Cricket

[DJDonegal]

That would make sense. Completely locking out an elbow can't be good for it, which is why most sports encourage bent joints at the impact points - footballers should have their knee bent as they make contact with the ball, hence planting their off-foot next to the ball to make sure of this as well as golfers who bend the knees and elbows when swinging for the ball. A locked joint isn't a good thing to have from a medical point of view.

ETA: And Tres hit 284 for Somerset and announced he isn't ready to return to international duty. That's a shame.

[Maltaran]

Ah, OK. so I had it backwards -- the arm is not supposed to bend at the elbow, but for whatever reason, they allow up to 15 degrees of bending (in one article I read, sports medicine experts say that this is preferable to a full straight-arm action, I think).

That's it. The number used to be lower, but after the Test where Murali got called for throwing seven times, the ICC did a study and it was found that Ramnaresh Sarwan was the only bowler who actually had a legal action, so they increased the limit.

[Jeor]

Bangladesh have busted out 250 in the shortened 47 overs, which is a good score. Didn't see the match but looking at the scorecard makes for some interesting reading. None of the Indian pacemen bowled their full quota of 9 or 10 overs, and some of the part-time spinners were forced into action, which seems to indicate it was a slow pitch which will help Bangladesh.

Khan, Sreesanth and Patel combined for only 19 overs between the three of them. Powar, who is serviceable as a frontline spinner, bowled 10 overs. But the part-time Dinesh Mongia also bowled 10 and Sehwag bowled 8, so one begins to think that India may have erred in their team selection for this match. Interested to see if and how they chase it down.

[Sir Thursday]

So, with Dravid down India are left with Dhoni and Mongia out in the middle and Karthik in the shed, I know those guys can bat, but apart from that there's not much left. I think Powar has hit a half century before, but it still looks like a rather thin line to hold. If Bangladesh get Dhoni out I think they'll have won this. Having said that, I think I remember Mongia saving India in that Natwest Final a few years back with some smart hitting...so it's not dead yet.

If Bangladesh get this win over India that makes two in a row against them...a bit of a bogey fixture in the making for the Indians, perhaps?

Sir Thursday

[Jeor]

Dhoni and Karthik have steadied the ship, 48 off 47 with 5 wickets left, India should get it now. Powar can bat (first-class average in the low 30s) and Sreesanth and Khan can slog a few runs (although they're liable to get out quickly too sometimes). And even if India wins, Bangladesh are embarrassing them by making such a powerhouse team nervously huff and puff to the finish line.

[DJDonegal]

4 overs and 21 runs needed. Very doable. India have to throw it now.

[williamjm]

Bring back The People's Batsman!!!!!

Ah, Robert Key - smash a double century in a day, take the bowlers' sledging and give it back twice as hard, and then go and demolish a Lords' lunch spread.

Apparently he just scored 169 against Durham, which should help his prospects of being picked.

[DJDonegal]

India are 2-0 in the ODI series with another win over Bangladesh. Seems maybe they just had an off day in the World Cup? Completely the wrong time to have one if they did

[Jeor]

Reports here in the news that John Howard (Prime Minister) has banned Cricket Australia from touring Zimbabwe. The legal mechanism that he'll use to enforce this is the Australian government's control over player's passports. I'm sure the players and Cricket Australia are relieved the decision is out of their hands and the government is going to take the rap for this.

I'm not sure what this means for any potential fine - I mean, CA could say they wanted to go but were prevented by the government. Certainly they wouldn't want any monies from fines going to Zimbabwe.

[Maltaran]

Here's a link to the story. No fine, according to the ICC, because if your government refuses to permit you to tour, you're exempt from any penalty. Cricket Australia are apparently trying to arrange to play the matches in a neutral venue.

[Stubby]

Maltaran, I'd be interested in your take on this, but from my POV, this is a great outcome for the WACA:

Warriors confirm Moody appointment

Former Sri Lankan coach Tom Moody has been confirmed as the new manager and head coach of the Western Warriors, the Western Australian Cricket Association (WACA) announced today

[ithanos]

Cricket Australia are apparently trying to arrange to play the matches in a neutral venue.

