place has been sent back with interest

Andrew Miller03-Feb-2019Talk is cheap, but where England’s contests against West Indies are concerned, it can be very costly indeed. We look back on five occasions when an English word out of place has been sent back with interest

Tony Greig in 1976

“These guys, if they get on top they are magnificent cricketers. But if they’re down, they grovel, and I intend, with the help of Closey [Brian Close] and a few others, to make them grovel.” Tony Greig’s pre-series comments in 1976 were quite possibly the most ill-judged and inflammatory in all of sporting history. The racist connotations of Greig’s words, delivered in his bombastic South African lilt, horrified his own players, who were justifiably fearful of the retribution to come at the hands of West Indies’ fast bowlers. “This was the greatest motivating speech the England captain could have given to any West Indian team,” Viv Richards said, who would finish his first tour of England with 829 runs at 118.42. By the end of the Oval Test, Greig himself was the one grovelling on the outfield, in front of the gleeful Caribbean fans, after Michael Holding’s 14 wickets had delivered a 3-0 series win.Mike Gatting is led off the field after he broke his nose off a bouncer from Malcolm Marshall•Getty Images

David Gower in 1985-86

A slightly unfair addition to these annals, because there is little doubt that David Gower’s words to the BBC’s Peter West, on the balcony at The Oval in the midst of England’s Ashes victory celebrations, were said entirely in jest. Nevertheless, history records that when Gower was asked to throw his thoughts forward to England’s trip to the Caribbean the following spring, for a rematch against the same side that had crushed them 5-0 on home soil the previous summer, Gower responded: “I’m sure they will be quaking in their boots”. Things didn’t entirely pan out that way. Before the Tests had even begun, Mike Gatting had his nose flattened by a Malcolm Marshall bouncer, and by the time Viv Richards had flogged a 56-ball hundred in the fifth Test in Antigua, a second consecutive “blackwash” had been signed and sealed.Alastair Cook, Stuart Broad, Ian Bell, James Anderson and Jonathan Trott at the presentations•AFP

Colin Graves in 2015

A straight-talking Yorkshireman, for better and for worse, Colin Graves launched his stint as ECB chairman in the spring of 2015 with a fusillade of faux pas that would have made Gerald Ratner blush. Not content with giving the impression that the exiled Kevin Pietersen had a chance to get back into England contention – a claim that horrified the same ECB colleagues who had spent the annus horriblis of 2014 trying to brush his sacking under the carpet – Graves decided to rile West Indies, England’s first opponents since their dismal exit from that year’s World Cup, by dismissing them as “mediocre”. “If we don’t win, I can tell you now there will be some enquiries of why we haven’t,” he added. His words were pinned on the West Indies dressing room door by Phil Simmons, the coach, and gleefully quoted back at the end of a five-wicket triumph in the Barbados Test, a result that preserved their proud series record against England on home soil.Darren Sammy just might have had the greatest sleep of his life•Getty Images

Mark Nicholas in 2016

It seemed like a throwaway comment in the final pars of a wide-ranging tournament preview for ESPNcricinfo. But when Mark Nicholas concluded his predictions for the World T20 in 2016 by writing: “West Indies are short of brains but have IPL history in their ranks”, he seriously touched a nerve. West Indies were a team on a mission going into that tournament – their march to the final was one long and lingering v-sign to the same CWI board that had disparaged them in the build-up, and any perceived slight was welcome fuel to their fire. Darren Sammy, the captain, latched onto Nicholas’ comments ahead of the final against England, and then repeated his irritation in the course of an emotional speech on the winner’s podium, after Carlos Brathwaite’s four sixes had sealed their stunning final-over victory. Nicholas, for his part, apologised at the earliest opportunity, writing in his subsequent column that it had been a “pretty damn lazy” choice of words.Kraigg Brathwaite and John Campbell celebrate the winning moment•Getty Images

Geoff Boycott in 2019

Writing in his Telegraph column in the build-up to this latest series, Geoff Boycott had claimed that Jason Holder’s team were “very ordinary, average cricketers”. It was a claim that Joe Root, England’s captain, was able to laugh off before a ball had been bowled – “It’s not like Geoffrey to be outspoken, is it?” – but he was unlikely to have found it quite so funny in the aftermath of two towelling defeats at Barbados and Antigua. Holder, on the other hand, had seen it all before – not least from Graves four years earlier – and quietly took it all in his stride. “We expect this sort of thing. It gets us going,” he said. “We’re looking forward to it.” England had no idea quite how much he meant it.

