All posts by csb10.top

It is appropriate that Bangladesh should be hosting the Under-19 World Cup in an Olympic year, because when the dust has settled and the 16 competing nations have gone their separate ways, the benefits to the country’s sporting infrastructure should be every bit as lasting as the memories of the tournament.The fifth U19 World Cup is officially launched tomorrow evening in an opening ceremony at Dhaka’s Bangabandhu National Stadium, before the show gets fully underway on February 15. For Bangladesh, who open their campaign against New Zealand in Dhaka, it is the second part of a hugely important month in their development, with a senior tour of Zimbabwe taking place concurrently.There had never been much doubt that public interest in the World Cup would be huge, but already ticket sales have exceeded demand. All the original 28,000 tickets for the group matches in Bogra sold out well in advance, including 10,000 for the opening fixture between Sri Lanka and Zimbabwe on February 15. Even the less fashionable match-ups have attracted strong support, with 9000 tickets for Zimbabwe’s games against Australia and Canada having been snapped up.”I have been very impressed with the enthusiasm that cricket fans in Bogra have shown for these matches,” said Malcolm Speed, the chief executive of the ICC. “I hope that the feats of these international players will inspire local youngsters to try and follow in their footsteps.” Their chances of following those footsteps will have been significantly enhanced by the creation of Bogra’s District Stadium, one of several Government-funded projects to promote the infrastructure of Bangladeshi cricket.”It is always exciting to return to a country where cricket is the No. 1 sport,” said Ehsan Mani, the president of the ICC, who was in Dhaka last November for the media launch of the event. “I know that there is a lot of interest in the U19 World Cup throughout the country and I look forward to witnessing this with my own eyes.”Mani and Speed will attend the opening ceremony, where the chief guest will be Bangladesh’s Prime Minister Begum Khaleda Zia. All 16 competing nations will attend the show, before flying off to compete in four group stages in different parts of the country. Mani was enthusiastic about what lay in store, saying: “I am sure the opening ceremony will provide a spectacular start to what promises to be an intriguing event.”For England, the tournament provides a chance to emulate the class of 1998, who won the cup in South Africa by beating New Zealand by seven wickets in the final. In the two subsequent tournaments, however, they have managed a solitary victory over Test-playing opposition, but this time round have had the best possible preparation, with access to the new Academy in Loughborough, and a full fortnight in Malaysia to acclimatise to the heat and humidity. They are drawn alongside South Africa, Uganda and Nepal in the Chittagong-based group, and must be a safe bet to progress to the second round.This year’s defending champions, as befits their era of effortless dominance, are Australia, for whom the wicketkeeper Adam Crossthwaite is the only player to have taken part in the 2002 event in New Zealand. On that occasion, he kept wicket in all eight matches, claiming 11 catches – including two in the final – and four stumpings. He also scored 102 runs at an impressive strike-rate of 129.62.Future international cricketers will abound at the event, but there will also be a smattering of current stars. The West Indian fast bowler, Ravi Rampaul, is flying out directly from the senior tour to South Africa, while three of the Bangladeshi squad – Nafis Iqbal, Talha Jubair and Enamul Haque – have also played international cricket.With 54 matches crammed into three weeks, it promises to be a bustling tournament, and one which goes some way towards putting Bangladesh firmly on the international map.

