Ed Joyce is in the twilight of his career but is putting all his efforts into staying around to play Test cricket for Ireland

George Dobell03-May-20173:41

‘If I bowl to him, it’s another wicket’

Ed Joyce used to hide his cricket bat when he took the train into Dublin for nets.As a typically self-conscious teenager, he was painfully aware of what he calls “the stigma” surrounding a sport that was seen as “upper class” and, even worse, “English”.So it is, he says, “hugely significant” that England has, at last, welcomed the Ireland team to their home for a two-match ODI series and, equally, that much of Ireland will be gripped – and united – by their cricket team’s progress in England.These days, as you drive on the A5 from Dublin to Derry, you regularly see cricket clubs dotted along the side of the road. These days, cricket in Ireland claims 52,000 participants (as defined by ICC standards) – that’s up from 11,000 in 2007 and 25,000 in 2011 – and boasts crowds of up to 10,000 at home internationals (it seems they may well attract something close to full houses at Lord’s and Bristol). These days, Cricket Ireland’s statistics provide evidence that they are running the fourth-biggest sport in the land (based on a combination of commercial revenue, media coverage, attendance and participation figures) and the second biggest on social media. The ODIs against England will be broadcast live (on subscription TV) and the largest broadsheet newspaper carried a page of cricket last Sunday. These days, Joyce doesn’t hide his bat.But these games aren’t just a victory parade. While being welcomed to play a series in England is a watershed moment – arguably as much for the ECB who, under new management, have started to take their duties towards developing cricket nations seriously – Ireland have long stopped thinking of themselves as “plucky underdogs” who could surprise their big neighbours occasionally. They’re not here for selfies in the Long Room.Furthermore, the games come just as a judgement is made over their readiness for Test cricket. While it would be absurd to judge a team’s suitability for Test cricket on the snapshot offered by two ODIs, it would, their CEO Warren Deutrom admits, be “disingenuous to pretend that the results carry no influence”. Just as Bangladesh owed their elevation, in part at least, to that controversial victory over Pakistan in the 1999 World Cup, so Ireland could ease the wheels of their own promotion with a victory or two against a side rated by some bookies as favourites for the Champions Trophy. Equally, two drubbings might make the elevation – which is due to be ratified by the ICC in June – just a little more awkward.

The stumbling block is money. It’s going to cost us a lot of money if we’re to play Test cricket and we’re going to need the ICC’s helpEd Joyce on the challenge ahead

“We want the ICC to see our potential,” Deutrom, who is every bit as responsible for Ireland’s progress as any of the players, says. “We don’t have ten stadiums or a staff of 200.”But I think what the ICC are trying to do is take a broad, holistic view of Irish cricket. It’s not just the performance of the senior men or women’s team over the last six months they’re looking at: it’s the facilities; it’s the strength in depth; it’s the governance and coaching structure, and evidence that we can manage our budgets. It’s our potential.”We believe we offer a new commercial opportunity for the game. We’re not after a hand-out. But yes, of course these games could have an influence. This – the decision to grant us Test status – is a new process and nobody here is thinking it as a penalty kick. We are in no way complacent.”In some way, these ODIs come at a far from ideal time for Ireland. Their progress, as an international side at least, has slowed of late. While much is being achieved in the background – most notably, the introduction of a first-class competition, but also ever-improving facilities, a growing pool of players and, at last, some support from England and other ICC members – the fact is that teams are judged on their results on the pitch. And Ireland’s, of late, have been eclipsed by Afghanistan’s.One of the problems is that, the golden crop of players they had to pick from a few years ago has long since been harvested. Several (such as Trent Johnston) have retired, several (such as George Dockrell) have not yet kicked-on as hoped and, most worrying of all, several are claiming the extra half-hour at the end of their careers.Joyce is an obvious example in that last category. He is 39 in September and, as Leonard Cohen put it, aching in the places he used to play. He can, he says, still see the ball as well as ever – and this is a man who sees the ball well enough to have made an ODI century against a strong Australia attack in 2007 – but knee and hip problems are reducing his effectiveness and his sense of enjoyment in the field. Niall O’Brien and Tim Murtagh, who are both aged 35, can probably empathise. All of them are locked on to the target of Test cricket; all of them are hoping they have the range.”It’s getting to the point where I’m not sure I can put myself through a lot more rehab,” Joyce says. “And, yes, personal pride comes into it. Having Test cricket on the horizon may leave me with a difficult decision to make.”Ed Joyce knows his body may not allow him much longer in the game but he’s determined to help Ireland•SportsfileHe has, he admits, taken a “significant” pay-cut to leave county cricket. He would have had no problem winning a contract to play for another year or two, but he was keen “to put something back” into Irish cricket. He has, therefore, signed to play for Leinster in this season’s domestic competitions – incorporating the new first-class competition – and will supplement his playing role with the start of a transition into coaching.”I love county cricket,” he says. “And playing it was brilliant for me. But ultimately we want to create a system where our best young players don’t have to leave Ireland to progress their careers. We’re not there yet and I’d still like to see more of our guys go to England for a while. But the long-term goal is that it’s not necessary.”Joyce’s fear is that those hard-won gains of the past – all the work that led to memorable victories against England and Pakistan and West Indies, victories that forced the world to take them seriously – could be lost. And with Ireland so close to their long-term target – Test cricket – he felt it was time to commit to the fight. Nobody wants a repeat of Kenya’s rise and fall.”We’re not at the level we were,” Joyce admits. “We’ve been hit by four or five big retirements and that’s made life very difficult for us. And that’s happened just as people have started to expect more of us. We can’t be plucky underdogs any more. We have to prepare to win and we have to learn to live with a higher level of expectation. It’s not easy.”It’s vital we keep the level of performance up. The world seems a lot more receptive to our situation than it has been but the gains we have fought so hard for could be lost. We have to keep playing well. We can’t let things slip now just as it seems the door might be opening for us.”Ireland’s problem is not new. They need to play more games in order to improve, but until they improve other nations have been reluctant to grant them those games. It’s starting to change – Bangladesh and New Zealand visit shortly for a tri-series tournament – but they continue to be held back by those who claim their elevation to Test cricket will devalue the format. Hell, they might even lose five Tests out of seven in Asia or be whitewashed 5-0 in Australia. Ireland shouldn’t really have anything left to prove at this stage.”We just don’t play enough,” Joyce says. “We need to get into the limited-overs leagues the ICC are talking about to speed up the process. It’s a chicken-and-egg problem.