Today Jayasuriya cut loose and the effect of his approach was devastating. Mahendra Singh Dhoni strove to curtail his progress but he might as well have just admired the spectacle unfolding in front of him

Cricinfo staff14-May-2008
Sanath Jayasuriya drove as if there were no speed limits and the only thing left to do was to enjoy the ride (file photo) © Getty Images
Sachin Tendulkar’s return from injury was the biggest draw in the build-up to the clash between Mumbai and Chennai. He was expected to bring further luck to a team that had strung together a hat-trick of wins after enduring four straight losses and his partnership with Sanath Jayasuriya at the top of the Mumbai Indians’ batting line-up was a much awaited spectacle. However, he was completely overshadowed by his partner Jayasuriya, whose scything blade cut Chennai down swiftly.Jayasuriya has had a quiet tournament, getting off to starts but failing to carry on. His seven innings preceding the blitz against Mumbai read 29, 20, 1, 18, 18, 34 and 18. The 34 against Delhi’s Glenn McGrath and Mohammad Asif was filled with intent but he disappointed. You could see him walking back each time with discontent writ large across his face because he knew he hadn’t even got started yet.Perhaps the presence of Tendulkar at the other end gave him comfort for Jayasuriya expressed himself fully against Chennai. “It’s the best day of my life to open with Sachin,” Jayasuriya said after the game. “The advantage he lends is that he lets me play my own game.” In previous matches, Jayasuriya had paired up with the Australian Luke Ronchi and the local man Yogesh Takawale. The partnership with Ronchi was unsuccessful and although Takawale managed to provide a couple of decent starts, the responsibility fell on Jayasuriya for he was the senior player and perhaps that had an impact on his stroke-play.Today Jayasuriya cut loose and the effect of his approach was devastating. Mahendra Singh Dhoni strove to curtail his progress but he might as well have just admired the spectacle unfolding in front of him.Jayasuriya had already shut Chennai out by the end of the Powerplays for Mumbai had scored 78 after six overs. He caused severe damage with the short-arm jab, both over point and square leg, and scored majority of his runs behind square: 33 on the leg-side and 31 on the off. He struck as many as 11 sixes and won his duels with every bowler.Even Muttiah Muralitharan, Sri Lankan team-mate and long-time friend, caused no problems for Jayasuriya. When Dhoni, desperate for a wicket, placed two slips for Murali who was spinning the ball across the left-hander, Jayasuriya chose to hit the ball towards the gaps on the leg-side. He even attempted to reverse-sweep Murali, twice.Murali’s introduction into the attack, though, was well after the game was up. When Chennai’s inexperienced new-ball pair of Manpreet Gony and Albie Morkel were bleeding runs, Dhoni seemed reluctant to take them off. He would have done well to remember how Tendulkar had made frequent bowling changes to unsettle the batsmen. Only Shaun Pollock was given three consecutive overs while the rest were rotated constantly.Chennai’s medium-pacers, on the other hand, allowed Jayasuriya to settle by feeding him in his favourite areas – short and wide outside off, or full on his pads. Dhoni admitted that the inconsistent lines and lengths had proved extremely costly. “They either bowled too full or too wide and against a batsman like Sanath if you do that you will get badly hit”, Dhoni said.For batsmen like Jayasuriya, the hunger to succeed comes from the occasion. Mumbai needed to keep their momentum going into a crucial match against Kolkata on Friday, a game that is vital to their semi-final aspirations. Pollock was the inspiration behind their hat-trick of wins, and today it was Jayasuriya’s turn. Even Tendulkar acknowledged that “It was nice to watch him.”

