Rest of the World

First topic message reminder :

KP_fan wrote:

msp83 wrote:So India is getting back on the field tonight, kicking off their WTC campaign. Rohit has already confirmed Jaiswal will open, and Gill drop down to 3. When all the talk of Yashasvi taking over from Pujara at 3 was going on, I felt he should open, particularly since the team views Gill as the eventual successor to Virat Kohli at 4. Going forward, I see a top 4 of Jaiswal, Abhimanyu Easwaran/Devdutt Padikkal/Rohan Kunnummal, Gill, Ruturaj Gaikwad.

Eswaran has been hard done by......Jaiswal was jumped over him
Mayank Agarwal should not be ruled out...he has batted very well in FC and has a decent test match showing also.

And don't forget the favorite boy of seniors and BCCI in KL Rahul...as soon as he is fit he will walk back into the 11

Its been tough on Easwaran. Think Mayank and KL might find it difficult to now fight their way back in. Particularly if Yashasvi has a good start to his career. KL might still make a comeback when Rohit leaves, but I hope Easwaran, Rohan and even Padikkal will make better cases for themselves.
As for Yashasvi jumping over Abhimanyu, though its tough on the latter, think is the right call. Jaiswal scored hundreds on his Ranji, Duleep and Irani trophy debuts. He's versatile and has shown adaptability as indicated by his IPL success. And, its not much noted these days, but he's a handy parttimer with the ball, he very much was for the U-19s, hope he'll get a few chances right away to work on that secondary skill of his...

Pal Joey wrote:Correct decision to postpone (indefinitely) the T20 series until the Afghans get their country's human rights issues in order. Won't hold my breath though. Don't think many, if any, played in the BBL this year.

As for the World Cup - the ICC condoned a brutal regime by allowing them to participate in last year's WC. That's not Australia's fault but I agree it obviously put them in an awkward situation.

Yet, you can only play what's in front of you in an international tournament such as a WC. It's a bit like if England had tp play North Korea in a football world cup group match. Do you think England would boycott that match? Nah... they'd take the points thank you very much.

Sounds like sour grapes, duty and olly. Probably because England got convincingly rolled by them and then Australia won that unwinnable match thanks to the marvellous performance from Maxwell. Perhaps England should have boycotted their match against Afghanistan? All teams should be in the same boat protesting against the Afghan regime but why should Australia have to forfeit points because of a pathetically weak and hypocritical ICC and other gutless participating nations?

Can't wait to see Afghanistan tour England... and see the ECB give a nod (and a wink) to the fair-playing Taliban.

You're better than this parochial silliness. It's got zilch to do with that.

If Australia want to boycott games against Afghanistan, then they should carry it all the way through. It would make more of an impact at a World Cup, too, as it would get people talking about Afghanistan's inclusion in world cricket in a wider context (which I presume Australia want?). Whereas only cricket obsessives will be aware of this boycott.

Why should Australia have to forfeit points...? I guess because there are things more important than cricket? If Australia are boycotting games against Afghanistan because of human rights deterioration against women and girls in Afghanistan, then surely that applies for all games, World Cups or otherwise? Or do Australia only care about this when it involves mostly meaningless bilateral games, not potentially crucial World Cup matches? Because that's the way it seems with this inconsistency.

If England, or any other team, had the same attitude as Australia, I would also be critical. Any boycott should apply all the way through, not just be selective based on the importance of the sporting fixture.

Related to your first sentence, do you think Australia should have also postponed the recent series against Pakistan, due to the human rights issues in that country?

Australia aren't helped by their recent record with fulfilling fixtures on the road. They pulled out of every Test series outside of Australia during the pandemic. Whilst every series in Australia was fulfilled. That's properly dogs**t behaviour from Australian cricket administration and was largely glossed over because they are part of the big three. It's a sport where the financial model is that the touring team loses money through the costs of touring, whilst the home side makes money by hosting, then that home side tours to reciprocate. Just deciding you can't be bothered with away Tests for 3 years is an absurd dereliction of duty to a sport with that financial model. 4 different touring teams came to Australia to play 14 Tests in order to fulfil their broadcast deals and keep the lights on during a pandemic. Cricket Australia's offering to Test cricket in return? Go f**k yourselves.

It's hardly surprising that most who follow cricket closely are cynical of a boycott that only seems to encompass games Australia tend to try their best to avoid anyway.

It's not like it's exclusively England fans calling them out either. Adam Collins and Geoff Lemon are two prominent Aussie journalists and podcasters. The second that Australia pulled out of that first series last year, the two of them said that it's a stance that only means something if it's also done for games that matter, such as the CWC, rather than used an excuse to avoid games they'd love to not bother fulfilling anyway. Taking a stand only means something if you do it when it's difficult, not when it's easy.