Whenever I doubt the progress we’ve made – and of course I have done at times – I look back on the team that qualified for the 2007 World Cup

“The stumbling block is money. It’s going to cost us a lot of money if we’re to play Test cricket and we’re going to need the ICC’s help. It has, in the past, been tough to get past the other national boards, but they have definitely changed. Tom Harrison at the ECB has been very helpful. It feels like there is much more acceptance of us.”But we deserve some of the credit for that. Ahead of the 2015 World Cup we decided that, if we won any games, we’d make a point of taking to social media or saying things in interviews that we might not have done in the past. We wanted to put the boards and the ICC under pressure. And we’ve done that by playing consistent cricket for the best part of ten years and taking every opportunity to point out the challenges we face.”He is adamant that the development of Afghanistan is positive for Ireland and world cricket. “It’s been good for us, I think,” he says. “They are helping make the same argument as us. They have players like Rashid Khan who demand to be seen on the biggest stage. It feels as if we’re pushing together in the same direction.”If elevation does come too late for Joyce, it will prove the second time he has laid foundations on which others could build. Joyce was part of the Ireland squad in 2005 that won World Cup qualification only to miss out on some of the most memorable moments in the team’s history as he made the understandable choice to switch to England in a bid to play Test cricket and earn a decent living; neither was achievable with Ireland at the time. But whether he misses out or not, he will take consolation from the progress made over a relatively short period of time.”Whenever I doubt the progress we’ve made – and of course I have done at times – I look back on the team that qualified for the 2007 World Cup,” he says. “The sport had almost no profile in Ireland and hardly anyone took it seriously. We had a good group of players back then – and yes, some good imports who brought an edge to the unit – and we shocked a few teams.”Yes, we’re in a transition right now. But Steffan Jones, the fast bowling coach, came over recently and said he reckoned we had as good a crop of young fast bowlers as he had ever seen. We just need to make sure these guys have the chance to fulfil their potential.”There’s always been talent in Ireland. But for a long time it wasn’t feasible to get any better. There weren’t any facilities; there wasn’t much coaching. These things are much better now. There’s far more awareness of the sport in Ireland than there was just a few years ago. We’ve made huge progress.”Ed Joyce was speaking at the launch of UK company Clear Treasury’s sponsorship of Cricket Ireland. Visit https://cleartreasury.co.uk/ for more information

Stats highlights from the third ODI in Pallekele where Rohit Sharma and Jasprit Bumrah secured another series win for India against Sri Lanka

Shiva Jayaraman27-Aug-2017 8 – Number of consecutive bilateral ODI series, involving two or matches, won by India against Sri Lanka. This equals the second-longest such sequence for a team against any opposition. Pakistan have won nine consecutive series against West Indies and eight against Zimbabwe. India last failed to win a series against Sri Lanka in 1997 when a three-match rubber was drawn. 0 – Number of five wicket hauls by Jasprit Bumrah in ODIs before this. His previous best was 4 for 22 that he took against Zimbabwe last year. His 5 for 27 in this match are also his best figures in List A cricket. He had taken 5 for 28 against Delhi in the Vijay Hazare Trophy final in 2015-16. 4 – Number of times Bumrah has taken four or more wickets in 19 ODIs. This is the quickest any India bowler has taken four such hauls. Before Bumrah, Mohammed Shami was the quickest having taken 35 matches to do so. 16.14 – Rohit Sharma’s batting average in ODIs in Sri Lanka before this match. He had made 339 runs in 23 innings with a highest of 69. Overall his 124* in this match was his 12th ODI century and his eighth outside India. Rohit has stayed unbeaten or scored 150-plus in seven of his ten ODI hundreds since his comeback in 2013. 101.84 – MS Dhoni’s average in successful chases in ODIs. He is currently the only batsman to average over 100 among those with at least 1000 runs. Dhoni has stayed unbeaten in 40 of the 65 successful chases he has been involved in. His unbeaten 67 in this match was his 19th fifty-plus score in such matches. Overall, this was Dhoni’s 74th fifty-plus score in ODIs. Only Sachin Tendulkar, Rahul Dravid and Sourav Ganguly have more such scores than Dhoni. 120/7 – Sri Lanka’s score in the last 25 overs of their innings in this match. They were 97 for 2 at the end of 25 overs. For the second time in the series Sri Lanka lost their way in the latter half of their innings: In the first ODI, they had collapsed from 141 for 2 at the end of 25 overs to 216 all out. Overall, in this series Sri Lanka have lost 19 wickets at an average of 17.05 after the 25th over. While the dot percentage hasn’t come down dramatically after 25th overs, Sri Lanka have taken nearly nine more deliveries per boundary when compared with the first 25 overs.

RR Wkt Ave Dot % BpBLast 25 overs 4.74 19 17.05 54.1 20.5First 25 overs 4.59 8 43.12 63.3 11.8 12 – Number of times out of 16 Sri Lanka’s top-order batsmen (No. 1 to No. 7) have got themselves in, having faced at least 20 deliveries in this ODI series but have got out without scoring a fifty. Dinesh Chandimal, Angelo Mathews, Chamara Kapugedera and Milinda Siriwardana were such batsmen in this match. In the previous ODI, there were five such batsmen out of their top seven. 6 – Number of Sri Lanka batsmen to make fifty-plus scores in three or more consecutive ODIs against India before Lahiru Thirimanne. Thirimanne had scored 59 and 52 in his previous two ODIs against India. This was Thirimanne’s fifth score of 50 or more against India – the most such scores he has against any team in this format. Sanath Jayasuriya, Aravinda de Silva, Kumar Sangakkara, Tillakaratne Dilshan, Dinesh Chandimal and Angelo Mathews are the other batsmen to have done it.

Australia’s first-ever defeat to Bangladesh has drawn a fevered response down under, one that may reveal more about the post-pay war climate than the actual merits or otherwise of the team’s performance

Daniel Brettig31-Aug-20174:20

Chappell: Loss confirms Aus dependence on Warner, Smith

“I suppose I can gain some consolation from the fact my name will be permanently in the record books.” With these words Malcolm Nash made sense of being on the receiving end of Garry Sobers smiting him for six sixes in an over at Swansea in 1968, the first time the feat had ever been achieved.