New Zealand’s performance on the second day at Trent Bridge was when their resolve finally betrayed them, but also one that exposed a bold gamble as a failure

Will Luke at Trent Bridge07-Jun-2008

New Zealand’s performance on the second day at Trent Bridge was when their resolve finally betrayed them, but also one that exposed a bold gamble as a failure. From the moment Brendon McCullum dropped Stuart Broad at second slip at the start of the day, England – not without the occasional slice of good fortune – dominated in the manner they have threatened but failed all year. New Zealand are renowned for their plucky resistance with the bat, but no longer can the cracks in their top-order be masked by lower-order doggedness.That they slipped to 96 for 6 was due to James Anderson, who picked up all six wickets in a breathless 15-over spell of outswing bowling, but it hasn’t always required brilliance for New Zealand’s ambitions to be shattered. Their top six have simply not delivered. In England’s tour during the winter, Jamie How averaged 33.5, Matthew Bell an unconvincing 19.5 and Mathew Sinclair 11.83. For New Zealand’s return tour here, How has begun more promisingly, with scores of 68, 64, 29 and 40, but the others have continued to flounder. Aaron Redmond (52 runs at 10.40), Daniel Flynn (42 at 21.00) and James Marshall (52 at 13.00) have all been in the firing line, consistently picked off by England’s four-man attack.Though they are quick to dispel the notion of being scarred by the loss at Old Trafford, it was their reaction to being dismissed for 114 which provides the key to understanding today’s batting failure. McCullum, shunted up the order to No.3, had his off stump pegged back for 9 by Anderson, and New Zealand’s most dangerous and talented batsman had departed with the score on 14 for 2. In theory, McCullum’s promotion was precisely what New Zealand needed – a touch of class to give succour to the raw recruits at the top of the order – but in practice, it was a disaster in the making.Like a football team that is forever being pinned in its own half by superior opponents, New Zealand’s cricketers are more than capable of springing regular surprises, but they invariably do so by taking their licks and hitting their opponents on the break. Using McCullum so far up front leaves him woefully out of position, because it is from No.6 backwards that New Zealand have been able to mask the frailties and failures of their top-order.In Hamilton during the winter, McCullum (51) and Daniel Vettori (88) helped lift New Zealand from a tricky 191 for 5 to a match-winning 470. Likewise in Napier, though they lost the Test, McCullum and Vettori again spared their team’s blushes with pairs of forties, helping New Zealand to recover from 172 for 5 to 431 all out. For a long time now, New Zealand’s batting line-up has been the wrong way round – but the solution to rebalancing cannot lie in promoting their most prized asset, McCullum, into the disaster zone.How provided a window into New Zealand’s mindset when, after the second day’s play, he spoke of his side’s confidence in light of the precarious position they find themselves. “We take heart from Old Trafford,” he said. “That game turned on its head pretty quickly, so hopefully that trend will continue. So hopefully we’re only a couple of partnerships away from posting a good score, and anything can happen.” Bold words indeed, but New Zealand are conditioned to believe that their tail will save them. More’s the pity that, on this occasion, it has already been docked.But then again, New Zealand’s tried-and-tested formula – top-order debacle, tail-end revival – has been rudely challenged this summer by the emergence of Ross Taylor. Though he fell for 21 today, Taylor has displayed plenty of the star quality that New Zealand have lacked since the retirements of Stephen Fleming and Nathan Astle. His audacious 154 at Old Trafford was an innings of supreme quality, all the more so because it paid little heed to the familiar failings all around him – aside from How, no-one else in the top eight passed 40.In truth, their hands were forced. In trailing the series 1-0, they need to win. And with McCullum’s back injury forcing the call-up of their replacement keeper, Gareth Hopkins, New Zealand understandably chose a five-man attack, but in doing so have further weakened an already flimsy top-order.Right now, New Zealand are caught between two mindsets. Taylor’s successes – and, to a lesser extent, How’s reliability – have persuaded them that there may yet be a future in following convention, and playing their best batsmen in their rightful position. But somehow they’ve lacked the courage of their convictions. Oram, for instance, appeared to be back to his best after his Lord’s hundred. Since then, however, England have hounded him with bouncers, leaving him questioning his very worth. And in picking only five batsman, too great a responsibility rested on McCullum’s shoulders.Where is the logic in promoting McCullum but hiding Oram behind not only Gareth Hopkins, the debutant wicketkeeper, but also the grievously injured Daniel Flynn, who has far more of a right to be unsettled by the short ball after his experiences at Old Trafford? Vettori, who averages 40.83 in his last 10 Tests, might want to consider easing his way up from No. 8 as well if the McCullum experiment is to be continued, because right now it’s not clear whether New Zealand are searching for leaders or followers.