Who really runs the game? Simon Wilde finds out1 Tim Lamb ECB chief executive
Lamb, who retired aged 30 after playing for Oxford University, Middlesex and Northamptonshire, was elected to his present post in 1996 on a manifesto that cricket should be treated as “a business within a game rather than a game within a business”. The mantra caught the mood of the times: during his tenure cricket has globally transformed itself in the name of commerce. It is now the ECB’s financial stability (on a turnover of £67.1m last year, it made a profit of £52.5m) that underpins Lamb’s position. But Lamb, 50, has his detractors. His handling of the Zimbabwe affair polarised opinion and his part in the Theresa Harrild sex discrimination case was another low point. He has kept at arm’s length the Professional Cricketers’ Association, which has unsuccessfully called for 19th county status throughout his reign, and been blamed for over-manning his Lord’s departments. Through it all Lamb has proved an adept survivor.2 David Morgan ECB chairman
Morgan, 65, formerly Glamorgan chairman and a steel businessman, took over from Lord MacLaurin in January. As author of the Morgan Report in 1996, he formulated the creation of the ECB as a limited company with a management board along with first-class and recreational policy-making bodies. More sympathetic to the counties than MacLaurin but endured a tough baptism over the Zimbabwe affair.3 Duncan Fletcher England coach, tour manager and selector
England have given more power to their first foreign coach than to any of his predecessors apart from Ray Illingworth in his brief stint as manager and chief selector. Fletcher has a huge say in selection and dictates when or if England players appear in county matches. Could be more powerful but refuses to get involved in policy outside cricket.4 Michael Vaughan England captain
Players have short-lived careers compared with administrators and can fall prey at any time to career-ending injuries or losses of form. But as long as Vaughan, 28, is captain his power base is sizeable. With the ECB also keen to use his image to market the sport, he has the potential to foster the game to a greater extent than his predecessors.5 Rod Marsh National Academy director and England selector
Marsh, 55, an Australian Test great, heads English cricket’s big project as director of the National Academy. His brief is to build an England side capable of winning the next World Cup and his promotion in May to the Test selection panel enables him to keep that mission on track.6 Mike Soper Chairman of First-Class Forum
As chairman at Surrey, Soper helped turn the club into a sporting and commercial heavyweight. Now deputy chairman of the ECB, and chair of the First-Class Forum, he has a big say in policy. A moderniser, he is ready to make the game more accessible to the public.7 Mark Thompson Chief executive of C4
As chief executive of the only terrestrial channel producing live cricket coverage, Thompson wields increasing influence on the game. C4 – and satellite broadcaster Sky Sports – funded the ECB’s present three-year TV deal worth £147m and in return command a say when England play (10.45am starts) and how often (hence rise in Tests and ODIs).8 David Stewart Surrey chairman
Stewart’s profile is low but he is an influential voice in the ECB’s financial planning. A former senior tax partner at PricewaterhouseCoopers in London, he moved from treasurer at Surrey to chairman when Soper left.9 John Carr Director of cricket operations at ECB
After the Zimbabwe row Carr, 40, was given overall charge of England affairs and guides Fletcher, Vaughan and the players on ECB policies, ethos and objectives. He followed Lamb to Oxford and Middlesex as a player and could be his heir, although there will be mutterings along class lines if he is.10 David Graveney Chairman of selectors
Graveney is the Clapham Junction of English cricket; most things pass through him at some time or other. Through his selectorial work and involvement with the PCA, Graveney, 50, has assembled more contacts in the game than anyone – not always a help when it comes to picking the best 11 cricketers in the country.11 Richard Bevan Chief executive of the PCA
Bevan narrowly edges out Des Wilson, the ECB’S chief marketing adviser. Bevan rose to prominence during the Zimbabwe saga when he filled the power vacuum that existed between the England players and the ECB. Popular with many players who feel he has their interests at heart.Simon Wilde is cricket correspondent of the Sunday TimesThe October 2003 edition of The Wisden Cricketer is on sale at all good newsagents in the UK and Ireland, priced £3.25. Click here to subscribe.

Hampshire host table topping Worcestershire at the Rose Bowl in the final Frizzell Championship match of the season at The Rose Bowl. Play on all 4 days start at the earlier September time of 10:30am.Simon Katich and Chaminda Vaas return for the match. Katich has recovered from his flu, Chaminda Vaas returns after being rested for the match at Taunton.Robin Smith is already ruled out for the remainder of the season, John Francis still suffering from shingles and Alan Mullally is still troubled with an ankle injury, but is expected to play in the National League match against Lancashire on Sunday (12:00 noon start).Hampshire Team: James Adams, Derek Kenway, Simon Katich, John Crawley (captain), Nic Pothas, Dimitri Mascarenhas, Shaun Udal, Chaminda Vaas, Lawrence Prittipaul, Chris Tremlett and James Tomlinson.