Australia’s first Test defeats

• England in Melbourne, 1877

• South Africa in Adelaide, 1911

• West Indies in Sydney, 1931

• Pakistan in Karachi, 1956

• India in Kanpur, 1959

• New Zealand in Christchurch, 1974

• Sri Lanka in Kandy, 1999

• Bangladesh in Mirpur, 2017

At the moment Josh Hazlewood fell lbw on day four in Mirpur, Australia’s Test team begrudgingly assumed their own place in history as the first baggy green XI to lose to Bangladesh in the game’s longest form. The result added to similar drought-breakers over England and Sri Lanka in the past 12 months, all evidence that Bangladesh are most definitely a team on the rise, particularly at home.But most of the Antipodean reaction to Australia’s 20-run loss, which can be traced back to a series of poor decisions by the batsmen on the first evening and second morning that left Steven Smith’s men 33 for 4, has verged on the hysterical. A team that battled doggedly to limit the Bangladesh lead, then gained a chance to pull off the chase via one of David Warner’s very finest Test innings, has been hammered with the same venom that a free-swinging Sobers saved for Nash’s slow left-armers.”A pack of overpaid prima donnas” screams the in reference to the recent pay war. “Dhaka disaster a new low” harrumphs , while also comparing the divergent pay packets of the two teams. Across the News Corp/Fairfax divide at , Australia’s competitive showing in India earlier in the year is termed a “false dawn”. Undoubtedly there were moments of the match that reflected poorly on the team – Usman Khawaja can scarcely have had a worse match in his life, calling into question the decision to recall him for Bangladesh when he had been deemed unsuitable for similar conditions in India.Likewise Matthew Wade’s credit balance with the selectors must be close to maxed out, after a difficult match for anyone to keep wicket was not augmented by meaningful runs at a time when they were desperately needed. There is much, too, for Smith to consider after facing a concerted angle of attack from around the stumps that reaped his wicket in the first innings, then severely restricted his usually free-scoring ways in the second. Certainly there is some disquiet within the Australian camp about how some of the team responded – or failed to respond – to the pressure they were placed under.Ashton Agar and Nathan Lyon stood up for Australia in Mirpur•Getty ImagesNevertheless, the attacks on the team have lacked perspective, and at the same time revealed two fault-lines in sore need of address. The first is that the residual damage from the pay war still lingers in the minds of Australian cricket followers. Cricket Australia’s decision to publicly criticise its players and seek to stop them from sharing a fixed percentage of the game’s revenue opened up an avenue for criticism that was never going to be neatly sealed off with the announcement that an MoU agreement had been struck.All of the game draws on the financial returns gained by a well-regarded and high performing Australian team. The tarnishing of the players’ image by accusations of greed are bound to go on for quite some time, with the ultimate consequence of reducing the amount of money flowing into Australian cricket. Winning Test matches helps, of course, but it was haughty in the extreme to expect a young team to simply turn up and prevail in Mirpur without even a single warm-up match to speak of – rain having nixed the only scheduled practice fixture.That’s where the other fault-line comes into view. The place of this tour and the format in which it was to be played remained in some doubt for much of the year, even without the uncertainty created by the pay war. Plenty of members of CA’s team performance wing would have preferred the two Tests to be commuted to a series of ODIs, as had been the case in 2011, to better suit a physical and technical build-up to the Ashes. That this change did not take place appeared to have as much with doing everything possible to ensure Bangladesh voted with the majority – rather than with India – to change the ICC constitution at the governing body’s annual conference, as it did with fulfilling obligations to a nation that clearly merits more matches than it has been granted.Largely due to financial concerns over the profitability of such series, Australia have for many years played excessively against “bankers” like England, India and South Africa while minimising commitments against other nations. At the time of his retirement in 2015, Michael Clarke had played 115 Tests, with no fewer than 57 against England and India, and a measly two against Bangladesh. If the governing body does not deem an opponent worthy of regular cricket contact, then it is a bit much to expect that nation’s supporters to view that team with any more respect. Hence the fevered reaction to a defeat that made much more sense than a lot of the headlines would make it seem.Will Australia turn to the all-round skills of Hilton Cartwright in Chittagong?•Robert Cianflone/Getty ImagesWith the benefit of a few days to clear their minds, Australia’s players, coaches and selectors should be able to glean a few less fevered observations. One that the team improved notably over the course of the match, with Nathan Lyon a fair barometer, and ultimately ran Bangladesh far closer than the first innings gave them a right to – a marked contrast to three abject defeats against Sri Lanka by the same time last year. Two, several of the most promising displays came from the team’s most youthful members, not least Pat Cummins and Ashton Agar. And three, Matt Renshaw and Peter Handscomb have both shown more than enough aptitude to make runs in Asian climes, and need only find ways to concentrate for longer periods to make their methods truly count with hundreds.That brings the tourists to their next assignment in Chittagong, where they have been curiously reinforced by Steve O’Keefe despite the fact he is still under suspension from New South Wales for behaving offensively towards a female Australian cricketer – seemingly an inversion of CA’s much-touted “One Team” philosophy. The lessons of Mirpur should mean a rejigged XI, possibly including Hilton Cartwright’s all-round skills to allow for the inclusion of a third spin bowler, and a batting approach that follows the best of Warner’s second innings rather than the worst of Khawaja’s first.A share in the series is now the best Australia can hope for, ahead of a home Ashes series full of unknowns. Victory in Chittagong would reap a fair result for a young team still finding its way in Asia. Defeat, though, would warrant the Sobers treatment.

If the team batting second has reached a winning target at the time of a stoppage, why wait for the quota of overs to be completed before looking at the revised targets?