He may lack the appeal but he has the numbers. Is it so sacrilegious to wonder if he’s greater even than Sir Garry?

Rob Steen27-Feb-2009

Being Jacques Kallis can’t be bad. Only the saintly would not envy his skill, his versatility, his discipline, his focus, his bank account. Many of us simply wish we shared that ability to run for five consecutive minutes without falling over, seizing up or throwing up. However, among those for whom the game is about the revelling rather than the living, who value style as much as – if not more than – substance, being Jacques Kallis also means personifying achievement at its driest, most colourless, most soulless. Or so runs accepted wisdom.It was Derrida, the philosopher Jacques, who made the following observation, one that should have the cricketing Jacques nodding his head in sombre, knowing assent: “No one gets angry at a mathematician or a physicist whom he or she doesn’t understand, or at someone who speaks a foreign language, but rather at someone who tampers with your own language.” Kallis’ most grievous sin has been to tamper with his own language, the language of sport, and in particular its definition of a hero.Until the past year, his 13th in senior South African colours, he had been the hero as a non-perspiring non-inspiration. As recently as last July, the main collective goals at the start of his career – a first Test series win in Australia, a first in England since isolation, a World Cup final, membership of the planet’s finest five-day XI – all remained stubbornly present and robustly correct. Moreover, there had always been a hint of selfishness, embodied by the resistance to changes of gear, especially in ODIs, a refusal to adapt that immaculately grooved, almost robotic, technique from the lure of statistical posterity to the needs of the we and the now. Hell, he hadn’t even hit a double-century. Even Jason Gillespie had managed that.Yet in terms of the barest essentials (net average, i.e. batting average minus bowling average), his Test figures as an allrounder were even better than Garry Sobers’. Which made him, by popular definition, if not recognition, the greatest professional cricketer there has ever been. And that was the greatest heresy of all. How could the Great Garfield possibly be trumped by a character so… characterless? More to the point, how could anyone tamper so fearlessly with received wisdom?Then came 2008, an annus mirabilis that saw South Africa achieve three of those four elusive goals, a burst of fulfilment to which, improbably, Kallis the bowler contributed more than Kallis the batsman. Hashim Amla and AB de Villiers had come of age, Dale Steyn was leading a pacy brat pack: now Kallis was wanted rather than needed. The king was now a knight.That he remained a batsman to reckon with, nonetheless, was emphasised in Perth, where he played a critical if largely unsung role in South Africa’s massive chase. Taking guard at 172 for 2, following Graeme Smith’s departure for 108, he saw Amla depart three overs later. True, he’d made a steadying, invaluable 63 in the first dig, only his fifth 50-plus score in Australia, but was that kangaroo hoodoo, the one that had haunted and circumscribed his entire career, preventing it from being given its due, about to reassert itself? Not now. Not this time. Certainly not against this attack. By the time he was next to go, for 57, a historic victory was barely 100 away.

