Part 1: Not Quite Right Part 1
You'd think Honssee Cronyeah's 99 bank accounts would've peaked the ICC's interest. You'd think:
news emerged on the day that Malcolm Gray, the International Cricket Council president, admitted that his body had all but given up hope of catching the game's cheats.
I wouldn't sweep it under the covers just yet, Malcolm. It ain't gonna go away:
DPP to continue its investigations into Cronje's complicated finances suggests that the full extent of match-fixing in cricket may yet emerge.
Getting a whiff of scandal here. Does anyone else reckon the ICC know's who's involved?
Part 2: Not Quite Right Part 2
Why can't I find anything about this in the papers? It's noteworthy.
Harby bowls. Hits Gilchrist on thigh. Ball pops to slip. Bounces in front of Ganguly. Ganguly gathers. Ganguly appeals. Not out.
Now. Gilchrist clearly didn't hit it. Ganguly clearly didn't catch it. If Morgan Freeman had thought Gilly hit it he would have referred it to the Third Umpire. Rudi.K would certainly have given it not out.
However, what if there was no third umpire? What if we were back in the days before Michael Vaughan and the crease limpets? The days when batsmen asked the fieldsman if they'd caught it.
- Would Ganguly have said he caught it? I'm thinking, yes.
- If Ganguly's appeal was in earnest, he's a massive cheat. He knew Gilly didn't hit it. He knew it bounced.
- Did Ganguly assume the Third Umpire would dismiss it if it was referred? In other words, was it a clever sledge? If it was, it worked. Gilly responded with a crack about the replay then proceded to go the tonk and get out soon after. (After scooping a chance the ball before. Silly batting.)
- Does this little episode vindicate the Third Umpire's judging of low catches? Benefit of the doubt and all that. Surely instances like that prove the worth of assessment via the replay. So, let's have no more talk of the "Good Ole Days".
Part 3: Not Quite Right Part 3
Realisitically, once Sach'n Bash was out the Indians should have had no hope. This wasn't the case though:
- If the game was washed out before 25 overs then there would have been a complete rematch the next day. Australia's 359 would have amounted to nothing. This is completely unacceptable! Can you imagine the rumpus that would ensue if the game was abandoned after 24 overs and the next day Australia lost after being rolled for 250. In the future, play on reserve days MUST continue from where the game left off at the rain delay.
- If the Indians had gotten to 25 overs, all they needed was to be 1 for 130. That's marginally more than five an over and seems manifestly inadequate considering Australia mounted a massive total at more than seven an over. I'm generally in favour of the Duckyloo system, but in light of last night, some tweaking of the formula is necessary.