All posts by csb10.top

Robert Griffiths QC, Darrell Hair’s barrister, has told a tribunal in London that the ICC bowed to pressure from a bloc of Asian countries when it, in effect, sacked his client in the aftermath of the abandonment of the Oval Test last year.Speaking on the first day of Hair’s claim at the London Central Employment Tribunal that he suffered racial discrimination at the hands of the ICC, Griffiths maintained that the Indian and Pakistan boards heavily influenced the ICC.”Darrell Hair’s case is that he was treated the way he was because the ICC bowed to the racially discriminatory pressure that was brought to bear on it by the Asian bloc and ICC board member supporters,” Griffiths said. “The Asian bloc is dominant in cricket sometimes it uses that dominance inappropriately. Everyone knows it, but most are afraid to say so.”Griffith asked why the ICC’s three-man panel who looked into Hair’s future included Pakistan board chairman Nasim Ashraf – who had earlier called for sanctions against Hair – Sir John Anderson, the New Zealand board chairman who supported action against Hair, and Zimbabwe Cricket president Peter Chingoka. “As the world knows only too well, Zimbabwe Cricket has not historically selected teams on merit,” he said. “It has selected its players on the basis of their race and colour.”An environment has been created for him that is any or all of intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating and offensive. His feelings have been most significantly injured. He has suffered both personally and financially.”

Opening for the defence, Michael Beloff QC denied the allegations. “[Hair] was not a victim of race discrimination,” he said. “He was the author of his own misfortune. In cricketing terms, Mr Hair ran himself out.”His case on the question of discrimination has been changeable, evasive and, to a degree, reckless. He was immeasurably the more experienced and senior of the two umpires and in respect of every action during the fourth Test which has excited adverse comment, Mr Hair took the initiative and Mr [Billy] Doctrove’s role was only to agree.”Critically, it was Mr Hair who baled out of the crucial meeting when an attempt was made by all interested parties to broker a restart to the match,” Beloff continued. “The fact that a majority of those who supported the so-called resolution were Black or Asian does not of itself establish or even give rise to the inference that they took their decision on grounds of Mr Hair’s race as distinct from his behaviour.”When he took the stand after lunch Hair accused Anderson of brokering a secret deal to end his career during a private lunch during an ICC meeting. That conversation was not previously disclosed and Hair’s lawyers maintain that crucial discussions were left out of official transcripts in what was described as a “Watergate-style cover-up”.Hair explained why he accused Pakistan of ball-tampering, claiming that he felt the rough state of the ball “had been accelerated by human intervention”. He stressed he had taken joint decisions throughout the Test with Doctrove. “I was surprised by how much roughing up of the ball there had been,” Hair told the tribunal. “There were quite a few scratch marks on it.”He said that at the conclusion of the game “Doctrove called time and I removed the bails at my end,” indicating the decision was taken in unison. He also said that “the abuse I received from Pakistan players continued unchecked by the ICC”.Arriving at the hearing, Ray Mali, the ICC president, told reporters: “We are here today because we are an organisation that believes in fairness, justice and equality. We have come here to prove that we have been fair throughout this process. We believe racism was never an issue in this matter.”

