Say Hello to the No.1 Test team in the World

[rocky_g]

This thread reminds me about something I read on FML earlier today. Had to do with a chimpanzee chucking his poop around.

I'll address a few points generally, here:

1. I shudder bringing up the Sydney 2008 test match in public. The very fact that that game has so much bad rep now, almost 2 years after it happened, shows that it was not just another umpiring controversy. People are forgetting that there was the racist taunting and all these other undertones in that game, which gave it such a bad name. If one wishes to compare that Test match to the series in 2001, I will bring up a point that I brought up back when Sydney 2008 happened. Umpiring mistakes are a part and parcel of the game of cricket--there's no changing that. As a cricket viewer, I understand this. I do not complain when reasonable mistakes happen. LBW's are hard to judge. While it is frustrating to see LBW's go against the team I am supporting, I understand the number of elements at play. I have much less sympathy for umpires who continually miss nicks, though. Loud nicks that could be heard at the ground. This does not mean that the umpiring team had a bias--it just shows that they were not performing at their best. Steve Bucknor was one of the greatest umpires in international cricket for a long time. However, he should have called it quits a long time before he did. Umpiring is a complicated job and I believe he was not up to task. All that said, the issue is dead and buried so there is no point bringing it up over and over again. The 2001 series happened before ICC instantiated the elite panel and all that. It is arguable (and indeed heavily suggested) that domestic umpires around the world were quite partial. To discount that series win, which took place at a time when Test cricket was not high profile and the ICC was run more like a hobbyist organization than a corporation to the new rules, etc. in 2008 is inaccurate, at best.

2. The South Africa controversy had to do with Mike Denness. People seem to have forgotten what happened in the current climate where everyone loves to take a stab at Indian cricket. To recap, after the 2nd Test match, Mike Denness imposed the following rulings:

(a) Sachin Tendulkar - 1 Test match ban for ball tampering
(b) Virender Sehwag - 1 Test match ban for "excesive appealing"
(c) Sourav Ganguly - 1 Test match ban and 2 ODI ban for "inability to control players"
(d) Harbhajan Singh - 1 Test match ban for excessive appealing
(e) Shiv Sunder Das (opener and short leg fielder) - 1 Test match ban for excessive appealing
(f) Deep Dasgupta (wicket-keeper) - 1 Test match ban for excessive appealing

With one foul swoop, Denness actually suspended more than half of our players, including our wicket keeper, captain, opener and star batsman. Not only that, but had all the bans been approved and served, it would send a really poor message to cricketers around the world. It would have taken a lot of the passion and intensity out of the game. I watched that game live and the appealing was not out of the ordinary for a team whose bowling strength lay in spin (Ganguly was our third seamer!). IIRC, the ICC have since rectified the "excessive appealing" clause to be more concrete and not as "open" to personal interpretation.

Excellent post. Especially the bolded part.

 

[mdoggie]

This thread reminds me about something I read on FML earlier today. Had to do with a chimpanzee chucking his poop around.

I'll address a few points generally, here:

2. The South Africa controversy had to do with Mike Denness. People seem to have forgotten what happened in the current climate where everyone loves to take a stab at Indian cricket. To recap, after the 2nd Test match, Mike Denness imposed the following rulings:

(a) Sachin Tendulkar - 1 Test match ban for ball tampering
(b) Virender Sehwag - 1 Test match ban for "excesive appealing"
(c) Sourav Ganguly - 1 Test match ban and 2 ODI ban for "inability to control players"
(d) Harbhajan Singh - 1 Test match ban for excessive appealing
(e) Shiv Sunder Das (opener and short leg fielder) - 1 Test match ban for excessive appealing
(f) Deep Dasgupta (wicket-keeper) - 1 Test match ban for excessive appealing

With one foul swoop, Denness actually suspended more than half of our players, including our wicket keeper, captain, opener and star batsman. Not only that, but had all the bans been approved and served, it would send a really poor message to cricketers around the world. It would have taken a lot of the passion and intensity out of the game. I watched that game live and the appealing was not out of the ordinary for a team whose bowling strength lay in spin (Ganguly was our third seamer!). IIRC, the ICC have since rectified the "excessive appealing" clause to be more concrete and not as "open" to personal interpretation.