Frank Duckworth and Tony Lewis24-Dec-2017Before the dust has settled entirely on Pakistan’s well-merited win in the 2017 Champions Trophy, we’d like to reflect on the circumstances leading in to the qualification for the semi-finals. (“We” are the inventors of the Duckworth-Lewis method.) We’d like to stress, however, that what we have to say is not specific to targets reset by the DLS method (as it is known now): the same problem would have occurred under any of the previous or other current target-resetting methods. Because of our continuing interest and concern for the welfare of the game and the obtaining of fair results, we have something to say on the not-unusual circumstances of one particular match in that competition.You will remember that the hosts England played their best cricket in the early stages, winning three matches, and were top of Group A. In second place were Bangladesh, which, even accounting for their growth as an ODI side, was a surprise to most.You will also recall that the weather in England and Wales at the time was variable. Three matches were decided by the DLS method and two were declared “no result”, as both sides hadn’t received the minimum of 20 overs. Some teams, such as Australia, suffered from rain interruptions far more than others.In Group B, for instance, Sri Lanka played all three matches uninterrupted. In Group A, each of Australia’s games was affected by rain. They lost to England on the DLS, though England were well ahead of the par score when the match was abandoned. Their game against New Zealand was abandoned, with Australia 53 for 3 after nine overs in their chase (this was a game already reduced to 33 overs). And their game against Bangladesh was also deemed a no-result because 20 overs couldn’t be bowled in Australia’s innings; they were 82 for 1 after 16 overs, chasing Bangladesh’s 182. With two no-results and a defeat, Australia exited the competition.We believe, however, that there are compelling reasons, , for Australia to have been awarded victory in that game, thus earning two points and qualifying for the semi-finals instead of Bangladesh.The ICC’s own rules are not being applied appropriately in such cases. Using the ICC’s ODI Rule 12.4.2 we hope to explain why. We emphasise that we are not suggesting there should be an additional rule, or even a rule change, but only a different application of the existing rule. The rule states: more than 30 overs had been lost, in accordance with the ICC rule, they should at that stage have been declared the winners.However, ICC protocol for umpires in interrupted games appears to be inhibiting the application of the rule in this manner. It seems that the umpires first decide whether conditions are deemed fit to play, as they did for the 8.30pm planned restart in this case, and only then is the revised target assessed. This is what we call a static view of the protocol. We believe that a more dynamic view of the process would be fairer.In other words, the revised target should be continuously under review as time is lost, which equates to about one lost over for every four minutes deducted. And so with about eight minutes left before the official cut-off time (which was declared as 9:59 pm that evening) the revised target of 79 for the loss of 28 overs would have been already achieved. But as rain was still falling, the umpires had decided that play could not resume and had no need, according to current protocols, to consult the table of possible targets. Since fewer than 20 overs had been bowled, there was no result and Australia were eliminated.We shall return to this match after looking at a more clear-cut scenario that easily have occurred in the Women’s World Cup only a few weeks later. We’ll first describe the actual match situation and then adjust it to produce what would have been an extremely embarrassing situation, as well as being grossly unfair.In the game between New Zealand and Pakistan in Taunton, Pakistan were bowled out within their 50 overs for a modest 144. The weather was fine with no rain forecast and New Zealand quickly reached 143 for 1 in 14.4 overs. In trying to hit the two remaining runs to win, Sophie Devine, on 93, was caught and bowled by Nashra Sandhu. In the event, New Zealand completed the victory off the subsequent ball, with 35 overs to spare.However, here is a plausible variation to the actual event. Suppose New Zealand’s haste in wanting to achieve their target was due to a forecast that rain would arrive some time into their innings. Hence they wanted to complete the win as quickly as possible, even within the 20 overs according to the current interpretation of Rule 12.4.2 (ii). Suppose now that rain began to fall significantly around the start of the 15th over. Being conscious of the 20-over rule and that they might be denied victory, imagine Devine trying to hit the winning runs that over but falling off the fifth ball as described. As often happens after a wicket falls, the rain becomes too heavy and so, unfortunately but correctly, the umpires decide play cannot continue. And it soon becomes clear that the prospects of resumption are not good.Why are umpires first made to see if play can resume before the revised targets are looked at?•Getty ImagesAt 143 for 2 in 14.5 overs, New Zealand were 105 runs ahead of the DLS par score of 38. The table of possible targets for this match (not supplied) would show that for the loss of just two overs New Zealand would have already achieved the revised target of 142. With the early closure of Pakistan’s innings there would have been many hours left before the cut-off time to play the 5.1 more overs needed to make a valid match. Under the current protocols everyone would be sitting around for all this time to see if the rain stopped and the ground could be readied for play to resume. Then, and only then, would the umpires have assessed the time lost and the reduced the number of overs for the New Zealand innings. And this could have been as few as 5.1 overs and so only about 20 minutes before the cut-off time. Only then would it have been announced that the revised target had already been achieved and that New Zealand would have won without any further play required.This static process is wrong and it could be very embarrassing for the game’s administrators. If play couldn’t restart earlier, there would be no avoiding having to wait until overs started to be lost, but after that point we can easily see that once just two overs had been lost there would be no more cricket at all. That could mean everyone waiting around for up to two more hours unnecessarily. Surely the game would be better for viewing the revised target dynamically and declaring New Zealand the winners as soon as just two overs had been lost instead of having to wait those hours to see if play could have resumed before the cut-off time? And this could be done whether or not conditions were fit for play.If play could have resumed, it wouldn’t have needed to, because New Zealand would have already won. The remaining 32 or so overs were not going to be needed and Pakistan would not have been given any more overs to bowl, so why should it matter whether or not conditions were fit to play? Such a situation could be extremely embarrassing and any credibility in the current protocol would be completely lost. Worst of all, a no-result would have been unsatisfactory and unfair on New Zealand.The obviously fair and logical outcome we advocate could only be obtained if the current protocol were interpreted such that the target revision process was a dynamic one based on the table of possible targets. In other words, when overs start to be lost, an imaginary hourglass, calibrated with the figures from the table, is upturned. As the sands run out, the reducing revised target is shown at the level of sand remaining. If it reaches the “already achieved” point before the sands of time have all run out, then the team batting second are the winners. In our example New Zealand would have been declared the winners after two lost overs and no one would have had to hang around waiting to see if the umpires decided if play could resume.Let’s return to the actual Australia-Bangladesh game, which unfolded in a similar way to the above scenario, although not quite so emphatically.The dynamic approach to the target revision process means that as overs are being lost the target is coming down. We can lose a maximum of 30 overs, but you can see that when only 28 have been lost, with six more overs of play possible, two more than the minimum of four to make up the 20, Australia have enough runs to have won. They don’t need any of those six more overs. So why does it matter whether or not play is possible in those six overs? Australia should be declared the winners.The current process obscures this by only looking at the target when play is possible. Since the umpires decided that play could not be resumed for those four more overs a no result was declared – and what we see as an injustice to Australia was enacted. In practical terms the umpires may well wish to abandon a match well before the cut-off time. But if the team batting second have achieved a revised target the cut-off time, as was the case with Australia, then they should be declared the winners.Another near example occurred in the Big Bash League, in which the minimum overs per side is five but the logic of teams winning before the minimum overs have been bowled to both sides is identical.The example took place in a match in December 2012 between Perth Scorchers and Melbourne Stars. Scorchers batted first and were all out for 69 in 15.2 overs. Stars started their reply and reached 29 without loss in two overs when rain interrupted. It stopped in time for the umpires to allocate a five-over innings to Stars – that is, three more overs. Then, and only then it seems, was the target calculated using the D-L software in use at the time to reveal… a target of 20. In other words, they had already achieved this revised target and so the game was over before a restart, Stars having won. Such a situation was unfamiliar to officials, and absurdly, the players came out and one unnecessary ball was bowled before everyone trooped off.It would appear then that the table of possible targets, as provided below, hadn’t been reviewed during the stoppage, otherwise the situation would have been more apparent.This is what we believe should have happened. It is clear that after 13 lost overs, two fewer than the maximum of 15 after which a no-result is announced, Melbourne, on 29 for 0, had already achieved a revised target of 28, and so there was no need to resume. The result could have been declared earlier. But, as importantly, if the rain had not stopped, Melbourne would still have achieved their revised target time had run out and so would have been the winners, whatever the weather situation, with five, not three, more overs left.If this dynamic interpretation were recognised and implemented then it would have the additional benefit of avoiding tactics that, while understandable, are liable to bring the game into disrepute. We mentioned Smith’s defensive batting to try to speed up the completion of the 20 overs in the Champions Trophy match. If our suggestion were adopted, and understood, teams would realise in this situation that the tactic is to get as far ahead of par as possible (recognising that losing wickets raises the par score) if the match is likely to be terminated before 20 overs have been bowled. Isn’t this what spectators would prefer to see rather than the defensive tactics Smith observed were appropriate for the current protocol? In addition, under the current protocol, it would have been to Bangladesh’s advantage to deliberately bowl wides so as to not complete the 20 overs and allow the rain to stop the match.We think rules that support negative tactics need questioning. Our interpretation would make such tactics unnecessary.The main reason quoted by authorities in the past for not supporting our dynamic view is that only Team 2 can win this way, and so it is unfair to Team 1. They argue that in cases where Team 2 are facing almost certain defeat – for example, at 100 for 9 in 19 overs chasing a target of 300 – then there is no equivalent way to give Team 1 the victory that the weather might well be denying them without bowling at least one more over. We accept this point but don’t see why it should disqualify Team 2 from winning within the 20 overs, for which we have shown such compelling logic.We argue that this is just one further point of difference between batting first and second due to cricket’s asymmetrical playing structure, and it is something, along with all the other inequalities between batting first or second, that captains might take into account in making their decision whether to bat or field on winning the toss.We stress again that we are not proposing another rule, but a de facto dynamic interpretation of the existing rule in that the team batting second should be declared winners although they have received fewer than 20 overs if they have already achieved a revised target for the loss of more than 30 overs. Put simply, having already achieved such a revised target it does not matter whether or not play is possible in those unneeded overs. The batting team don’t need them and the fielding team are not going to get them. Consequently, whether the umpires declare conditions are, or are not, playable is irrelevant.In summary the scenario we are trying to allow for occurs in these specific but not unusual circumstances.* Team 1’s total is below/well below average for the number of overs per side
* Team 2 make a rapid start and are well ahead of the par score (by whatever mechanism this might be derived – it’s not specific to DLS)
* Play is interrupted before completion of the minimum overs to make a matchCurrent protocols instruct umpires first to decide whether play can resume and then work out how many overs should be lost whereupon the revised target is computed. We believe the revised target should be continuously under review and if Team 2 have achieved a revised target time has elapsed for the loss of more than 30 overs in ODIs then Team 2 can be declared the winners no matter that it might still be raining and they haven’t received the minimum of 20 overs. If those remaining overs are not needed why it should matter whether play could take place in them? It doesn’t.