Another cornerstone of experience in the New Zealand women’s cricket team, the TelstraClear White Ferns, Nicola Payne has decided to retire from international cricket.Payne made her announcement at her St Albans club prizegiving evening in Christchurch last night.A double-international, having played for the Netherlands for 10 years before qualifying for New Zealand in 2000, she has played 65 One-Day Internationals and in the recent World Series of Women’s Cricket played at New Zealand Cricket’s High Performance Centre (HPC) at Lincoln University she achieved her career highest score of 93 in a memorable performance against India.However, the cost of that innings was a hamstring problem and that was just one of the warnings the 33-year-old had received that the time was right to think about her playing career. She had also had other niggles, including calf muscle problems and they made it harder to try and maintain fitness levels.”I’ve had a good run of 14 years. I had 10 years with the Netherlands after my debut at the 1988 World Cup and then four years with New Zealand.”Why wait until you get dropped?” she asked.Payne said that people tended to forget that the women’s game was still very much amateur and players still worked for 40 hours a week as well as doing their preparation for cricket.”The time contribution is a big thing and cricket is something that you can’t do by halves,” she said.”I felt like the time was right. I’m looking forward to doing some other things instead of training every day.”One of those things will be devoting more time to her coaching of cricket.That will allow her to adopt some of the strategies for herself that she has observed under New Zealand coach Mike Shrimpton.”I’ve always played under Mike and have learnt a lot from him, not only as a player, but as a coach.”It is great the way he can analyse a game and he is always looking at ways to improve performance. He has done a fantastic job,” she said.Payne said New Zealand Cricket’s approach to the women’s game had also been very supportive and the HPC at Lincoln had become something of a home for women’s cricket.”It is a fantastic venue.”As far as women’s cricket is concerned the Bert Sutcliffe Oval at the complex will be a special place because of the winning of the CricInfo Women’s World Cup. Payne wasn’t on the field but was part of the team for the tournament.”I didn’t feel any less involved by not being on the field. It was a really special experience and what we had in that team was special,” she said.Her highest score earlier this year was a personal highlight, even if retirement now meant she could not achieve the goal of scoring a century for New Zealand.The benefit of the World Cup success was still being felt with what could be called a trickle-down effect as players from the New Zealand sides returned to their provinces and clubs to pass on the knowledge they had received. That was important, she said, because it helped give a much better understanding of the game.While New Zealand would always struggle against Australia the quality of players was coming through and she felt support needed to be given to younger batsmen.”It takes longer for batsmen to develop and so long to understand batsmanship, how to build an innings, the need to have patience and determination, even in the one-day game because it was still crucial to a solid performance.”Payne had made her decision because it still offered enough time to get a new opener before the next World Cup in 2005.”There are some great opportunities now for people to put their hands up, but it is important for them to feel they are being backed,” she said.

Rob Smyth assesses the legacy of Nasser Hussain.

So, four years on, Nasser Hussain left England pretty much where he found them – in Birmingham, as an upper mid-table side capable of competing with anyone except Australia. He started with a bang – a spectacular two-and-a-half-day victory over New Zealand after England had been 45 for 7 – and ended with a whimper in a dreary final session today.But that doesn’t tell half the story. Within two months of that New Zealand win England were unofficially the worst team in the world; Hussain himself was roundly booed by the crowd at The Oval. At that stage the extent of England’s ambition was a first-innings lead – they didn’t have one for two years – but bit by bit, kicking and screaming, he dragged them up the ICC Test Championship table.The zenith came early: four series wins in a row in 2000 and 2001. Zimbabwe and a declining West Indies were there for the taking, but to win twice in the subcontinent in one winter was outrageous, an achievement beyond even Australia. England hadn’t played a Test there for eight years, and hadn’t won one for 16. March 17, 2001, when a woozy Graham Thorpe guided England to an unforgettable victory in Colombo, was the undisputed pinnacle.It was in keeping with Hussain’s reign that, while his team were sweeping all before them, he couldn’t buy a run. When England won the Wisden Trophy for the first time in 31 years, on an emotional day at The Oval in 2000, Hussain’s joy was tempered by the fact that he had just bagged a pair; that his highest Test score all summer was 25. He looked exhausted.