As Ben Gardner puts it:

"Funny how the situation for women and girls in Afghanistan deteriorates whenever Australia are about to play them in bilateral cricket, but then improves whenever they have to play them in a World Cup. Either that or it's a boycott lacking any sort of moral fibre at all."

Duty281 wrote:

Pal Joey wrote:Correct decision to postpone (indefinitely) the T20 series until the Afghans get their country's human rights issues in order. Won't hold my breath though. Don't think many, if any, played in the BBL this year.

As for the World Cup - the ICC condoned a brutal regime by allowing them to participate in last year's WC. That's not Australia's fault but I agree it obviously put them in an awkward situation.

Yet, you can only play what's in front of you in an international tournament such as a WC. It's a bit like if England had tp play North Korea in a football world cup group match. Do you think England would boycott that match? Nah... they'd take the points thank you very much.

Sounds like sour grapes, duty and olly. Probably because England got convincingly rolled by them and then Australia won that unwinnable match thanks to the marvellous performance from Maxwell. Perhaps England should have boycotted their match against Afghanistan? All teams should be in the same boat protesting against the Afghan regime but why should Australia have to forfeit points because of a pathetically weak and hypocritical ICC and other gutless participating nations?

Can't wait to see Afghanistan tour England... and see the ECB give a nod (and a wink) to the fair-playing Taliban.

You're better than this parochial silliness. It's got zilch to do with that.

If Australia want to boycott games against Afghanistan, then they should carry it all the way through. It would make more of an impact at a World Cup, too, as it would get people talking about Afghanistan's inclusion in world cricket in a wider context (which I presume Australia want?). Whereas only cricket obsessives will be aware of this boycott.

Why should Australia have to forfeit points...? I guess because there are things more important than cricket? If Australia are boycotting games against Afghanistan because of human rights deterioration against women and girls in Afghanistan, then surely that applies for all games, World Cups or otherwise? Or do Australia only care about this when it involves mostly meaningless bilateral games, not potentially crucial World Cup matches? Because that's the way it seems with this inconsistency.

If England, or any other team, had the same attitude as Australia, I would also be critical. Any boycott should apply all the way through, not just be selective based on the importance of the sporting fixture.

Related to your first sentence, do you think Australia should have also postponed the recent series against Pakistan, due to the human rights issues in that country?

But then we'd still be stuck on only "5", Duty.  

Yes, meaningless bilateral series are way down the pecking order but I understand how you see this as an inconsistent approach. As I said above - I believe the ICC should have stepped in and sanctioned the Afghans to prevent the scenario from ever happening in the first place.

I was also uncomfortable with Australia touring Pakistan in 2022. It just seems incredibly naive to risk the safety of players in such a volatile country (just ask NZ) in addition to the human rights issues.

Ditto Sri Lanka when Australia toured around the time when the brutal civil war was still underway in parts of the country. I remember Tony Greig spruiking the SL tourism industry saying "come on over here to SL... you won't be disappointed" and I thought that was a bit odd considering what the country was going through at the time. Can probably add Bangladesh, Zimbabwe and maybe another country or two into that category if we want to be consistent.

It is a messy business , the Afghan question. Personally I reckon the ICC should not allow them to participate in World Cups due to the fact that they are in breach of the rules by not permitting a women's team : but am also aware that this would be rough on individual (male) Afghan players. As of course it was for South Africans when their country was (rightly) barred for their government's race based policies...

But ICC won't do this. So up to individual countries to make a point , no ? And I can't honestly blame Australia from declining to damage their chances in a World Cup by using it as a protest vehicle , any more than I would any other country.

Now there is room for cynicism in seeing this Australian choice as a means of saving their players from a rather meaningless tour , sure. If you want to be cynical ; which I generally don't. I see it as a fairly "cheap" gesture : but that doesn't make it totally pointless. Perhaps if other countries did the same it might nudge the Taliban a millimetre or so towards finding a way to let their women play with the world - or at least with each other...though I am not holding my breath.

Pal Joey wrote:Correct decision to postpone (indefinitely) the T20 series until the Afghans get their country's human rights issues in order. Won't hold my breath though. Don't think many, if any, played in the BBL this year.

As for the World Cup - the ICC condoned a brutal regime by allowing them to participate in last year's WC. That's not Australia's fault but I agree it obviously put them in an awkward situation.

Yet, you can only play what's in front of you in an international tournament such as a WC. It's a bit like if England had tp play North Korea in a football world cup group match. Do you think England would boycott that match? Nah... they'd take the points thank you very much.

Sounds like sour grapes, duty and olly. Probably because England got convincingly rolled by them and then Australia won that unwinnable match thanks to the marvellous performance from Maxwell. Perhaps England should have boycotted their match against Afghanistan? All teams should be in the same boat protesting against the Afghan regime but why should Australia have to forfeit points because of a pathetically weak and hypocritical ICC and other gutless participating nations?