Statistical highlights of Sri Lanka’s third-innings collapse in Dubai against Pakistan

Bharath Seervi09-Oct-2017The Sri Lanka batsmen put in contrasting performances in both innings in their first ever day-night Test in Dubai. After putting up 482 runs in 159.2 overs in the first innings, they were bundled for just 96 in 26 overs in the second innings. This was only the sixth instance in Tests when a team was bowled out for under 100 after posting a 400-plus total in their first innings. Sri Lanka were involved in the previous instance as well, with scores of 400 and 82 against England in Cardiff in 2011. No other team has done this after 2000.The difference in Sri Lanka’s totals was 386 runs, which is their highest ever difference in totals of two innings in a Test. Their previous highest was 383 against Australia in Colombo (SSC) in 1992. It was also the first instance of any team having a difference of over 350 runs in their totals in a Test against Pakistan. Sri Lanka had a lead of 220 in the first innings. Their second-innings total of 96 is the lowest for any team after gaining a first-innings lead of over 100 runs. The previous lowest was South Africa’s 99 against Australia in Durban in 1950 after having a lead of 236.ESPNcricinfo LtdSri Lanka’s second innings lasted just 26 overs. Only three times have they had a shorter innings when they have been bowled out. The longest Sri Lanka went without losing a wicket in the second innings was six overs, for the second wicket. They had only three partnerships in double-digit figures and the highest was 35, for the eighth wicket between Kusal Mendis and Rangana Herath. In the first innings, they had five fifty-plus stands for their first six wickets.

Three of Sri Lanka’s four shortest Test innings have come this decade. No other team has been bowled out within 30 overs in this decade more than twice. They were bowled out in 24.2 overs at the MCG in 2012 and 24.4 overs in Cardiff in 2011. Australia, New Zealand and Pakistan have been bowled out twice within 30 overs in this decade.Despite their collapse, Sri Lanka set Pakistan 317 to level the series. The highest successful chase in the UAE is 302 by Pakistan against Sri Lanka in Sharjah in 2013-14, while the highest in Dubai is only 137. If Sri Lanka win the Dubai Test, they would become the only side in the last 100 years to win a Test after being bowled out for less than 100 in the third innings. Overall, there have been three such instances, the last of which was in 1902.