He learned to juggle the two eventually, and in the last couple of years Hussain’s calling card was the tone-setting performance in the first innings of a series: 64 against Pakistan in 2001, 85 in India and a tremendous 106 against New Zealand the following winter, 57 and 155 against Sri Lanka and India last summer, and 51 in Australia. Each time the captain setting the agenda, infusing his side with momentum.England had momentum two summers ago alright. Four series wins in a row for the first time since the late-1970s – it would have been five but for a dodgy run and some uncalled no-balls – meant that everything was building to a crescendo ahead of the Ashes. But Hussain went into the series without two of his main conductors: Michael Vaughan – amazing to think that it didn’t seem big a loss then – and Graham Thorpe. Then Hussain’s poppadom fingers let him down in the first Test. By the time he was back at the helm, the Ashes were gone, the dream blown mercilessly apart.It was the end of an era. England’s four-in-a-row side never played together again, but Hussain ushered in a new era as seamlessly as could be expected. With the core of that side – Atherton, Thorpe, Stewart, White, Gough, Caddick – unavailable for varying lengths of time, Hussain became England’s father figure, unflinchingly protecting his own. His Dad’s Army had metamorphosed into The Young Ones.He won a moral victory in India, and his ruthless employment of leg-theory tactics to Sachin Tendulkar showed that he didn’t give a stuff what anyone thought. This was his strength and his weakness. He gained untold respect in New Zealand for the dignity with which he handled Ben Hollioake’s death, led the rout of a Sri Lankan side that came to England on the back of nine Test wins in a row, and just about kept his hand on the controls as a staggering number of injuries beset England against India.But the job was beginning to tire Hussain, and the winter from hell broke even his will. The Zimbabwe imbroglio overshadowed the World Cup, yet the real business was Hussain’s last crack at the Ashes – something that ended the moment he put Australia in after winning the toss at Brisbane. Ashes failure will be his biggest regret: Hussain was a confirmed Aussiephile; his desperation to beat them join them was etched all over his face.The desire to earn respect from the Aussies was one of the defining features of his reign. The others? Desperate pleas for raw pace (answered eventually) and mystery spin (more elusive than ever); spectacular off days – of the 15 defeats under Hussain, nine were by an innings; and interesting press conferences – a rarity among recent England captains. Brains, too: Hussain’s predilection to rant and rave sometimes obscured how good he could be at fashioning a silk purse in the field, never more so than when England, with a second-string attack, thrashed India in Indian conditions at Lord’s last summer.Hussain’s overall record – P45 W17 D13 L15 – suggests a pretty dull,run-of-the-mill reign. Not a bit of it. English cricket has a harder nose and a keener mind than it did four years ago. It has lost its best captain since Brearley.Hussain resigns as England captain

Derbyshire CCC have today secured the signatures of Adrian Pierson as Club Coach on a one-year contract, and Pakistani international cricketer Shahid Afridi as replacement second overseas player for the period of April and May 2003.Afridi, an aggressive all round cricketer, has signed initially for the first two months of the season, given that Nathan Astle is presently contracted to Derbyshire between June and September 2003.However, Astle’s chances of joining up with the Club have been the subject of debate following his recent knee injury, and Derbyshire await a report from New Zealand Cricket before taking any further action on a potential replacement for Astle, or an extension of Afridi’s contract, should it be required."Being able to sign an exciting cricketer such as Shahid is a further boost to the Club, and evidence that high quality players want to join our promising squad,” said Derbyshire’s chief executive John Smedley.”As coach, Adrian Pierson will continue the good work as we seek to perform to a high standard in all competitions.”

Oh dear. A cricket-loving nation hangs it’s head in shame. On Monday, after a disgraceful and unacceptable performance, Sri Lankan cricket fanssurrendered whatever slender hopes they had of winning the 2003 World Cup.Sanath Jayasuriya’s side can still qualify for the semi-finals. Indeed, theymost probably will, assuming they beat Zimbabwe next Saturday.

They will have to pray that the Kenyans don’t pull off another shock win andthat the Black Caps don’t win their remaining games against India andAustralia.But even if they do qualify, they hardly deserve a place in the last four.Moreover, they can only dream of progressing further – Australia and Indiaare streets ahead.

Both Super Six matches have identified glaring shortcomings in the side,problems that the management and selectors have spent four long years tryingto solve. They will not be easily overcome – the future looks bleak.Currently, a quintet of senior players – Marvan Atapattu, Sanath Jayasuriya,Aravinda de Silva, Muttiah Muralitharan and Chaminda Vaas – are doing allthe work. The rest can muster only sporadic performances of note. It’s fiveagainst eleven and only individual brilliance is winning them matches.Sri Lanka’s mantra under Dav Whatmore has been teamwork but when yoursupport bowlers cant bowl straight and the rump of middle order struggle toreach double figures then you are in serious trouble.