This sounds token.

The head of Cricket Australia, James Sutherland, said the body was committed to help Zimbabwe cricket develop and would now look at holding the matches in a venue outside the country.

I can't see any point in pursuing development of the game in Zimbabwe (or for Zimbabwe Cricket) until the rest of the country gets back on its feet. I don't have any answers as to how that's going to happen anytime soon but I think the ICC's best hope is to prepare Zimbabwe cricket to ride out the storm (of isolation) so that they can can at least emerge from it later on with something to build from. Development can begin again then. Will they do that? Of course not so expect to see the ICC continue to schedule international cricket with Zimbabwe included.

[Jeor]

Thirty years ago it would have been inconceivable that Zimbabwe would be in international cricket under their current circumstances. Back then, the boards of countries like England and Australia dominated world cricket and I'm sure as Commonwealth nations (alongside New Zealand) they would have wielded their power and influence to expel Zimbabwe. But in an expanded international community this isn't the case anymore, and I think in particular the Asian countries simply don't have enough drive to get behind the wheel of what would be, to them, a minor external matter.

Zimbabwe don't even have much of a first-class cricketing system, and there are a number of non-Test nations that have better internal playing structures than Zimbabwe's, regardless of their current terrible human rights record. Expulsion is out of the question for the ICC, and it looks like they aren't going to look at enforcing even a suspension, but certainly at least some sort of sanction or symbolic motion is warranted. This isn't the first case of matches being called off; in the 2003 World Cup both England and New Zealand volunteered to forfeit their possible points and matches rather than play in Zimbabwe.

As a cricinfo article quite rightly points out, now it's an interesting question of whether the matches are played at all. The Australian government doesn't want them played at all, even in a neutral venue - after all, Mugabe is patron of the Zimbabwe cricket team, and it remains to be seen whether Zimbabwe cricket would actually go for that. If we played them in a neutral venue that wouldn't be as bad as actually playing them, since it would be clear that the cricket being played is the important thing and Mugabe wouldn't find much comfort in it. But at the same time, Zimbabwe kids aren't going to be able to watch their cricketers play in a neutral venue, so is it really helping Zimbabwe cricket all that much?

[DJDonegal]

Are England slipping into bad habits again already? Delaying team selection to see if Flintoff will be fit, and even if they play him, fielding a barely fit player reeks of the reason England lost the Ashes 5-0.

Will they ever learn?

[Jeor]

Well, he's out, so at least they haven't included him.

Strauss, Cook, Bell, Collingwood, Pietersen, Shah, Prior, Plunkett, Harmison, Hoggard, Panesar.

Shah was always going to play if Flintoff wasn't. Prior's an interesting choice. He's actually been around a while without getting many international matches. Plunkett as the third seamer was probably a good choice for a Lords pitch, although Mahmood might have done as well. Windies are sending England in.

Seeing as it's usual England weather - overcast and drizzling - bowling first was obviously the way to go, but this West Indies team doesn't have anything resembling even a fraction of the firepower that previous Windies attacks have had. No Edwards either. They have to rely on Collymore and Bravo to winkle out some wickets and use the conditions as best they can. That being said, bowling in these sorts of English conditions is just the boost you need if your bowling attack isn't quite top-class.

[Hereward]

Yeah, they're saying the pitch and conditions are a bowler's paradise, so this was a massive toss to win. I don't think you need a brilliant attack to skittle a team out on this. I'll be happy with 250.

[Vestrit]

I'm pleased to see Prior in the side. I hope he can take the opportunity and cement a place.

If he clicks internationally, he could be the wicketkeeper/batsman that England have been looking for for so long

[Jeor]

0/53, solid start. The Windies are going to find it tough going in this match; one suspects their batting lineup is a little fragile for the bowler-friendly conditions and likes of Harmison, Hoggard and Panesar later on in the match.

[Hereward]

Shows what I know, though in my defence I haven't seen the pitch and also didn't expect Collymore to throw pies!

[Jeor]

Ah well, wish I could have seen it, I wanted to see what fields Sarwan set and what his captaincy is like. 0/85 England are well in the driver's seat now.