Sri Lanka Dignity in defeat

The pages of history of World Cup 2007 would record the event as a tragi-comedy where Australia, under Ricky Ponting, emerged winners. The much dwarfed rice-and-curry lads from Sri Lanka, though beaten, can gain comfort and consolation for exhibiting supreme sportsmanship throughout the tournament, especially in the final at Kensington Oval, Barbados.

By Stanley Jayasinghe

Skipper Mahela Jayawardena and his deputy Kumar Sangakkara set standards of decency and fair play which politicians and cricketers world wide would do well to emulate. We saw how, despite the momentous occasion, Sangakkara dived and grabbed an Adam Gilchrist snick which, to cameras and naked eye, appeared a clear catch. Immediately and without prompting, Sangakkara frantically swung his hands vigorously, whilst still grounded, indicating a “No Catch”, to relieve the umpires of an unwanted puzzle.

Sangakkara appears to have transformed himself from a vociferous wicket-keeper in the recent past, whose exuberant but often times unwarranted appeals earned this writer’s censure. I can only deduce from such mature conduct that Sri Lanka cricket will continue to prosper linked to standards of decency which could be the envy of all cricket-playing nations. It proves my oft repeated contention that successes in this gentlemen’s game could be achieved whilst upholding its lofty traditions.

Mahela Jayawardena’s gracious acceptance of Pontings appeal to continue the game in semi-darkness, honouring the dictum that “The Umpire’s Word Is Law” is in keeping with true sportsmanship. Admittedly captains of other Test-playing countries have defied umpiring decisions and had their own way. In this WC 2007 final, despite Jayawardena’s prompting the umpires that the match could be considered as completed after the mandatory 20 overs, the foolhardy umpires insisted that the remaining three overs be bowled.

One is entitled to question those critics of Sri Lankan policies the reasons for their deafening silence on this issue. Such ridiculous direction by a crew of cricketing umpires of international repute demands condemnation.

Sri Lanka were progressing smoothly, with Sanath Jayasuriya and Kumar Sangakkara middling the ball confidently in a century stand, when bad light and rain intervened, it was reported.

It was at this juncture that Velveddithurai’s villainous Velupillai Prabakharan struck in Colombo and suburbs with his beggarly aeronautical armaments. The black-out denied cricket enthusiasts their long-awaited and much cherished Sri Lanka vs. Australia match on the TV screens. This unexpected set-back prompted this writer to head for the land of nod thereafter.

Uncertain of subsequent events at Kensington Oval the writer would not venture to dwell on further issues. However, considering the importance of the occasion, and disappointed by the match result, it would be justifiable to pose a few pertinent questions to the powers that be.

That Australia was the superior team on the day may be acceptable. A few points, however, keep niggling. With a battery of selectors who had winged their way to proffer advice and guidance to Mahela Jayawardena it would appear comical why the erratic and unpredictable Dilhara Fernando was in the final line-up. Despite 6 - 7 years in the National pool he continues to be an enigma with his wides and no-balls. Juniors such as Lasitha Malinga and Fervez Mahroof have hit the headlines more often. The Selectors should hasten to put their thinking caps on and not hope for divine intervention like some other countries do!

Admittedly, Fernando exceeded the wildest expectations of most cricket fans when he dismissed the last Englishman a fortnight ago, in the final over, to bring Sri Lanka a thrilling victory. But to expect a repeat-performance with his dismal and erratic record in recent times was the height of optimism, especially when this wicket was benign to batsmen. The grassless, well-rolled strip, which carried a sheen on it, was a batsman’s dream and a bowler’s nightmare. Gilchrist’s prayers had been answered!

Sri Lanka’s pace ace, Chaminda Vaas, who over the years has not failed to give the initial break-through, was for once, out-thought and out-shone by the devastating Gilchrist. It would not be incorrect to state that the eventual result of the game was a consequence of Vaas’ s failure to get his usual early prey and Gilchrist’s dynamic hitting.

A very valid query should be addressed to the ICC and the Tour Management of both teams. Was a copy of the Duckworth-Lewis calculation system submitted to all participating teams and the relevant officials prior to the commencement of this momentous tournament? If such mandatory obligation had been fulfilled why were the concerned officials so much in the dark regarding the correct and wisest course of action? This oversight may, perhaps, have contributed in some measure to Sri Lanka’s miscalculation when chasing the required target. Without a doubt this vital aspect should have dawned on the parties concerned when dark clouds gathered in the distant horizon.It is pertinent to mention that a similar situation arose in Harare, Zimbabwe in 1999 where this writer officiated as Manager. After Zimbabwe had exceeded the two-hundred mark Sri Lanka went in search of victory. Around the half-way mark of the innings heavy dark clouds were threatening play. The Duckworth-Lewis calculation system had just come into force a couple of months earlier. Chief Executive Dave Ellmon Brown had ensured that a copy had reached this writer prior to the commencement of the first ODI

Having had a glance at the Duckworth-Lewis system it had registered in the writer’s mind that a match could be decided at the conclusion of a minimum of twenty overs. Anxious that rain could wash-out play this writer secured his copy of the Duckworth Lewis system and sought the assistance of Coach Dav Whatmore who was in the vicinity. As statistics were not our forte, neither was able to unravel the mysteries of this unusual puzzle. A few distinguished visitors in the VIP enclosure too found it confusing.