The only other time he had reached 50 in each innings against chaps in baggy green caps, at the SCG in January 2006, South Africa had been walloped by eight wickets. Here was sweet revenge. Here too, at last, was self-affirmation, a counter-punch to those who pigeonholed him – whenever the going got roughest – as brittle, a bottler. How apt that today’s imperishable first should also have been at the expense of the opponents who have done most to keep him mortal.IF EVER A SPORTING CAREER has been defined by substance rather than style, Kallis’ has. The first man to emulate Don Bradman’s streak of hundreds in five successive Tests (and he came within 15 runs of doing it again), no international cricketer has ever attained such a consistent level of productivity with bat and ball, let alone across two such contrasting disciplines as one- and five-day cricket, let alone while remaining so resolutely unhuggable and, yes, anonymous.Great batsmanship is measured not by the weight of runs but by the indelibility of the impression those numbers leave, the instant internal replays they ignite, numbers inextricably linked to their author’s name. Bradman and Sobers both had their 254, but otherwise the links are clear. Bradman also had his 309, his 334 and his 452; Sobers his 365 not out; Tendulkar now has his 103 not out as well as his 136; Lara owns patents on 153 not out, 277, 400 not out and 501 not out. But what of Kallis? You might make a case for 2007’s masterly double of 155 and 100 not out in Karachi. Or the couple of six-hour hundreds against Australia in 2006, a precociously stoical maiden ton in Melbourne, and another exemplary lone hand in Kolkata in 2004. That only the Karachi effort resulted in victory, is only part of the problem; as worthy as those feats were, none of those numbers conjure up the name “Kallis”.What do we know about him? Not much. He’s very pally with the gregarious Mark Boucher, but private and unassuming is both the public image and party line. Maybe that’s why you can’t find an autobiography out there in Amazonland? Has any modern sporting colossus ever reached the latter stages of his career without such a dubious distinction?His website (www.kallis.co.za, note, not jacquesthelad.com or even jacqueskallis.com) informs us that he runs the Jacques Kallis Scholarship Foundation, whose stated aim is “to provide talented young cricketers from various backgrounds with the opportunity to reach their full sporting and academic potential”. It also reveals that he adores chicken pasta and Jack Daniel’s, is partial to driving Opels and on fairways, wears Armani and Adidas, denies reading newspapers, and admires Lance Armstrong (albeit probably not quite as much as he does the actress Neve Campbell).His perfect dinner guests? That would be Nelson Mandela, Bill Clinton, Ms Campbell and another fetching thespian, Denise Richards. Considerably more revealing is his “most valuable contribution to a team cause”, namely the match-saving century at the MCG in 1997, his very first Test ton. Even now. And then there are the “Morals that I live by”, namely “Control, Focus, Implement and Honesty”. Of which only the last can be considered a moral. But maybe he has the balance just right. Save yourself for the crease then walk away, as far and fast as you can.So let’s forget philosophies and aesthetics and artistic impressions. Let’s do it his way, the Kallis Way. Let’s crunch all those numbers and boil them all down to one definitive, inarguable stat, devoid of ifs, buts or context.Try this for starters. Of the other 46 batsmen who, up to January’s end, had amassed 10,000 runs in internationals, none could match his average of 49.11. Not Brian, not Ricky, not Viv. And no, not even Sachin. Never mind that Kallis averages 45% less in defeat in Tests than he does in victory (34.10 to 62.46): that’s only a shade worse than Tendulkar, and Bradman himself swooned by 67%. And don’t bother either, please, with all that rot about making such hay at the kindly expense of Bangladesh and Zimbabwe: they’ve only conceded four of his 46 hundreds.Now try this one. No bowler who has laboured through 4000 overs in internationals, nor taken as many as 450 wickets, has also racked up 10,000 runs, much less 20,000. And if you’re still not convinced, you’re probably the type who insists there’s no difference between LPs and CDs.