Tillakaratne Dilshan, who scored a stylish 84 on his return to the Sri Lankan team, said he was under no pressure while crafting a 149-run partnership for the fifth wicket alongside Mahela Jayawardene.”I have been in good form these past three months both domestically and for the A-team and I was under no pressure when I was recalled to the team,” Dilshan said at the end of the second day’s play. “I played my natural game and was successful. I had been waiting for the past few weeks for an opportunity to get back into the side and when I did, I took full advantage of it.”Dilshan was run out while trying to help Jayawardene get his hundred before the tea break. “It would have been nice if I got a hundred. But that’s cricket.”Brimming with confidence when it came to his batting, he said: “I undertake any challenge that is thrown to me. Two and a half years ago when I received a similar recall to the team, also against England, I scored 60 and 100. If you score runs only you can remain in the team.”He also felt England’s negative attitude has given Sri Lanka a chance to win the third and final Test at Galle. “After one-and-a-half hour [of Sri Lanka] batting, England got into a negative mood and the fielders were down. Mahela and I took the advantage and while looking for singles, we hit the loose balls for four.”We were looking at something like 300-plus when play began today. To finish at 384 for 6 by the end of the day is a big bonus,” he said. “If we score around 450, we can close the door on an England victory. We hold the advantage and with Murali [Muralitharan] I think we can swing the game our way and win.”Dilshan admitted he received good advice from his captain while in the middle which helped him get to his score. “Mahela told me that I was scoring a bit too fast, had to control myself and to bat straight. I used the crease and stepped down a bit to cut down the swing and that made it easy for me to bat.”It’s not an easy wicket to bat. It’s a 50-50 wicket. The bowlers had the opportunity when they bowl in good areas as the ball is still moving a little bit and there is uneven bounce. With all that, all our batsmen put up a very good effort to get us to 384.”On the catches England dropped during the day, Dilshan said it could happen to any team. Dilshan was let off on seven and 54 and was given a reprieve on 64 when umpire Darryl Harper turned down an appeal for a catch with replays showing that Dilshan had gloved the ball to Matt Prior off Matthew Hoggard.