Plenty teams have been treated unfairly but most teams just take the stick or go to the higher ups. In rugby for just wearing armbands for the unfair suspension of a player, their was talk about banning South Africa from the game. That was the law at the time and by not listening to the umpires decision, the Indian team set the standard for protesting if you don't like a decision.You just get on with the game and later go to the ICC for a higher ruling. It showed an incredible lack of professionalism from all sides. What kind of message did the ICC send when they did nothing to Indias boycott, that if you don't like what's going on, strike.

Most laws in cricket are open to personal interpretation show India set a standard that they, themselves followed when they threatened to boycott the Aussie test.

 

[braguvaran]

Whoa! Never saw SA fans create these types of overhyped threads when they became No 1 the hard way!(beating Aus in Aus). Cant really imagine the ultra hype reaction if this becomes more than temporary!

And TBH india wont be the no 1 side too long really, they may fall to 5 or something pretty soon as they dont have a FAST bowler! All they have is medium pacers below 140KMPH :laugh

 

[sohum]

Plenty teams have been treated unfairly but most teams just take the stick or go to the higher ups. In rugby for just wearing armbands for the unfair suspension of a player, their was talk about banning South Africa from the game. That was the law at the time and by not listening to the umpires decision, the Indian team set the standard for protesting if you don't like a decision.You just get on with the game and later go to the ICC for a higher ruling. It showed an incredible lack of professionalism from all sides. What kind of message did the ICC send when they did nothing to Indias boycott, that if you don't like what's going on, strike.

First of all, it wasn't the umpire's decision, it was Mike Denness' decision. He was the match referee. There isn't substantial evidence that the umpires even complained to him. Secondly, look at the situation before making statements that apply to a generalized situation. If all the bans were served, India would have to play the next test without half their regular team. Hell, they didn't even have that many players in the touring squad!

What effect would it have on the cricket itself? You would see players stifling appeals, afraid that the hand of a guy whose not even on the field striking them. There would be no excitement left, as everyone would be afraid that appealing when they aren't a hundred percent certain would lead to a ban.

Almost everyone at the time of that event, including the South African cricket board, supported the Indian cricket board's decision to contest Denness' rulings. Of course, this point is conveniently forgotten. This was even before the time BCCI gained any political clout--it was in the same year that Jagmohan Dalmiya gained the office of BCCI president. If you know anything about BCCI history, you will no doubt know that it is Dalmiya who almost single-handedly morphed the BCCI into the world's richest cricket board. So the whole "India with their money made the ICC stoop" argument is invalid.

In conclusion, two points nullify your argument about the BCCI making a poor political impression in that situation: (1) they were supported by the UCBSA and (2) the BCCI did not have any of the political or financial clout since Dalmiya had just taken over. It is also worth remembering that Sehwag did indeed serve his one-match ban. This was also Sehwag's first series which shows the high-handedness with which Denness treated an exciting newcomer to the game. Surely a better idea would have been to have a stern talk with the youngster and impose a fine.

Most laws in cricket are open to personal interpretation show India set a standard that they, themselves followed when they threatened to boycott the Aussie test.

Nice try. You are talking about two completely different situations. One was a situation where the match referee made a series of decisions that was agreed as being poor by almost everyone who commented on it. The second is a situation where an on-field umpire who had previous beef with the BCCI committed a series of mistakes that led to a major kerfuffle. They have nothing to do with each other and the only reason you are bringing it up is because you think that the BCCI is an inherently evil organization.

If the BCCI really set a standard, how come Pakistan ended up forfeiting the match when Hair called them out for ball tampering? India had about as much political clout in 2001 as Pakistan had during that incident. Surely if a standard had been set, the ICC would have bent to the whims of the PCB.

 

[TumTum]

Wait didn't it say somewhere that India must win this series 2-0 to be #1?