But there was still the feeling he bowled a little too short, especially with the first new ball when Trent Boult and Tim Southee had pitched theirs up with devastating effect

Andrew McGlashan in Christchurch31-Mar-2018A lot can change in a week. Just ask David Warner, Steven Smith, Cameron Bancroft and Darren Lehmann. In a less dramatic way, things have changed for Stuart Broad. Or actually, in a sense, they haven’t.In the build-up to the Auckland Test there was a strong indication that he would lose the new ball role he has held, largely without interruption, since 2013. Then England were bowled out for 58 and there was no time to try something new. Broad took the new ball alongside James Anderson.’Felt in the best rhythm I have for a couple of years’

Stuart Broad said his second-day performance in Christchurch was as well as he had bowled since his 6 for 17 against South Africa in Johannesburg more than two years ago. Broad took 4 for 38, moving ahead of Curtly Ambrose in the all-time list, to give England the advantage having spent a lot of time working on his action before this series.
“I’ve a had a couple of four-fors since then, but don’t think I’ve created as many plays and misses and chances. Today, I hit length hard, I was snapping into it. That gives me a lot of confidence and it proves, at the most basic form, that a bit of a hard work really pays off.
“I felt in the best rhythm I have for a couple of years. I was rubbish in Australia, to be honest. It was the lack of bounce I was getting because of my wrist. Everything about my bowling today, I felt in full control. The ball was bouncing through, it had pace, it was nipping. It’s quite an exciting place to be. When you see improvements over a short period of time it gives you a lot of energy.”

His 400th Test wicket, when Tom Latham clipped to midwicket, was one of the more subdued landmark moments you could see but there were small signs that the work he had put in during the alone hours in the Trent Bridge indoor school were paying off. There was a little bit more zip and bounce than in Australia and he was better aligned to the right-handers.But there was still the feeling he bowled a little too short, especially with the first new ball when Trent Boult and Tim Southee had pitched theirs up with devastating effect. The length of England’s new-ball bowlers has often been a gripe and was never more evident than the first afternoon of the Adelaide Ashes Test when Joe Root had put Australia in and watched his senior duo waste conditions.Two days before the second Test in Christchurch, Root had a long meeting with his bowlers which ran well past the end of an already lengthy training session. There have been a lot of meetings in the last few days. What was said will probably remain behind closed doors, but it would be a surprise if pitching the ball up had not been on the agenda.If it wasn’t, and the second morning in Christchurch was just Anderson and Broad thinking on their feet, then you would have to wonder why they couldn’t have done it before.The effect of pushing the ball full was almost instant and for Broad made for his most impressive spell since the start of the Ashes. He drew Latham onto the front foot, finding the outside edge as the opener looked to drive, then pushed one out a touch wider to Ross Taylor who couldn’t resist a flat-footed flash which sent a catch to Alastair Cook at first slip. The scalp of Taylor will have been especially satisfying as it continued a hold Broad has had over him throughout their contests together. This was the 10th time he had dismissed Taylor in 14 Tests.A full length also soon defeated Henry Nicholls, the ball nipping past the inside edge to take the back pad. CricViz analysis during Broad’s first spell showed at one point he was pitching 37% of his deliveries in a full-length area compared to 30% normally – the difference in length was calculated at 30cm.Bowlers have a natural length and it can be difficult to adjust at the drop of a hat, but when Broad gains the success he did pitching it up. it is a wonder why it hasn’t been his default. When Broad went through a previous struggle in 2011 it came during a time when he was given the ‘enforcer’ tag which led him to bowling too short. After a lean series against Sri Lanka that summer, he then pitched the ball up against India and took 25 wickets in four Tests at 13.84.”To go away and play for Notts and get a five-for pitching the ball up a week before the Test gave me a lot of confidence,” he said at the time. “That was how I wanted to bowl in this series but then for it to happen straight away at Lord’s, to pick up four wickets and could have potentially had more, that length showed me the way to go.”This time, the problems, Broad believed, had been caused by bowling so much round the wicket to the left handers. Leading into this series, having worked hard to make small corrections, Broad spoke about having plenty of legs in him at Test level. “I’m in a place now where I feel like I can do quite a bit of damage as a bowler again,” he said. Whether the new-ball talk was a ploy to get the competitive juices flowing or not, it may now be a little while before the Anderson-Broad partnership is broken.The new-ball burst didn’t last long enough to be classed as a return to the streaks that made him such a devastating bowler up until early 2016, but there were signs that he still has some more in him. However, late in the day, with England having endured a 142-run partnership between BJ Watling and Colin de Grandhomme, Broad returned and struck with his second ball. How? Yes, it was a full delivery that got the batsman driving. Saturday’s performance wasn’t a case of teaching an old(ish, by fast bowling standards) dog new tricks, but reminding him of the ones that make him most effective.

Having been so forthright about insisting they play hard but fair, Australia have now been shown up as disingenuous, and have horns on their heads where South Africa have halos