Amidst all the carnage, Vaas and Murali took five for 80 in 20 overs – asuperb effort in the circumstances. The rest hemorrhaged seven runs per overand the fast bowlers – Prabath Nissanka and Dilhara Fernando – squanderedany potential advantage of bowling first.Jayasuriya defended his decision to bowl first, claiming it was the “rightdecision but the bowlers didn’t put the ball in the right areas” and therewas some truth in that assertion: India’s fast bowlers may have createdmayhem during the first hour when the ball showed a willingness tomisbehave.

Amongst some of the dross served up by the young Nissanka and frustratingFernando, there were a handful of deliveries that darted off the seam,providing some justification to Jayasuriya’s controversial punt.Nevertheless, Sri Lanka have shown themselves to be a better side battingfirst, primarily because the bowlers, particularly the spinners, are betterable to absorb the second innings pressure than an alarmingly fragile middleorder.The key to Sri Lanka’s 1996 World Cup triumph was the capacity of a powerfulbatting line-up to hunt down any target. Opponents were so fearful of theirbatting firepower that they bowled first even when not justified by theconditions. India paid a heavy penalty for that in the Eden Gardenssemi-final.But the current batting line-up is not in the same league. There is talentbut the form of Mahela Jayawardene (16 runs in eight games), Russel Arnoldand even Kumar Sangakkara, who may well be batting in the wrong position,has been dreadful.These were the players groomed after the 1999 World Cup debacle but on theevidence thus far Sri Lanka would have been better served to persuade RoshanMahanama to delay his autobiography “Retired Hurt” and Arjuna Ranatunga toswap his parliamentary robes for whites.

Indeed, had Ranatunga had been present then, at least, some of the tacticalblunders would have been avoided. Jayasuriya’s on field captaincy has beenthe source of ridicule throughout the tournament and the time has surelycome for him to concentrate on playing rather than leadership.Off the field, in the comfort of the dressing room, the decision-makingcannot escape criticism either. Why was Jehan Mubarak picked ahead of themore experienced, more destructive and stronger minded Avishka Gunawardene?Perhaps his fielding is appalling but the suspicion remains that he was kepton the sidelines because of a personality clash with Jayasuriya.And why was Mubarak then literally thrown to the wolves by being asked tobat at the pivotal number three slot in his first game of the tournament?Could not Sangakkara, who bats there effectively in Test cricket, be a saferbet?And why was the run-less Jayawardene shunted out to bat at number four inthe second over with the innings already in crisis? There could not havebeen a worse time for the 25-year-old to reclaim his form.

The decision to bowl first, at least, had a sound rationale; even it was amassive gamble that backfired spectacularly. The other blunders aredeserving of very serious review. Who is making these decisions and why?Whether Sri Lanka can pull themselves together in time for Saturday remainsto be seen. By then they will at least know what they have to do.Traditionally they revel under the underdog tag but the suspicion remainsthat irreparable damage has been done.