The figures speak for themselves. Curtly Ambrose: 27 overs 7 maidens 70 runs 4 wickets. Courtney Walsh: 27 overs 14 maidens 50 runs 4 wickets. Again, the “Old Boys” were magnificent. Again, the West Indies owe a tremendous debt to these absolutely unsinkable battleships, perhaps aging, but definitely still as dangerous, especially when given just a whiff of an advantage. With Ambrose’s dismissal of English batting hero Alex Stewart with the 2nd ball of the 3rd day, for his overnight 105, that whiff was immediately present. When Walsh bowled Marcus Trescothick off of his pads, things smelled even better for the West Indies. Even without any real help from the back-up bowlers, Ambrose and Walsh saw their team through a good 3rd day.This was enhanced even more when the West Indies openers, Sherwin Campbell and Adrian Griffith, with some panache, attitude and aptitude too, managed to defy the English fast bowling, and off spinner Robert Croft, for 96 runs, the best opening partnership so far this tour. Had Campbell not received the proverbial “unplayable” delivery, from the surprisingly quick Craig White, which Campbell actually did play, somewhat unintentionally with his bat handle, to backward point for Dominic Cork to take a brilliant running cum diving catch, the West Indies might have even closed without losing a wicket. To close at 131-1, and Adrian Griffith batting all of 3 hours 20 minutes for 41 not out, showed that the West Indies can muscle up some resolve. Only in deficit to the England lead of 146 by 15, the West Indies could look back on Day 3 as the turning point of Test 3.While England did make 303, thanks to Stewart’s 105, Marcus Trescothick’s 66 and a wonderful rear-guard effort by the late order English batsmen, after the team had slumped to 210-6 from the overnight 196-3, England should have been disappointed at the final score. 400 seemed more possible.Duncan Fletcher, England’s Coach, explained Day 3:”We played very well in the first two days, while on Day 3, we probably faltered a little bit. The first ten overs on Day 3 were crucial, and if we had gotten away with losing only one wicket in that time, we probably would have been very happy with that. The West Indies have two great fast bowlers in their team who could bowl on any surface, really, and you always have to worry that if these two guys strike, then it makes life very difficult for the batters. While it was not (Courtney) Walsh this time, as it was on the 2nd day, it was (Curtly) Ambrose who got the immediate vital wickets. We lost three wickets in that early session which set us back and then the West Indians batted well. I do not blame it on luck. They simply batted well. The openers put their heads down and grafted well. Griffith showed that he went in there very determined, did not play any loose shots and Campbell played a good innings.On Day 4, we would like to bowl the rest of the batsmen out for about an additional 10 runs, then go on to win the game. Simply, now, we have to go back in there and put on the pressure and not allow them to get too many runs. We have to restrict them to not getting too many runs and then to go and get the score. Past games have struggled to get past three days, but this has been a good wicket and the batters could get down and run some decent scores. I might have expected a bit more from the England bowlers, but it does happen a lot that when a team gets a big lead, a time to defend and a time to attack sometimes causes some confusion as the bowling team would want to get in there and get as many wickets before the close as possible. As a result of that, the team would likely leave many gaps in the field placing and the batsmen took advantage of that. Yes, I have been impressed at the way the West Indies batters have come out and showed great determination, despite the lead that England had. It was nice to see, however, that we could get to 303 and especially that the West Indies struggled to knock over the tailenders. 250 would be about the maximum we would like to chase on this wicket.”After Jimmy Adams, at the end of Day 2, had suggested that the West Indies would like to restrict the English batsmen to another 70 on the 3rd day, he nearly got his wish. England only added another 107, and that was due mainly to the lower order batting well. The West Indies had responded in the way they should have, with determination and a direct plan. To the end of Day 3, things had changed for the West Indies somewhat, much more promising.Sherwin Campbell, the West Indies vice-captain, put things into proper perspective:”Having been set a deficit, our target was just to go out there and bat for a long period, with determination, but to enjoy ourselves too, being as positive as we could be. My own dismissal (in the 2nd innings from an “exploding” delivery) does not really concern me. One or two deliveries are taking off from a length. That is good for us, in a way, as we are not batting last. I was a part of the decision making team which suggested that we bat first after winning the toss. It might still turn out to be a good decision, but having said that, there are still two days to go. Things did not go our way yesterday (Day 2), but we chose to think about the next day and we came out very positively on Day 3, kept things as tight as possible and then to get some wickets too. This is a very important Test match and we do not want to go down in this game. It was very important that we had a great rest after Day 2 and come out fresh on Day 3. That is exactly what happened. We simply came out on Day 3 very positive, ready to go and things worked out in our favor. 250 would be fairly reasonable score to defend on this pitch for the team fielding last. This game still has a very long way to go before the end. This is Test cricket, and anything can happen for the rest of the game. Adrian (Griffith) played really well, hanging in there to the end. He will still come back on Day 4 and he could get a big total. Curtly (Ambrose) bowled as well on Day 3 as he has been bowling, but he had a bit more luck this time. Things just went his way. From now on, they, hopefully, will continue to go his way. Alex Stewart’s 105 was a well put together innings. He got a good explosive start and continued on. I think it was a really good innings. We had to remove him early on the 3rd day, as we knew that as long as he remained at the crease, he would score quickly and put the pressure on us. We were glad to get that wicket, especially Stewart’s, so early.”Day 3 was probably the fulcrum of this Test match. If the West Indies could continue their batting well on Day 4 and gain an ascendancy, then England could be facing 200-250 to win the game. England would be trying desperately to get early wickets on Day 4 to restrict the lead to under 200. This Test match is turning out to be a tight rope act. A slip could be very detrimental. Day 4 promises great intrigue.