Firdose Moonda in Cape Town24-Mar-20183:30

Voges: Australia’s reputation comes in question now

South Africa will be satisfied. Not just with their position on the field – they are 294 runs ahead of Australia with AB de Villiers undefeated on 51 – but with their standing off it. They are back on the moral high ground.Australia have admitted to ball-tampering, the same offence Faf du Plessis was found guilty of when South Africa toured Australia in late 2016, the same offence some sections of the press used to label du Plessis a cheat. Now the shoe is on the other foot.By the time Cameron Bancroft and Steven Smith were ready to front up, South Africa had already left the ground. Their parting comments on day three came from the innocence of Aiden Markram, who described the whirlwind of events in this series as both “crazy” and “cool”.He may not have felt the same way had the reverse swing become more rampant and Australia’s attack got more wickets. For now, it appears that Bancroft’s actions of using sticky yellow tape to try and secure rough granules of sand to try and scuff up the ball did not have much effect. The umpires did not see a need to change the ball. While some South Africa batsmen survived, others thrived to stretch the lead towards 300.It’s crazy that Australia resorted to such a tactic. Crazier because they have been so forthright about insisting they play hard but fair and have now been shown up as disingenuous. Australia do play hard but in this case they were also willing to play unfair and all that will do is make South Africa feel that their chances of beating Australia in a home series for the first time since readmission have never been higher.Australia were panicking as South Africa’s lead grew. They knew that if this match was lost, the series could not be won and they wanted victory at all costs. That much has been obvious since they arrived in South Africa.Australia have tried everything from ambush marketing tactics to have the stump microphones turned down, presumably so they can hurl abuse at South Africa’s players, to admitting they would try to provoke Kagiso Rabada, who was on the cusp of being suspended, into committing another offense. However, they have not been entirely successful. The stump mics are still up and the verbals are still being heard. Rabada has had his ban overturned and though he is playing in the Newlands Test, he is one demerit point away from a ban. But still, South Africa are in control in the third Test, leaving Australia with no choice but to resort to unsavoury tactics that have left horns on their heads and halos over South Africa’s.Remember that it was David Warner who had accused de Villiers of using the wicketkeeping gloves to tamper with the ball when Australia were in South Africa four years ago and was fined 15% of his match fee as a result. Later in the series, Faf du Plessis, who picked up the ball while batting to pass it back to the fielders, said the Australian fielders reacted like a “pack of wild dogs”. And Dale Steyn and Michael Clarke were involved in an incident which Steyn said six months later he had not forgiven Clarke for.Though it was never put on the record, the general understanding is that Clarke had called Steyn a cheat. Then, in 2016, the “Mintgate” saga happened and there has been a build-up of pressure between the two teams in the past few series. Something had to give and from the beginning it has seemed that thing would be Australia.Sympathy was with South Africa from the start, when CCTV footage showed Warner needing to be physically restrained from attacking Quinton de Kock in the stairwell in Durban. But since then, Australia have been victims of a campaign directed at their players’ partners, and Warner’s wife Candice in particular, by sections of the South African crowd. Darren Lehmann has, his own transgressions aside, called the shaming of partners “disgraceful,” and put the ball in South Africa’s court to take action against those who seek to cause trouble in the game. That should still happen but the trouble, in another form, is now Australia.Instead of gloat, South Africa will do well to remember that they have not always been innocent, especially when it comes to ball-tampering. They have three convictions in the last five years – du Plessis when he rubbed the ball on his zipper in the UAE in 2013 and then again in 2016 and Vernon Philander for picking the seam in Sri Lanka in 2014 – but they are winning this fight. To continue winning, they have to stay on the right side of the line and watch as Australia have crossed it.

With Aaron Finch seeing them like beach balls, who’d want to be a bowler? So wonders the Twitter world

ESPNcricinfo staff03-Jul-2018

172 off 76 balls from @AaronFinch5 …. Bloody love this era of Cricket ….

— Michael Vaughan (@MichaelVaughan) July 3, 2018

Oh @AaronFinch5 172 off 76… one of the greatest knocks of all time! And selectors wanted you to bat down the order! Always a true opener..
simply #AUSvsZIM

— Dean Jones (@ProfDeano) July 3, 2018

.@AaronFinch5 you freak! Absolutely amazing striking who wants to be a bowler… #AUSvsZIM

— Jessica Jonassen (@JJonassen21) July 3, 2018

@AaronFinch5 wow what a special knock that was well done brother. Beat his own record

— David Warner (@davidwarner31) July 3, 2018

Wohhh I’m a bit behind, but I just checked the cricket score @AaronFinch5 that’s crazy, seeing them like beach balls #AUSvZIM #bosh #flattrack

— Megan Schutt (@megan_schutt) July 3, 2018

172 off 76 deliveries. @AaronFinch5, what did you eat last night? #ZIMvAUS

— R P Singh (@rpsingh) July 3, 2018

Incredible @AaronFinch5 #ZIMvAUS

— Pat Cummins (@patcummins30) July 3, 2018

Aaron Finch, what exceptional hitting. 172 in a T20 innings , beating his own world record. Simply Wow #ZIMvAUS

— Mohammad Kaif (@MohammadKaif) July 3, 2018

An India side billed as one of England’s toughest challenges of recent times is facing the prospect of being 2-0 down

Andrew Miller at Lord's11-Aug-2018Up until the moment that Jonny Bairstow and Chris Woakes came together in the afternoon session, to batter India out of the Test and potentially the series, it had looked like being another day in which England’s batsmen would end up doing just enough.When Woakes replaced Jos Buttler at 131 for 5 in the 32nd over, England were on course for just enough runs to keep their team in the ascendancy, having held onto just enough slip catches to keep their hard-toiling bowlers from throttling them.There was probably going to be just enough play on what promises to be a dank and miserable Sunday to cement their dominance. And if, come Monday, England found themselves 2-0 up with three Tests to come, there would just about be enough cricket left in the series for India to claw their way back into contention.As a recipe for long-term success, it left rather a lot to be desired. As a means to retain the drama in what is threatening to turn into a deeply flawed series, England’s lingering air of flakiness was looking like the best leveller available. On the evidence of these past few days at Lord’s, their opponents seemed to have left their competitive spirit on the red-eye rattler from Birmingham to Marylebone.But then Bairstow and Woakes starting climbing into their day’s work – showing, surely not for the last time in the Trevor Bayliss era, that the depth of England’s batting options can often be a pretty decent proxy for the quality of some of those options. The ball lost its hardness, India’s under-stocked seam department ran out of puff, and R Ashwin was left to graze in the outfield until there was no control left to exert – by which stage Kuldeep Yadav (the wrong Yadav in the circumstances) had provided a shadow of his menace from the one-dayers, when the onus had been on England to attack his variations rather than sit and wait for the bad ball.And thus, in the space of two hours either side of tea, the contest slipped as quickly down the gurgler for India as those second-afternoon floodplains on Lord’s super-absorbent outfield.”There wasn’t a huge amount of turn there, so when the spinners were on we felt we’d done our job,” said Woakes, England’s centurion and Lord of Lord’s, who became only the fifth player in history to etch himself a place on all three of the dressing-room honours boards. “I wasn’t looking too much at the scoreboard in terms of what lead we needed. But the ball got a little bit softer, and it made it a little bit easier.”Hardik Pandya celebrates Ollie Pope’s dismissal•Getty ImagesThat is not to say, however, that England were simply gifted the upper hand (or any balance of power that remained to be claimed after their first-innings bowling efforts). In the first instance, the momentum was seized by Bairstow, who produced a pocket battleship of an innings, studded with the sort of piercing drives through the covers with which he has kickstarted so many ODI onslaughts in recent times.He arrived to a scene of familiar false dawns from England’s top order – three scores between 11 and 28, which soon became four when Joe Root was pinned on the shin for 19 by a Mohammed Shami nipbacker that kept a touch low. For the Alpha and Omega of England’s batting, Alastair Cook and Ollie Pope, scores of 21 and 28 in their 158th and first Tests respectively said as much or as little about their respective games as you’d care to read into them – Cook looked composed until, once again, he attracted the sort of jaffa that his former self would surely have survived, while Pope’s wristy intent telegraphed both raw and powerful talent, as well as the inevitable naivety that a man who had never previously come to the crease in the first ten overs of a first-class fixture was bound to display.But that was the context of the contest when, in the 39th over, Bairstow nudged Ashwin’s first delivery of the match off his hip and become the first player in either team to reach 30. And when, two overs later, he dumped Ashwin back over his head for a one-bounce four, he surpassed Hardik Pandya’s 31, in the second innings at Edgbaston, which remains the highest score in the series by any Indian batsman who is not Virat Kohli.These are not the parameters by which you are usually judged when squaring up to the world’s No.1 Test team. Thereafter, England capitalised on a baffling combination of Indian team selection and tactical deployment, to power themselves in a position from which their opponents have no realistic hope of salvation other than the elements – and given the aforementioned resilience of that outfield, the prospect of more cloud cover on Sunday and Monday is actually likelier to contribute to their downfall.”If there is a little bit of rain around tomorrow, that might play into our hands,” Woakes said. “A bit overcast, bit of moisture around, we hope it might move around like it did [on Friday]. I’m sure it won’t quite do that – but with a significant lead, whenever we do come to bowl, we hope we can put the Indian batsmen under pressure.”When, at the start of the summer, word filtered out that Kohli was sizing up a month at Surrey, with the likes of Ishant Sharma and Cheteshwar Pujara already bedding into county stints of their own, it seemed a given that India would provide the sternest test yet of England’s four-year unbeaten record in home Test series – a record that has been threatened by more than a few less vaunted opponents in recent years. The anticipated challenge came to pass in fleetingly glorious fashion at Edgbaston, but it’s gone the same way as the heatwave in these past few days.