Can't wait to see Afghanistan tour England... and see the ECB give a nod (and a wink) to the fair-playing Taliban.

I think it's OK to take selective political stands like...I will not play bilateral but will face them when in ICC tournaments
Like India does with Pak

At Sylhet is a good test match between lanka and BD......a lot of wickets for seamers , a 6th wicket stand of 200 pulled Lanka upto 280 and they look ahead in the game...but anything upto 350 is chasable these days

No danger for Sri Lanka. They set Bangladesh 511, and Bangladesh are 47/5.

Kamindu Mendis and Dhananjaya both getting centuries in both innings, quite a feat.

Lowlandbrit wrote:So I had a look at the list of Test umpires on Wikipedia, and the most recent additions seem to have been promoted pretty quickly after their first Test. On that basis I'd say Sharma if they go Indian, while Sharfuddoula or Pakteen would be strong potential 'first-timers' off that list.

Good answer.

https://www.espncricinfo.com/story/sharfuddoula-the-first-from-bangladesh-in-icc-elite-panel-of-umpires-1426802

Sharfuddoula has been added, the first Bangladeshi to the elite panel. Going the other way is Chris Broad, removed from the elite panel of match referees after two decades.

Suspect Sharma will eventually replace the next English umpire to retire (most likely Illingworth), with an informal aim of two each from the Big 3 and the rest dividing the other spots (could see them adding one or two over time for that too).

SL have a good first day in T2 at Chittagaong.......BD seem to be having leadership and team harmony issues, that Lanka seemingly had during the world cup
31-4 fr Lanka and their 2 time 2 century each pair from T1 are yet to bat.

Pitches have not been prepared as rank turners by BD this time as a mark of respect to Lanka's spin capabilities I guess. An although BD too has a good seam attack......so far Lanka's has looked superior and in general Lakan team more organized

Sri Lanka ending up with 531ao. Notable because it's the new highest score in test history with no centuries scored.

Kamindu Mendis was stranded on 92* after his partner was lazily run out. What a start he's having to his test career - 61 in his first test, then not picked again for nearly two years until the call came for this series, where he has mustered 102, 164, and 92*. Test average just below 140.

SL wins the 2nd test and the series quite comprehensively
Seam bowling blossomed in both tests as did Lankan middle order and Lanka looks good once again

Kamind Mendis looks a talent with both bat and ball

Very nice series win for Sri Lanka. Good on Bangladesh to not fold tamely in pursuit of a hopeless 511. They showed some fight.

That lifts Sri Lanka to 4th in the WTC table with a 50% record. England and South Africa away, followed by Australia at home, are their remaining games, so they might struggle to pick up further wins.

I think that's the last test cricket until early July, when England host the West Indies. T20 stuff takes precedent now. On that note, I see Pant has returned in the IPL, which is great for the game after his long absence.

The pant thing is intresting because Dhruv Jurel has made a very good start to his test career...do India keep him in there, or go straight back to Pant?!

Duty281 wrote:Very nice series win for Sri Lanka. Good on Bangladesh to not fold tamely in pursuit of a hopeless 511. They showed some fight.

That lifts Sri Lanka to 4th in the WTC table with a 50% record. England and South Africa away, followed by Australia at home, are their remaining games, so they might struggle to pick up further wins.

SL are joint 3rd with NZ at 50% as I see.
They need a drawn series and a narrow loss as their results in Eng and SA
and to beat Aussies at home
Not easy ask....It's looking like Ind and Aus on course again

wisden wrote:The pant thing is intresting because Dhruv Jurel has made a very good start to his test career...do India keep him in there, or go straight back to Pant?!

There is a good chance of playing both...Pant might play as a specialist batter.
Given that a bunch of players are always injured and some resting, there defnitely will be opportunities to accommodate both in some games

KP_fan wrote:

wisden wrote:The pant thing is intresting because Dhruv Jurel has made a very good start to his test career...do India keep him in there, or go straight back to Pant?!

There is a good chance of playing both...Pant might play as a specialist batter.
Given that a bunch of players are always injured and some resting, there defnitely will be opportunities to accommodate both in some games

That's not a bad shout, especially considering there is a lot of gaps in the Indian middle order now....now KL Rahul is fit surely he slots back in now...but what about the long term future of Kohli? Does he return? Does he want to return? Safraz looks inked in, Patidar defintiely dosen't stay in, Paddikal made an impressive start in the 5th test...

Top 7 of?

Rohit
Jaiswal
Gill
Paddikal
Rahul
Sarfraz
Jurel

Or does Kohli and pant slot straight back in? I know if Kohli wants to he is a no-brainer, but how much more does he have to give in test cricket?