AFP

There was a hat-trick from Faheem Ashraf, and a Sri Lankan collapse that saw them lose eight wickets for 14 runs. That might suggest another rout of the hapless visitors, but nothing could be further from reality. In the game of the entire tour, Pakistan edged home with one ball to spare, with only two wickets in hand when the winning runs were struck. They were struck by none other than golden boy Shadab Khan, who smashed a six off the game’s penultimate ball to wrench victory from Sri Lanka’s desperate, clawing hands.This was a complete T20 game, beginning with intelligent batting by Sri Lanka, put in after Pakistan won the toss. That was followed by a remarkable collapse from 106 for 1 to 120 for 9. Pakistan looked like they were cruising early on, before an excellent spell by captain Thisara Perera dragged Sri Lanka back. From there, they held the ascendancy right until the last three balls. Pakistan needed eight off them. Shadab hit a straight six and a couple off the next delivery denied Sri Lanka’s valiant young side victory in an astonishing contest.It was Sri Lanka’s best game of the limited-overs tour. The batsmen early on deprived Pakistan of wickets while keeping the score ticking. A 63-run second-wicket partnership between Gunathilaka and Sadeera Samarawickrama set Thisara’s men up for a score above par, with fast bowlers Hasan Ali and Usman Khan expensive in the early overs.Shadab was the only bowler in the middle overs able to rein in Sri Lanka. At one point, they might have been eyeing 150, but a superb spell from the teenager prevented them from cutting loose. He has added another variation, a quicker one that can reach 120kph, and it removed Sri Lanka’s top scorer Gunathilaka amidst their late collapse. Shadab might not have taken heaps of wickets, but his figures of 4-0-14-1 were to prove crucial.In the madness of Sri Lanka’s final overs, Faheem Ashraf emerged as the hero with a sensational hat-trick, removing Dasun Shanaka, Isuru Udana and Mahela Udawatte off the last three balls of the 19th over. It was Pakistan’s first T20I hat-trick and, in truth, couldn’t have come from an unlikelier source.Poor running and brilliant fielding hurt Sri Lanka’s innings: there were three run outs, The wickets that crumpled in a heap towards the end crushed their hopes of a late charge, and while it was still an improvement on yesterday, they still finished with a below-par 124.Pakistan were tentative in their approach to the chase, almost as if they had forgotten what to do when a match become mildly competitive. Fakhar Zaman was run out after miscommunication with Ahmed Shehzad, before Babar Azam fell victim to an incorrect lbw decision. But skipper Perera rose to the occasion, giving his side a real chance of victory, accounting for both Shehzad and Shoaib Malik in his first two overs.For a while, Mohammad Hafeez and Sarfraz Ahmed looked in control, never letting the asking rate get out of sight. But once Hafeez holed out to long on with Pakistan still requiring 31, panic set in. Perera returned for his final over and got rid of Imad Wasim, and terrific fielding in the deep saw Pakistan’s captain run out three balls later. Twenty-one were still required off 14, and with three wickets remaining, Sri Lanka were firm favourites.Udana conceded only four in a brilliant penultimate over, but the drama all lay in the last over. Faheem was caught at long-on off the first ball of Vikum Sanjaya’s over, and with 11 needed off four, Pakistan were up against it. It looked even graver for them when Hasan sliced one straight to long-off, but was reprieved by a crucial dropped catch, allowing Pakistan to scramble three. That brought on strike Shadab, a young man whose honeymoon with cricket simply refuses to end. Two balls and eight runs later, the contest was suddenly over, and Shadab’s joy, as well as Abu Dhabi’s, was unconfined.

The Indian Cricket League (ICL), unrecognised by the top bodies in the sport, is likely to be taken to court by the Pakistan Cricket Board for fielding a Pakistan XI in the ongoing World Series being held at the Lal Bahadur Shastri Stadium in Hyderabad.The Pakistan board’s contention is that there is only one team representing Pakistan, which is the team selected by the PCB, as it has been legally authorised to do so by the government.Shafqat Naghmi, the PCB’s chief operating officer, confirmed the board had asked its lawyers to prepare a brief on the issue. “We are looking at the legal side of this issue,” he told . “We believe what is being done is not right.”The current tournament of the ICL features three teams, India XI, Pakistan XI and World XI. This is the first time the ICL has divided its players into national sides, with its earlier three tournaments having featured city-based teams consisting of a mix of players. However, in its previous tournament, it had launched a new outfit in the form of Lahore Badshahs, a team which had only players from Pakistan, captained by Inzamam-ul-Haq and coached by Moin Khan. The side had garnered a big following in Pakistan, with a 100% success record in the tournament till their 2-0 loss in the best-of-three finals.The Pakistan board, along with several other countries, have already banned players participating in the ICL from national selection. The BCCI had indicated that it wanted ICL players to be barred by other boards at all levels, but a few have received clearance from the England board to play in the 2008 county season.