Set alongside the performances of David Willey and Moeen Ali, this was a highly encouraging fightback from England

George Dobell at Lord's14-Jul-20181:01

Bopara: Moeen, Rashid built pressure on India

A year to the day until the World Cup final will be played on this very ground, England gained a morale-boosting victory that ensured they will end this series as the No. 1 rated side in ODI cricket.But this was a performance that holds significance well beyond such rankings or even the result. It showed that England had learned lessons quickly and how they could, on their day, defeat this daunting-looking India side who arguably set the bar in this format of the game. It was, from an England perspective, a hugely encouraging day.Perhaps the most pleasing aspect was the manner in which Joe Root played. It wasn’t so much he demonstrated a return to form – it was only six ODI innings since his last half-century and nine since his last century, after all – but that he showed his value playing in exactly the same way he has played throughout the rest of his career.So instead of trying to blast his way to success, or attempting to innovate with strokes outside his normal repertoire, he simply played the game situation. He rotated the strike, he deflected and nudged and he ran hard. Only 7.75 percent of his strokes brought a boundary – a lower percentage than any of his last nine ODI hundreds – but, with nobody else passing 53, he showed the value of including a batsman who could rebuild an innings and retain their composure.Of significance, perhaps, for the Test series and beyond, was that he seemed to read Kuldeep Yadav. Before this match, Kuldeep had dismissed him with two of the three deliveries he had bowled to him in international cricket but here Root hit him for four boundaries including a couple of sweetly-timed cover drives and a late cut from the quicker ball. There will, no doubt, be surfaces that offer Kuldeep more but Root – and England – will take great confidence from this.”Ultimately you have got to trust your game and your technique,” Root said afterwards. “You have got to make sure that you stay strong and trust the stuff you have been doing well for such a long period of time. It was about spending some time out there and trusting the way I play spin. I haven’t faced much of his type of bowling but having a few overs under my belt gave me quite a lot of confidence.”It is faintly absurd that Root’s selection was any sort of discussion point anyway. He averages in excess of 50 in ODI cricket and, in this innings, drew level with Marcus Trescothick as the scorer of most ODI centuries for England. Both now have 12, but Root averages 13 more and has a slightly higher strike-rate. His place, in this format at least, shouldn’t be in much doubt.It was a good day for Eoin Morgan, too. Not only did he score a half-century, but his decision to bat first upon winning the toss – which seemed oddly negative at the time, hinting at a fear of India’s spinners – was fully vindicated.ESPNcricinfo LtdIt wasn’t so much that the pitch turned as the day wore on – though there was some assistance – as much as it slowed and rendered timing the ball increasingly difficult. Understanding this – the benefit, perhaps, of playing on his home ground – Morgan didn’t introduce his spinners until the 19th over; the latest they have been introduced in ODIs since the Champions Trophy. India managed just one boundary between the 15th and 34th overs and, in the last half-hour, Lord’s witnessed the unusual occurrence of a crowd barracking MS Dhoni for slow scoring.There were other encouraging performances for England. David Willey followed his maiden ODI half-century – a 30-ball effort that provided vital impetus to England’s innings – with a decent new-ball spell that showed he could maintain a semblance of control even without any swing. Jos Buttler, meanwhile, clung on to a couple of outstanding catches behind the stumps, Liam Plunkett ended with four wickets as reward for his well-controlled cutters, Adil Rashid with two for his well-controlled leg-spin and Moeen Ali didn’t concede a boundary for his first eight overs and claimed the memorable wicket of Virat Kohli. For the spinners to claim 3 for 80 in 20 overs against India was outstanding but, really, wherever you looked, England players were enjoying a fine day.There are, as ever, caveats. It is almost unthinkable that Bhuvneshwar Kumar and Jasprit Bumrah – both of whom are currently absent due to injury – would have conceded so many runs at the death (England scored 94 from the final 10 overs, largely through Willey) and, had India conceded perhaps 25 fewer, there would have been far less pressure on them in their run chase.The toss, too, probably proved to be disproportionately important.But there was a lesson here. And that was, for all their batting firepower, India can be put under pressure if the score is challenging enough. They remain, no doubt, the team to beat in this format of the game. But England will take confidence and knowledge from this victory. The series decider – at Headingley on Tuesday – could be a cracker.