Thankfully a Sri Lankan cricket enthusiast happened to overhear our dilemma and sprang to the rescue. He was none other than Group Captain Sriyan Samararatne who was most certainly a God-send at that crucial moment. Samararatne proved equal to the task His well-studied analysis soothed our nerves, as he kept track of the runs, overs and wickets which are all involved in the D-L calculations. Russel Arnold and Upul Chandana changed gear with a flurry of strokes and ensured Sri Lanka beat the rain and Zimbabwe.

From the foregoing it is the writer’s candid opinion that the finger of guilt should be pointed not only at the two Umpires and the Match Referee but also at the Tour Management. Unfortunately, as is the usual practice, the stable door will be closed after the horse has bolted. -Wijeya Newspapers

Powered by Post2Blog Express

 

Interim committee to take up Gilchrist’s ball

Sri Lanka believes Adam Gilchrist’s use of a squash ball as a batting aid in the World Cup final was “unethical” and may take the matter up with world cricket chiefs, officials said Monday.

Gilchrist, whose record-breaking 149 led Australia to their fourth title, said later that he had a squash ball in one of his gloves to give him a better grip.

“I had a squash ball in my bottom-hand to help with my grip in training and I decided in this World Cup to use it in a match,” he said.

The revelation caused uproar here, with Sri Lanka Cricket secretary Kangadaran Mathivanan saying the matter could be taken up during next month’s International Cricket Council (ICC) annual general meeting.

“We are of the opinion that it was unethical for Gilchrist to use a squash ball to give unfair advantage,” Mathivanan told AFP.

He said Sri Lanka could call on the ICC’s cricket committee for stringent application of “Law 42” on fair and unfair play to ensure only the approved protection equipment was used.

Mathivanan said Sri Lanka Cricket would discuss the issue before deciding whether to raise it in London. via Wijeya Newspapers

Powered by Post2Blog Express

 

Adam Gilchrist Hook or by crook!

The game of cricket is full of purists like land mines buried on the peripheries of a war zone. Inevitably they blow up at the wrong moment and maim the wrong people.

By S R Pathiravithana

It was not so long ago we had the likes of Ian Chappell and Michael Holding screaming their guts out howling out to the ICC to probe into the dropping of two Sri Lankan players for their match against Australia in the super eights stage. The allegation was match fixing which tantamount to cheating. If those cricket purists were trying to make out that the Sri Lankan cricket hierarchy erred by the law of cricket in that game how would they describe the despicable Gilchrist stunt of hiding a foreign substance in his batting glove to get an undue advantage over the Sri Lankan bowlers who had bowled pretty well up to that stage in the World Cup.

When we were watching the onslaught by Gilchrist on the Lankan bowlers we were wondering as to how he got this new lease of life. A man who was struggling to live up to his potential was batting far beyond even his true capabilities. This normally belligerent Mathew Hayden looked like a passenger waiting at bus stand for a bus which was already late. : Gilchrist faced 104 balls and hit thirteen fours and eight sixes while all the other batsmen Hayden, Ponting, Symonds, Watson, in all faced 127 balls collectively and hit just seven fours and two sixes. And generally in the Australian camp it is Hayden and Symonds who are the batsmen who are reputed for their awesome massacre of bowlers. Nevertheless when we saw the unholy batting display of Gilchrist we accepted ‘seeing is believing’ and resigned ourselves to our fate.

How legal?

JEROME GASPERSON writes from Australia: I read the article “How legal was Adam Gilchrist’s ‘hidden ball’?” You have very valid points and there are a few more unanswered questions that are worth pursuing further.

The other points to note are:
# Gilchrist never used the “squash ball” in the past and also in any of the other 10 games prior to the finals. Did the “squash ball” help?
# Gilchrist was out of form and didn’t score many runs in the whole World Cup tour apart from the finals. Did the “squash ball” provide Gilchrist the required assistance to bring him back to form?
# The World Cup final was between Sri Lanka and Gilchrist (not Australia). All other inform Australian batsmen were struggling to score except the out-of-form Gilchrist who had this “squash ball” to enhance his grip or did it?
# Most of his shots, mainly his eight sixes, were massive and cleared the grounds. Did the “squash ball” help?
# The number of sixes hit by Gilchrist amounts to eight in the finals, compared to two in the previous 10 games. Is it because of the “squash ball”?
# Gilchrist’s average without the last innings would have been a mere 30.40 compared to the 45.30 after the finals. Did the “squash ball” help to boost his average?
# Gilchrist’s strike rate without the last innings would have been 91.57 compared to the 103.89 after the finals. Again, did the “squash ball” provide that extra power?
Given the above and the points you raised, your natural tendency would be to believe that the “squash ball” might have given him that extra edge or did it?
His 2007 World Cup Statistics are as follows:
Matches 11, Innings 11, Not Out 1, Runs 453, Highest Score 149, Average 45.30, Balls faced 436, Strike rate 103.89, Hundreds 1, Fifties 2, Zeroes 0, Fours 58, Sixes 10.
I am not taking anything away from Adam Gilchrist’s excellent innings. That was an amazing innings which will be remembered by many for years to come. However, the question still remains: is it legal to use such equipment and will it provide assistance?