Khulna started the final round of matches with a one-point lead over Rajshahi. The key game was in Dhaka where Rajshahi appeared to be on course for a draw until dramatically collapsing on the third afternoon as Dhaka’s left-arm spinner Mosharraf Hossain took 6 for 13 to bowl them out for 77. Dhaka, chasing 130, had problems of their own as they slid to 91 for 7 before Mahmudullah Riyad and stand-in skipper Mohammad Sharif guided them to a three-wicket win on the stroke of tea. Sharif ended the match in emphatic style, launching two massive sixes over long-off.Bizarrely, at the end of the game Khaled Mashud, Rajshahi’s captain, led his team’s celebrations, telling bemused reporters that they were happy as they had secured the one-day title with a week to spare.As news of that result filtered through to Khulna, where the home side had surrendered a small first-innings lead, the tension mounted as Barisal reached 187 for 5 in pursuit of a target of 302. Anything other than a win would still have handed the title to Rajshahi, but the bowlers kept their nerve and the last five wickets fell for 51 runs.”We were confident because it was difficult to score near 300 on the fourth-day pitch,” stand-in Khulna skipper Nahidul Haque told The Daily Star. “We were hardly bothered about what happened in Dhaka rather our main target was to win the match.”The third match was one played in almost complete anonymity as Chittagong beat Sylhet by seven wickets at the Fatullah Stadium. Nazimuddin, who finished the top scorer in the league with 720 runs, led Chittagong’s chase of a target of 237The only downer on the season finale was the absence of national players, on duty in New Zealand. “There had been too much talking about our strength without the national players but we have proved it all rubbish,” Haque told the paper. “We proved that we have a number of good players in the team.”

Malcolm Speed, the International Cricket Council’s chief executive, has written to the boards of India [BCCI] and Pakistan [PCB] asking for comments on reports of racism during matches this week. However, the Indian board said that it was yet to receive any letter from the ICC.”We have noted media reports of racist chanting during the India-Australia ODI in Vadodara on Thursday and also of racist abuse directed at South Africa players and team officials in Lahore,” said Speed. “In the light of those reports we have written to both the BCCI and the PCB [on Saturday] asking for their comments on the incidents.”Speed said that it was crucial to ensure “cricket remains free from the scourge of racism”. He said: “The ICC retains a zero tolerance to racism as illustrated in our Anti-Racism Code which was strengthened last year following consultation with our Members and the ICC Board. The Code outlines measures host members are expected to undertake and those measures were unanimously approved by the ICC’s Board. We need to understand whether those measures are working.”Speed said the matter of racism would be further discussed at the ICC’s board meeting in Dubai at the end of this month.Although Cricket Australia has decided to let the BCCI take action, if any, in regards to the incident that occured on the boundary towards the end of Australia’s win in Vadodara, Ricky Ponting has urged the ICC to enforce its strict anti-racism code.Ratnakar Shetty, the BCCI chief administrative officer, said that the Indian board had not yet received the letter from the ICC. He also criticised Andrew Symonds for his comments in the newspapers where Symonds had said the Indian team had been treated like rock stars and princes after the ICC World Twenty20 win. “He [Symonds] need not comment on what we do,” Shetty told .