You’ve said before that Australia’s dominance is not good for the game.
The gap between Australia and the rest is bad for the game. Having said that, it’s not Australia’s fault – you can’t blame them for the domination. It’s not a criticism of Australia; it’s a comment about world cricket. The success of Australian teams in recent times really started with decisions that were taken 20 years ago – to set up identification processes, elite programs and proper structured programs to develop players. They changed methods, did some research, improved systems, got sports psychologists involved, all for developing cricketers.Other countries need to do the same thing as soon as possible. It is critical for the long-term future of the game that other countries close the gap from they are now to where Australia is, because Australia are going to keep doing the things that work for them and value-adding. The systems may not always produce the talent that there is at the moment; there will always be fluctuations. But the decisions that were taken 20 years ago were to control the major fluctuations and try to even out the results.The fact that England have been weak for such a long time, and West Indies and South Africa are struggling with their own internal problems is not good for cricket. It’s not healthy for one team to be dominant for too long, with all other teams just waiting. All teams should be trying to move forward and narrow the gap.The rise of Australia has run parallel to the fall of many other sides. Surely, this isn’t a coincidence?
I don’t think it is a coincidence. A lot of people are hoping it is a coincidence. Especially in England, people talk about cycles and say this is just one of those cycles. They’ve been down for 20 years. That’s one hell of a cycle! You can’t afford to have those kinds of cycles if you want to be one of the top sides. These cycles occurred at a time when everybody was just relying on natural talent to come to the surface. Now, with more science and technology involved in the game, we’re seeing a variation in the way young people are being developed. Thinking about it a bit more, I don’t think it’s a coincidence at all. Australia has planned and looked to develop. They’ve got a business plan and a developmental plan and that’s worked. In some ways it’s understandable – a lot of the cricket-playing countries are third world countries and don’t have the resources that Australia has. That is a problem, and one the Australians have recognised. We’re exporting a lot of expertise and personnel. Some of the scientific knowledge is being shared with the cricket world.The ICC should be aware of this, and I’m sure they are, because it’s going to affect the business of cricket. Some years ago, Australia, and other teams that were on top of their game, looked to keep secrets and their successful methods to themselves. We now know that spreading the knowledge is a good thing. After all, even if another team have the knowledge and information, it’s still up to them to implement it.You’ve been part of successful teams yourself. The resources and the coaching methods at the time could not have been what they are today. What else is it that sets these teams apart?
The greatest strength of Australian cricket is our bank of natural resources. By and large we have good climate, good outdoor facilities for youngsters to play sport – whatever the sport is. From a cricket point of view, we have the best domestic competition in the world. That really is the basis of our structure. The competitive nature of our domestic cricket is a key.The game has changed a lot in the last 25 years. International cricket has pulled away from first-class cricket, which in turn has pulled away from our club structure. That has created some stress on our infrastructure which needs addressing. We didn’t have the science and the technology that is being used now, but in some ways the methods that we had were better. Not all of the innovations that have come into player development in the last 20 years are necessarily advancements in preparation techniques. A lot of things that were done in the first 100-odd years of Australian cricket – the natural techniques – worked very well and are lost now. We need to be aware of this and re-introduce some of the natural techniques.Would you say champion teams are as much about determination and the will to succeed as about skill and technique?
Again I think an advantage Australia have over most teams is that we build very good spirit and very good unity in the team. It’s a comment about our culture and our society. We’re a very egalitarian society. Our history suggests that we build very good spirit under adversity. This brings out the best in our nature. A lot of other cultures don’t develop that unity, and there’s a lot more individualism in those teams. A good unit will always beat a team of good individuals. That’s been evident throughout the history of Australian cricket. It’s particularly noticeable now, the camaraderie and the unity in this Australian team.You look at a Matthew Hayden or a Justin Langer … you wouldn’t say they’re wildly talented; yet they’re putting runs on the board with regularity.
I think there’s more method and work done in Australia towards understanding the process of success – what it really takes to be successful. Like anything else, in sport, there are basic things that need to be put in place. The foundations of success, in any walk of life, are built on a series of disciplines. Hayden, Langer, and all of the Australian players do that sort of thing very well. A lot of time is spent on inculcating that sort of understanding in Australian cricket. It’s not just about natural talent – it’s about perseverance, about putting building blocks in place, about focusing on the processes not the results.Turning that around a bit, would you say that someone like Javagal Srinath would have been more successful if he was part of an Australian team?
It’s hard to say. Obviously, every individual is different. Having said that, I have no doubt any player will develop better in a successful team than in a team that is under pressure all the time. The support that comes from playing in a successful team is very important in nurturing a person. Sharing the good times and the bad times, particularly the good, is very important.That’s where the team selection process becomes crucial. Bringing in young players, changing the personnel … in the last 10 years or so the Australian selectors have tapped Allan Border on the shoulder, and Ian Healy and David Boon, letting them know it’s time to move on. More than anything, this is because the time and environment were right at a certain stage to bring in a young player. Adam Gilchrist was demanding to play Test cricket, and the only way to get him in was for Healy to move on. Healy felt he could have played for a few more years, and he probably could have. But it would not necessarily have been in the best interests of Australian cricket. Breeding success certainly is contagious.Turning what you said around on its head, I’m sure there are Australians in this team who would not have been successful if they had played for other teams, because without the support and the success going around them, things would have been very different.What would it take to topple Australia?