***************************

Alas! But before we could get over bitterness of swallowing our pride the squash ball began to circle. As the news came by we read - “By Gilchrist’s own admission, he had ’something’ in his left glove all through his knock. In fact, upon reaching the century, Gilchrist first doffed his bat towards his teammates in the pavilion, acknowledged the applause of the spectators, and then kept repeatedly pointing to his left batting glove with his right hand.

At the post match press conference Gilchrist admitted that the message was directed to his Western Australian batting coach Bob Meuleman who is also a squash player of repute in his state. It is said that upon Meuleman’s advice, Gilchrist had been carrying a squash ball in his left, bottom hand to help him with his grip.

Then carrying a foreign substance which is not approved by the laws of cricket - does it look good on Australia’s legality of the World Cup win. We will just have a look at what Law number 3 of cricket laws have to say.

Cricket Law III

3.6. Conduct of the game, implements and equipment Before the toss and during the match, the umpires shall satisfy themselves that: (a) the conduct of the game is strictly in accordance with the Laws. (b) The implements of the game conform to the requirements of Laws 5 (the ball) and 6 (The bat), together with either Laws 8.2 (Size of stumps) and 8.3 (The bails) or, if appropriate, Law 8.4 (Junior Cricket). (c) (i) no player uses equipment other than that permitted. (ii) the wicket-keeper’s gloves comply with the requirements of Law 40.2 (Gloves).

Prior to this Dennis Lilee’s aluminium bat and Ricky Ponting’s graphite-coated bat were not permitted by the cricket authorities. At the same time Hansie Cronje’s earpiece stunt of having a chat with the coach Bob Woolmer while the match was in progress was also shot down in mid air by the authorities. Then the question that arises is did Gilchrist seek and obtain approval from the cricket’s authorities before he used such a device? Did he inform and seek approval from the match umpires and the opposing captain Mahela Jayawardena on such an experiment?

The laws of cricket are very precise on protective gear as given above. Then this device cannot be termed as a protective gear and only be termed as a power enhancing substance. Nowhere in the cricketing laws have they approved the squash ball as a protective gear.

Vijitha Herath of the University of Paderborn, Germany, writes on the issue:

Apropos the claim that Adam Gilchrist had a squash ball in his left glove during his innings at the finals of the cricket World Cup. Let me offer a scientific perspective.

A squash ball is a rubber ball. Unlike a cricket (leather) ball, it compresses when pressure is applied on it. When the pressure is released, it takes its original shape. In short, it acts like a spring (e.g.: a motorcycle shock absorber).

So what happens when a batsman has a squash ball in the palm of his bottom hand?

When a batsman swings the bat until it hits the ball, there is pressure on his bottom hand. This pressure compresses the squash ball thus storing energy in the ball similar to spring. Just after the ball hits the bat (ball still touching the bat) this pressure starts to relax while the bat is moving forward.

At the same time the energy stored in the squash ball releases its energy to the bat in the form of kinetic energy. The result is that the bat moves faster than normal (without a ball in the glove).

As a result, the release-speed of the cricket ball becomes faster resulting in the ball travelling further before hitting the ground. Therefore it results in more sixes and fours being scored.

The downside is because the bat travels faster than normal the batsman might lose control of the bat. This happened once in the Adam Gilchrist’s innings when the bat slipped out of his hands and fell behind the wickets. If you have any doubts please try to do it yourself and see the result.

In brief Gilchrist’s use of the squash ball allowed him to hit the ball further in the field.

The above explanation clearly gives you an insight into the fact that the squash ball was used not purely as a protective gear but, as a performance enhancer to a player who was playing his last World Cup innings and did not care of the consequences, but was hell bent on rubbing some glory upon himself.

Then at a beauty pageant if the winner is discovered as person with an immoral past she is stripped off her title. In athletics if a participant is found that he/she has taken performance enhancing drugs they are relieved from their titles. But, what action are the authorities hoping to take on this under hand act? How would the so called purists describe this deliberate breach of cricket law?

Can Mr. Ian Chappell or some purist explain this to me?

Finally just see the Australian ingenuity –the blessings of 33 million deities which the entire country sought could not bring Sri Lanka victory, but, one little squash ball hidden by an over zealous cricketer inside his batting glove was able to give Australia that much sought after cricket’s biggest gift with consummate ease.

P.S. According to a high ranking SLC official its hierarchy had met on the issue but, had arrived at the notion that though it does not permit a foreign object inside the batting glove, it also does not prevent anyone from having it. He also does not want the Aussies to feel that we are cry babies. via Sunday Times

Powered by Post2Blog Express