Scorecard and ball-by-ball details
How they were out

If an Indian team with ambitions to world dominance found the openingday at the Sardar Patel Stadium humiliating, day two was soul-destroying, with aclassy AB de Villiers double-century and a dogged Jacques Kallis hundredunderpinning a relentless South African charge to victory. By the time therain came down to wash away Indian tears, they had rampaged to 494 for 7,with de Villiers still going strong on 217, the highest score by a SouthAfrican against India.In the 77.2 overs bowled in the day, India managed just three wickets, twoof them when the batsmen were in the quest for quick runs after tea. Anil Kumble and Harbhajan Singh picked up one apiece, with Mark Boucher and Morne Morkel trapped leg before, but by then the only question being posed was just how imposingthe lead would be.de Villiers needed just 146 balls for his second hundred, and played somestupendous strokes in the final session. A huge six off Harbhajan landedon the roof at what is a massive venue, and when he was later gifted afull toss that he creamed through cover, the celebrations could begin.That stroke also brought up the 400-run lead, and de Villiers put the sealon an impressive day’s work with a mighty heave off Kumble that soaredinto the empty stand at deep midwicket. As a weary Indian side trudgedoff, a defeat of mammoth proportions beckoned unless they could bat with agreat deal more application at the second time of asking.Kumble and his men could reflect on opportunities that came their wayearly in the proceedings. Harbhajan, the pick of the bowlers, wasdesperately unlucky against both batsmen. Kallis had made just 61 when hefended one awkwardly off the glove, only to see it roll back and strikethe stumps. The bails stayed on, Harbhajan held his head, and the chancehad gone. In his very next over, an offbreak went right through deVilliers, missing the stumps by a whisker.Irfan Pathan was insipid with the old ball, and Kumble soon replaced himat the other end, but the runs slowly started to mount as the pitch showedfew signs of menace. de Villiers cut Harbhajan for four, and Kumble wasthen far from thrilled as a Kallis cover-drive was fumbled over the ropeby Sourav Ganguly.Despite slightly overcast conditions, Kumble didn’t call on Sreesanth. Bythe time the new ball was taken after 81.2 overs, whatever little moisturethat might have been in the pitch was long gone. Sreesanth soon made animpact too, striking Kallis on the shoulder with a bouncer and then havingan excellent leg-before shout turned down.Once the initial threat posed by the new ball passed, the runs camefreely. de Villiers flicked RP Singh for four and then glanced Sreesanthfine, before Kallis highlighted his power with two contemptuous pulls forfour. On the stroke of lunch, Ganguly came on, and a paddle down to fineleg saw de Villiers reach his fifth Test century.Kallis was on 97 at the time, and the 30th century that took him past SirDonald Bradman arrived soon after the interval, with a magnificentcover-drive for four off Ganguly. It had been a stolid and at timesfortuitous effort, spanning 228 balls, but vital in the context of thematch after Harbhajan’s three quick wickets on the first afternoon.The 200-run partnership came from 401 balls, and the runs were milked withease after that. Pathan was pedestrian at best and Kumble merelyrestrictive. Both men played the sweep with increasing confidence and itwas quite bizarre that Sreesanth, the most effective Indian pace bowler onview, was called on only an hour and ten minutes after lunch.Kallis swatted the first ball for four, and when an edge then streakedpast slip, Sreesanth’s frustration boiled over. But instead ofself-destructing, he used the anger to produce a gem of a delivery thatlifted from outside off stump and caught Kallis in two minds. By the timehe tried to arc the bat away, it was too late and the inside edge cannonedinto the stumps. He had batted six hours, and the partnership of 256 wasSouth Africa’s highest against India, surpassing the 236 that GaryKirsten, currently India’s coach, and Andrew Hudson added at the EdenGardens in 1996-97.A sparse crowd watched it all with a mixture of frustration and reluctantadmiration, and there was something forlorn about the few Indian flagsbeing waved in the stands on a day when dreams of global conquestevaporated in egg-frying heat.