AND SO TO THAT KNOTTY SOBERS PROBLEM. That there is one at all may strike most as preposterous. There’s only one Garfield St Aubyn Sobers, right? Kallis shouldn’t be mentioned in the same breath, right? Nobody should. Kallis doesn’t bowl orthodox spin at Test level, much less chinamen, right? (True, he did put in two overs worth of leggies against New Zealand in 1999, on a glued pitch at Eden Park, but then, as Neil Manthorp reported, this did include “one delivery that bounced twice before reaching the batsman and another that bounced onto the upper tier of the main grandstand”.)Cheese and chalk, right? Black adventurer blessed with impossibly supple wrists versus white pragmatist with biceps on his insteps – no contest, right? Yet by any objective measure of achievement, this pair, as allrounders, as masters of all the essential cricketing crafts bar minding stumps, stand shoulder to shoulder on the sport’s Mount Olympus. In fact, they have done for quite some time, much as we might like to pretend otherwise.Quite simply, in terms of measurable achievement, the only two men to collect 6000 runs and 200 wickets in Tests, in the categories wherein they can be appropriately and gainfully compared, are too close to separate (Sobers, remember, played in but a single ODI). Indeed, their similarities and mutualities are far more numerous than a superficial pigeonholing might stipulate.Both took time to adjust from teenage over-achievement (both, eerily, reached 50 twice in their first 18 Test innings), failed to convince as leaders or strategists, reigned long as their team’s go-to batsman, then suffered gnawing declines (over his final 28 Tests, Sobers’ batting average drifted from 63.77 to 57.78; in his last 18 prior to proceedings in Johannesburg, Kallis’ had ebbed from 58.20 to 54.57, and he’d gone 16 innings since his last century, his worst trot since 2002). Both, furthermore, kept their bowling average pretty much constant, with Kallis’ 2.91 runs better (31.12 to 34.03). The net difference? Precisely 0.32 of a run, in Sobers’ favour. You’d have trouble getting a wafer-thin mint into that gap.On a broader level, moreover, both failed to meet the needs of the collective quite as regularly as they might. As Manthorp mused: “Just as South African fans long to see a more ruthless Kallis with a deadlier, match-winning instinct, there were times (though not as many) when West Indian fans would have enjoyed a shade more solid, dependable reliability.”So, who the more rounded allrounder? Let’s dig deeper. Let’s examine match- and series-winning capabilities. Both have combined a century and a five-for twice (Ian Botham, the leader in this category, did so five times). Sobers plundered 250 runs and 20 wickets in a series three times (equal top with Botham) to Kallis’ one, but then five-Test rubbers, a decided scarcity now, were the norm in the sixties and common in the eighties: Sobers played in 16, Botham 13, plus four that ran to six chapters; with next winter’s encounter with England now trimmed to four, Kallis may well not add to his seven.No universally accepted means of ranking allrounders has ever been nailed down, a curious void for a game so in thrall to statistical convention. Net average still seems the most valid and easily comprehensible method, and on that score, Sobers (23.75 to Kallis’ 23.45 at the outset of this match) gets the nod by a nose hair; six months ago, though, Kallis had a near-10% lead. On the other hand, if we alter the parameters to suit the times, the contrast is starker. Why not subtract bowling from batting average and call it Productivity Rate? Too many minuses. Even so, those numbers do say something. While none of the 51 men to have completed the 1000 runs-100 wickets double in Tests boasts a negative difference of under 20, Kallis (less than -12 to Imran Khan’s -16-and-a-bit) is much the closest to parity.On balance, net average remains the least contentious formula, and Kallis may yet have the final word. Whatever else, it is certainly a measure of his and Sobers’s overwhelming superiority as a duopoly that only 12 of the other 49 players who have gathered 1000 runs and 100 wickets have recorded positive net averages, among whom Imran (14.88) and Keith Miller (14) are alone in attaining double figures. That top four about right, too.