Because the ICC ratings haven't been updated yet...

 

[drainpipe32]

Yeah, they have to win the next game to stay as No. 1. A draw will take it to

1)South Africa
2)India
3)Sri Lanka
4)Australia

TBH I don't like the test match rankings system

 

[TumTum]

TBH I don't like the test match rankings system

Australia dropped from 1 to 4 after losing the 5th Ashes Test, nuff said.

 

[mdoggie]

First of all, it wasn't the umpire's decision, it was Mike Denness' decision. He was the match referee. There isn't substantial evidence that the umpires even complained to him. Secondly, look at the situation before making statements that apply to a generalized situation. If all the bans were served, India would have to play the next test without half their regular team. Hell, they didn't even have that many players in the touring squad!

What effect would it have on the cricket itself? You would see players stifling appeals, afraid that the hand of a guy whose not even on the field striking them. There would be no excitement left, as everyone would be afraid that appealing when they aren't a hundred percent certain would lead to a ban.

Almost everyone at the time of that event, including the South African cricket board, supported the Indian cricket board's decision to contest Denness' rulings. Of course, this point is conveniently forgotten. This was even before the time BCCI gained any political clout--it was in the same year that Jagmohan Dalmiya gained the office of BCCI president. If you know anything about BCCI history, you will no doubt know that it is Dalmiya who almost single-handedly morphed the BCCI into the world's richest cricket board. So the whole "India with their money made the ICC stoop" argument is invalid.

In conclusion, two points nullify your argument about the BCCI making a poor political impression in that situation: (1) they were supported by the UCBSA and (2) the BCCI did not have any of the political or financial clout since Dalmiya had just taken over. It is also worth remembering that Sehwag did indeed serve his one-match ban. This was also Sehwag's first series which shows the high-handedness with which Denness treated an exciting newcomer to the game. Surely a better idea would have been to have a stern talk with the youngster and impose a fine.


Nice try. You are talking about two completely different situations. One was a situation where the match referee made a series of decisions that was agreed as being poor by almost everyone who commented on it. The second is a situation where an on-field umpire who had previous beef with the BCCI committed a series of mistakes that led to a major kerfuffle. They have nothing to do with each other and the only reason you are bringing it up is because you think that the BCCI is an inherently evil organization.

If the BCCI really set a standard, how come Pakistan ended up forfeiting the match when Hair called them out for ball tampering? India had about as much political clout in 2001 as Pakistan had during that incident. Surely if a standard had been set, the ICC would have bent to the whims of the PCB.

There is a big defference between appealing excessivaly as Mike felt India were doing and appealing when there is a chance for a wicket. He felt that they were appealing to the level that they didn't really think it was a chance of a wicket. Players would know that there is a limit to how much appealing you can do when there is an increadibly unlikely chance of it being a wicket but players would still appealing for anything which they thought might be a wicket.

I never said they shouldn't have contested the decision. They should not have turned the match into a first class game. The should have gone through legal routes through the ICC which would have most likely have brought the matter to a far more stable conclusion. But what the BCCI did was completely unproffesional, rather than taking a diplomatic route, they decided to protest against it and risk bringing the game into disrepute.

They are related because both times a team felt that the officials ruling was wrong and threatened to bring the game into disrepute. Both times India went against the official ruling and caused controversy. Both times they believed that they were unfairly treated but rather than try and sort it out behind close doors in a proffesional manner, they resorted to threats. I have nothing against the BCCI, they are just a nother politically driven sporting union like everyone in South Africa. The UCB on the other hand is a useless corrupt orginazation.

The PCB was already in decline as a force in cricket. Political problems had weaken the PCB's effect in the political elements of cricket. If it had been another major union like ECB or CA or UCB then I doubt they would have being punished. But would Inzamam have boycotted the game if India had being punished in anyway for their actions, unlikely.

Anyway this is getting quite of topic.

 

[aditya123]

Australia dropped from 1 to 4 after losing the 5th Ashes Test, nuff said.