Andrew Symonds says the loyalty of Australia’s best players will be tested over the next couple of years as they weigh up representing their country with accepting huge payments to join Twenty20 competitions. Symonds said in his Sunday Mail column the baggy green was still the “jewel in Australian cricket’s crown”, but admitted the big money would be tempting.”The way things are heading loyalty is really going to become a major issue, particularly when you can make more money in six or eight weeks than what you can in a whole season,” Symonds said. “Loyalty versus money always makes for an interesting debate. Who wouldn’t be tempted to take a job offering more money for less work?”Symonds warned the game’s administrators to be careful about the “serious threat” caused by it being more financially rewarding to retire from Tests and ODIs and appear in the Indian Premier League or the Indian Cricket League. “They need to find a way to be able to work with the IPL so everyone’s available,” Symonds said. “Otherwise you’re going to have blokes retiring early or just saying: ‘Look, it’s not worth the heartache. I can earn more in a very short period of time.”Last Sunday Symonds was gagged by Cricket Australia over his column when the board felt the allrounder did not understand the complicated nature of the issues. Protecting sponsors is one of Cricket Australia’s main concerns, but other problems surround a rule where only two Australians can appear in overseas domestic teams.A decision is still to be made on whether Australia goes to Pakistan next month – the players are not keen to go and the trip isn’t mentioned in Symonds’ column – and if they are given permission to appear in the IPL the time is limited. The squad is due to depart on May 10 for the West Indies while the IPL runs until June.”Right now you’d have to be nervous if you’re a cricket administrator of any of the big cricket-playing countries,” Symonds said. “I’m talking the likes of Australia, South Africa and England.”The pressure’s on big time to really look after the players, especially at the peak and then coming down the back end of their careers. The bottom line is the money on offer in India is not going away and it may even get more and more tempting.”

Matthew Hayden has said the Harbhajan Singh-Sreesanth row left him upset but is confident it was a stray incident. Hayden, the Australian opener currently playing for Chennai Super Kings in the Indian Premier League, also said he wouldn’t use this to sledge either of them when Australia tour India later this year.”I was very upset, I just think we play this great game, in a great competition and both these guys are young men with enormous responsibilities as two fine players and prospects for the country that adores cricket and its cricketers,” Hayden told Cricinfo. “So I am sure they will feel remorseful as any player would. Because I think any player who has risen to the top of the game obviously has enormous respect and enormous discipline to get there. Honestly, I think it will be tomorrow’s headlines and life will move on. The game has always moved on.”Asked whether he thought this was just a momentary lapse of reason Hayden said, “I think so, yes. I didn’t think this was ever going to happen and I don’t think it will happen again either. Hopefully not.”Hayden had a famous run-in with Harbhajan during India’s tour of Australia, where he called the offspinner a “little obnoxious weed”. Would he use the latest incident between Sreesanth and Harbhajan as a sledging tool when Australia visit India in October? “No, I won’t be,” he says with emphasis. Is he drawing a moral line to sledging? “Yes, I think so. That is an incident between two individuals and I don’t want to comment on their relationship and where they are at and how they are going. There is no point. All that does is just create another headline and I don’t want to do that. I love the game of cricket and I have been really successful at the game of cricket, so I don’t think I need to push that barrier.”It’s the beauty of our game really; there is a gentlemanly aspect to the game and we get challenged on this. Australia has been nominated as the best sledgers and we get asked the question a lot of time but in reality its actually a mis-truth or certainly an exaggerated truth.”What the world has done following the success of Australian cricket is to try and vilify us. And that’s fair enough as the best in the world need to be taken down. So we always had to be on our guard and understand within that we need to address the issue before anyone else does.

Hayden also said the Australian team has discussed the image of being the bad boys of international cricket and the ways of sledging. “You tell me what are these incidents of bad boys. I don’t think we are. But yes, we senior players do sit together and work out where we want to go and how we want to play our cricket. Also, making comments can be distracting to some characters. If someone is forced to do that without it being a motivating factor then its trouble.”He believes every team has a few characters that get involved in sledging. “I think in any given side, there are always two or three people that look to sledge. For e.g. In the Indian side, it would be Sreesanth, Harbhajan and [Robin] Uthappa. You wouldn’t hear a boo out of Rahul [Dravid], MS [Dhoni] and [Anil] Kumble though they are all fiercely determined.”Hayden also spoke about the art of sledging and how he would pick certain individuals for the treatment. “You choose your targets, really. I would never say anything to Sachin [Tendulkar], Rahul or Anil or anyone like that. I believe they have marked the test of time. We have been in battles together so many times and there is an enormous respect. Not that making comment is disrespect; making comment is trying to unsettle a player because you don’t know whether that guy has the skills to deal with it. And that was exactly the same when I was young coming into the game. You expect to get that.”