But distinguish we must, and the chief non-aesthetic, non-spiritual difference between Sobers and Kallis is that the latter’s load has been far heavier. Sobers averaged just over four-and-a-half Tests per year, Kallis almost 10. He also averages more than 20 ODIs per annum. Throw in the greater proliferation of tours, the interminable air miles and those constant flits between time-cricket and overs-cricket, and between daylight and floodlight, and it does not seem unreasonable to propose that, even though you might as well compare Dylan and McCartney, Kallis’ consistency has been even more admirable.THE NEXT TARGET is an eyelid away – two more wickets and he will be the first to couple 20,000 runs and 500 wickets in internationals. And now, helpfully, another gauntlet is lying at his feet. Fresh challenges don’t come too thickly for those in the closing furlongs of a sporting career, but Kallis has a couple of unfamiliar battles on his hands. One is to persuade the selectors that his right to Test selection remains automatic and divine; that they cannot live without him. Even more helpfully, being overlooked for Twenty20 duty irks far more than you might imagine. If he can somehow muster the wherewithal to meet those challenges, who knows what he might yet be capable of?Some, though, will still cling, come what may, to the view that, no matter how staggering the stats, they could never be enough for him to make the leap from admiree to affectionee. Ever.Jimmy Connors is the only practitioner of the competitive arts I can think of who pulled off that particular stroke of sorcery, and that was only because tennis crowds forgave his brattish, strutting arrogance as he faded, warming to the fallibility and the humanity rather than the invincibility. He may not have been much cop, but at least he kept turning up, kept grunting, kept trying. Even as canny a manipulator as Steve Waugh failed to make that leap. Yes, he possessed both the sense to quit while he was ahead and the steeliness to ensure he went out with a bang, but in so doing he denied himself the opportunity for redemption reserved solely for the visibly vulnerable. Outside Australia, he remains a subject of awe, not amour.Yet Kallis, because he’s still only 33, has a chance. As with Connors, this is partly because we have grown accustomed to his failures, have finally glimpsed the vulnerability, the humanity. But also because, like Connors, the only thing he has left to prove is that he is worthy of his audience’s affections, that he can touch hearts.Now Kallis is no longer the first name on the teamsheet, nor even the first batsman, will he – can he – finally shed those chains of responsibility? Can he give us, not the real Jacques (one suspects we know that one only too well), but a spanking new one? One freed and willing, at last, to let hair and guard down. One to whom surviving comes second, however marginally, to living. And, who knows, perhaps even revelling. Encouragingly, he has one more art to master, namely the game’s newest form. It could yet do the trick.

Stats highlights from the fourth Test between West Indies and England, which ended in a dull draw in Barbados

S Rajesh03-Mar-2009
Alastair Cook finally got a century after 15 Tests, but there was little in the contest by then © Getty Images
On a pitch which had little in it for the bowlers, 1628 runs were scored for the loss of 17 wickets, an average of 95.76 runs per wicket. It’s the second-highest in all Tests in the West Indies, next only to a Test between West Indies and New Zealand in Guyana in 1972, which averaged 99.40 per wicket. It’s also the fifth-highest among all Tests played anywhere; the highest average is 136.12, when India played Pakistan in Lahore in 2006. The top ten contains two matches which happened over the last ten days: the Pakistan-Sri Lanka game in Karachi, which averaged 86.27, is at eighth slot. This was easily the most batsman-dominated Test in Barbados – the previous highest runs per wicket here was 68.33, way back in 1965. The result is all the more discouraging as Barbados used to be the one venue in the West Indies which consistently prepared result-oriented pitches: 24 of the last 28 Tests here have produced a decisive result. Alastair Cook’s unbeaten 139 was the fifth hundred of the Test, which equals the record for a match between these two teams. It’s also the fifth time five centuries have been scored in a Test between West Indies and England – three of these matches have been in the last five years. Cook’s knock is his first century in more than a year – before this game he had gone 15 Tests without a century, though he’d scored ten fifties during this period. Daren Powell bowled a couple of good spells, but ended the game with match figures of 1 for 142 from 36 overs. It continued a barren run for him, which has lasted more than a year: since 2008, he has taken just 24 wickets in 13 Tests, at an average of 60.04, and a strike rate of 102 deliveries per wicket. During this period, Jerome Taylor and Fidel Edwards have been far more successful.

Sri Lanka are getting used to life without their legends and under a new captain; Pakistan are getting used to Test cricket again. An audio-visual look at the just-concluded Test series in Sri Lanka

27-Jul-2009