Not just the Ashes. They lost the series to India 2-0 and also to SA in Australia 2-1 which explains why they dropped 3 places.

 

[mdoggie]

Not just the Ashes. They lost the series to India 2-0 and also to SA in Australia 2-1 which explains why they dropped 3 places.

Didn't they go to the top after they beat South Africa at home?

 

[aditya123]

Didn't they go to the top after they beat South Africa at home?

England were ranked quite low in the rankings and still are (No.5 if i`m not wrong). How the system works is that you lose a lot more points if you lose a series to a low ranked team than say, a No.2 side which is why Australia would have lost a lot more points after the Ashes loss than after their defeat to India or SA.

Quite similar to the ATP rankings in tennis. Its easier to gain ranking points when you are just into the top 100 but as you break into the big league, you are defending a lot more points and it becomes harder to do so. Nothing wrong in it, to be honest. I can`t think of a better system.

 

[sohum]

There is a big defference between appealing excessivaly as Mike felt India were doing and appealing when there is a chance for a wicket. He felt that they were appealing to the level that they didn't really think it was a chance of a wicket. Players would know that there is a limit to how much appealing you can do when there is an increadibly unlikely chance of it being a wicket but players would still appealing for anything which they thought might be a wicket.

Whereas almost everyone else felt that he didn't. You are making some strong assumptions and implying that India were appealing every time the ball was bowled, which was not the case. They were appealing only when there was an actual chance for a wicket.

I never said they shouldn't have contested the decision. They should not have turned the match into a first class game. The should have gone through legal routes through the ICC which would have most likely have brought the matter to a far more stable conclusion. But what the BCCI did was completely unproffesional, rather than taking a diplomatic route, they decided to protest against it and risk bringing the game into disrepute.

In my opinion, Denness brought the game into more disrepute than the BCCI. There have been several articles written on the subject, and one questioning why similarly raucous appeals by the South African players were ignored. Secondly, I contest that the 3rd test match would have been played under normal intensity if the Indian team had accepted Denness' decisions and gone through the legal routes. Do you really think that either team would be comfortable playing cricket normally and going through the normally unthinking process of appealing? That apart, Sehwag would have to be dropped (after scoring a century on debut in the previous match), Tendulkar would have been labelled a cheater and half the Indian team would have to sit out a game in the near future. We have seen from previous ICC appeals that they tend to stand behind their officials no matter how stupid their decision-making has been.

They are related because both times a team felt that the officials ruling was wrong and threatened to bring the game into disrepute. Both times India went against the official ruling and caused controversy. Both times they believed that they were unfairly treated but rather than try and sort it out behind close doors in a proffesional manner, they resorted to threats. I have nothing against the BCCI, they are just a nother politically driven sporting union like everyone in South Africa. The UCB on the other hand is a useless corrupt orginazation.

They are only related insofar as they involved a threatened boycott and the Indian cricket team. Your original post implied that the BCCI "set a standard" in 2001 and then "followed that standard" in 2008, which is absolutely untrue. The BCCI had about as much political clout as any other cricketing body back in those days, whereas in 2008 they definitely had enough of a political presence to flex their muscles.

 

[stefan]

UCBSA supported the BCCI because the BCCI supported them when it came to votes in 1991/1992 to get SA reinstated in international cricket. T

 

[sohum]

UCBSA supported the BCCI because the BCCI supported them when it came to votes in 1991/1992 to get SA reinstated in international cricket. T

I highly doubt that, unless it was the exact same administration during both those incidents, given that it was 10 years before the incident happened. Compare it to the political climate currently: India and South Africa are no longer allies when it comes to politics within the ICC, and it's been fewer years compared to the period you are describing.

 

[Cricketman]

India dropped to number 8 in the ODI rankings after coming to the finals of the 2003 WC. It just shows how inaccurate the system is. But it is what it is.

I agree, the rankings may not be 100%, but you have to agree that India is certainly one of the best teams in the world right now. In my eyes it's a tie between India and SA, I don't see Sri Lanka being as close to being top dog as the rankings indicate.