It would obviously take a team with considerable talent. There are a few teams that have the talent, but it will take the same commitment to excellence that Australian cricket has had though its history, and particularly the last 10-20 years.If you look at our history, we’ve had a very strong team every 15 years or so and had a very successful period. That was occurring naturally, but we’ve now begun to understand that there is a process that allows for this to happen. If other teams put the process in place, the gap between Australia and them will narrow. Australia will have a down period. There’s no doubt that we will see Australia come off the peak in the next few years. This is when other teams must be strong and push hard to topple Australia. That is a cycle. But because of the processes in place, the cycle will be shortened. Instead of being a trough, it will just be a dip in the curve.Which do you think is the team most likely to challenge Australia?
India have the best chance of anyone. India have got a better-balanced side than anyone apart from Australia at the moment. They have good young fast bowlers, quality spinners that we all know about, a strong batting line-up, and the fielding is improving all the time. It should be the mission of Indian cricket to be the next team that dominates world cricket in the next 25 years. I’m sure the team and board are already thinking along those lines. They have the resources, the raw material to start with, and the funds to put a system in place that can cause Australia a lot of problems. Whether the Indians can replicate the spirit and the unity of the Australians, only time will tell; but they certainly have what it takes. In that sense, India has the best chance to topple Australia and become the team that sets the benchmarks in international cricket.But specifically, what does India need to do to be successful in Australia?
If they’re going to beat Australia they have got to go there with a different attitude. They normally go there expecting to be beaten up and they play accordingly. They expect aggressive behaviour and fast bowling and a lot of short balls, and they go into their shell before they reach Australia. They have to go there with an attitude that they’re going to play positive cricket. If they can do that they have as good a chance as anyone. I don’t know that they can beat Australia at home, but if anyone can, India can. They have to go there with a positive attitude and a belief in themselves that they can win. It’s no good going there and hoping to get away without losing a Test match or without getting beaten in the series. That is just not going to work.People talk of an Australian tour in very general terms. But isn’t it true that the challenges for touring teams differ from venue to venue in Australia?
Oh, absolutely. Brisbane will have more bounce and pace than anything they are used to. Adelaide is a good chance for them. There are a lot of wickets in India that are very much like Adelaide. Sydney will seam a little bit but will also turn. It’s getting back to being what it was – a good cricket wicket – and will give everyone a chance. Melbourne is hard to predict because it’s a drop-in wicket. It depends on how long the pitch has been there and how many games have been played on it. It always takes time to settle but has a bit of bounce in it. Sydney and Adelaide are distinct possibilities for India to win. Even Brisbane and Melbourne … if [Ashish] Nehra is fit and [Zaheer] Khan bowls well with the new ball, there’s no reason why they can’t get early wickets.But it’s also not just about wickets and conditions. The Australian media can be hostile, the lifestyle very different. It’s easy to get into a siege mentality. Is that a big factor?
It is a factor but the bigger factor is that teams go there expecting it and go into a defensive mode. They go into a siege mentality even before they get there. As I said before, that will never work. The teams that have had success in Australia are the ones that have believed in themselves, and backed themselves to play positive cricket. If you are going to bat, it is one thing to occupy the crease. But the bottomline is that you have got to score runs. If you’re not actively looking to score runs then things become hard. If Australia bowl a wide half-volley or a wide short ball you have to punish them. Standing there and letting things go by, just relieved that you have survived is just playing into their hands. The art of batting is about scoring runs. Survival is one part of it. There will be times when the opposition bowls well and you go for long periods without scoring runs, but you still need to be looking for runs. You have to score as many runs as you can under the circumstances, whatever they are.And the opposition captain – they save the best for him don’t they?
That’s been going on since forever. Key players and captains have always been targeted on the basis that if you get them out of the way the pressure is increased on the others. [Sourav] Ganguly is going to have his work cut out for him. Then again, he shouldn’t go to Australia thinking that he is going to survive a barrage of short-pitched balls. If he does that he won’t make runs. He has to back himself and go out there looking to handle whatever they bowl. When Ganguly came to Australia and met me we spoke about these sorts of things.You say Ganguly should go to Australia with a positive mindset, but does he have the basic technique and ability to do well there?
Ganguly has the ability to make runs in Australia, no doubt about that. Batting is as much about your attitude and your mental state as it is about your ability to play shots. If you’re in the wrong frame of mind you won’t move properly and you won’t use your physical ability. If you start trying to build a technique to field a particularly delivery, what that does is not necessarily bring you success against such deliveries. But it does reduce your options when you get other sorts of deliveries. When you start thinking you’re going to get a lot of short balls and tell yourself to play back all the time, then the wide half-volley will get you out. Batting is about having a technique that is capable of dealing with whatever the bowler bowls. The good players have all done that. India have three or four players with that capability.We see very few draws these days. The Australians have changed the pace of the game. Should teams try to beat them at their own game? Or can they be frustrated into losing?
You’ve got to beat them at their own game. You have to be positive, have gameplans that will work and stick to them. Only then can you put the pressure back on Australia. Part of the tactics of the game is that you need to assert your dominance from as early as possible. In that sense, cricket is just like a game of chess: it’s about moving your men into a position of strength and being able to dominate the opposition and dictate the moves that they’re able to make. That’s what Australia does well. They go out there with the intent of dominating the opposition. If you play the counter role, that’s not necessarily going to work. Against this Australian side, you become a bit like the duck in the shooting gallery – it’s only a matter of time before you get picked off. You really need to come hard at Australia and fight fire with fire.Some people would suggest that this Australian team is weaker than the one India played against when they toured there in 1999-2000.
It depends on who is fit and playing. And fit enough to perform at their best. If [Glenn] McGrath and [Jason] Gillespie and [Stuart] MacGill are fit and bowling well, it’s still a formidable side. Having said that, Australia are probably a more vulnerable side than they have been in a while.Is there one glaring weakness in this Australian team that India must look to exploit?
I don’t think there are any glaring weaknesses. If you break it down to the various disciplines, they have good fast bowling, good spinners, good batsmen, and they all field very well. And most of all they have a great belief in themselves. Any team that thinks they can beat Australia will have to match them in all those departments..

The final practice session of the Pakistan cricket team for Sunday’s ICC Cricket World Cup 2003 match against Namibia will be held on Saturday at 1000 hours at the De Beers Diamond Oval, Kimberley.Pakistan captain Waqar Younis will later hold a pre-match press conference at the Stadium at approximately 1200 hours. All the journalists are invited to attend the press conference. There will also be an opportunity for vision and pictures during training (1030hrs – 1200hrs approx).Samiul Hasan
Media Manager
Pakistan Cricket Team
Mobile + 27 83 5065 828

Auckland got the maximum points they were looking for in State League matches against Canterbury over the weekend.Auckland recorded two victories, after starting a week later than the four southern teams in the competition.Yesterday, Canterbury batted first at North Harbour Stadium after winning the toss and when rain stopped play 25 overs into the innings, Canterbury were 86/3. When play resumed, Canterbury had three overs for a slog fest in the reduced overs match and Canterbury ended up with 111/5.Paula Flannery scored 34 and Nicole Payne 29 for Canterbury while Debbie Ramsay took two for 15 from her six overs for Auckland.Auckland made a rusty start and had eight wickets down when the winning runs were scored. Rebecca Rolls hit 22 while Haidee Tiffen took three for 26 for Canterbury, but Auckland got home with an over to spare.Today, the story was completely different.Auckland won the toss and batted first and were all out for 195 in the 50th over. Helen Watson and Emily Drumm each hit 39 for Auckland while Canterbury bowler Beth McNeill continued the outstanding contribution she has made for her side by taking six for 31.Canterbury in reply struggled with the bat and were dismissed for 96 in the 43rd over. The 99-run losing margin was a record loss by Canterbury. Wickets were shared around among the Auckland bowlers but Ramsay was again the best with her two for 22.In the Northern Districts game against Otago at WestpacTrust Park in Hamilton, Otago were batting first and were 101 for three after 29.1 overs when rain forced an abandonment in play.Elizabeth Scurr scored 28 while Pauline te Beest was 42 not out.However, on the second day Northern Districts managed to provide yet another surprise in the competition by beating Otago by two wickets.Otago batted first and were all out in the 45th over for 132. Natalie Bannerman was easily the pick of the Otago batsmen with 47 runs while Sarah Helmore scored 26 and Rachel Pullar 24. Louise Milliken took three for 14 from her 10 overs while cleaning out the top order and Nicola Browne took three for 16 from four overs.Janice Fraser held the ND top-order together with 35 runs but when she was out, ND were still not halfway there. Jenny Stafford scored 20 and Milliken 19 to help ND home with 2.4 overs to spare.