Akram joins elite club
By S. Pervez Qaiser
Pakistani all-rounder Wasim Akram became the fourth bowler in the history of Test cricket to have scalped 400 wickets. He achieved this feat when he had Russell Arnold, caught by Mohammed Akram in Sri Lanka’s second innings at Sinhalese sports Club Ground, Colombo. It was his 96th Test match. The first bowler to take 400 wickets in Test cricket was New Zealand’s Richard Hadlee. Hadlee achieved this feat in his 80th Test match against India at Christchurch in 1989-90 series by dismissing middle order batsman Sanjay Manjrekar, caught by Dean Jones.

Comic opera in Indian women’s hockey
By Ramu Sharma
IT just does not make any sense. Four senior players keep away from a coaching camp prior to the Olympic Qualifying Tournament in Milton Keynes (England), — giving family pre-occupation as reasons —and the Indian team, without them, finishes last among the competing nations.

Cricket — from celebration to lament
By Neville De Silva

THE event: a one-day cricket match between arch rivals India and Pakistan. The venue: the gigantic Eden Gardens Stadium in Calcutta.

Pakistani Wasim Akram’s very first ball is so wayward and wide, it goes over slip fielders’ heads. With a mere six runs on the scoreboard, India declares. Pakistan goes in to bat. Indian all-rounder Kapil Dev bowls an underarm full toss to Pakistani batting sensation Salim Malik. Even a schoolboy would have wacked it to the boundary — Malik promptly misses the ball. He is bowled.

Shock all around, except among the bookies and match-fixers. Absurd ? May be, but then this is not a real-life match. It was dreamed up by the London Observer newspaper recently and put on its editorial pages.

The lighthearted editorial on the raging controversy over match-fixing, where sportsmen willingly throw away matches in return for money, made for a good laugh. But consciously or not — by mentioning only India and Pakistan, it also made out that match-fixing and corruption in cricket is a peculiarly South Asian pastime, if not the region’s monopoly.

The fact remains that money — big money — has corrupted not only cricket but many other sports, including wrestling, boxing, baseball, football and horse racing.

As far back as 1920, players from the Chicago White Sox baseball team were suspended for throwing games. Widespread reports of links between baseball players and bookies led to the appointment of an all-powerful commissioner.

The new commissioner put his foot down firmly. “No player,” he proclaimed, “who throws a ballgame, no player that undertakes or promises to throw a ballgame, no player that sits in conference with a bunch of crooked players and gamblers where the means of throwing the game are discussed and does not promptly tell his club about it, will ever play professional baseball.”

With a few changes it might well sound like the warning that came out of the International Cricket Council (ICC) in May — after widespread reports about match-fixing involving star players from South Asia.

But there the similarity ends. If cricket’s international administrators had been as alert, sensitive and tough as the baseball scam commissioner, they would have seen the first danger signals years ago.

In the 1980s, players were offered — and many accepted without demur — huge sums of money to undertake tours to ostracised South Africa. This was in violation of the Gleneagles Agreement that had banned all sporting contacts with the white minority — run country. Many of the so-called rebel players were English — none South Asian.

Then Australian Kerry Packer not only put big money into cricket but changed the complexion of the game by breaking with tradition.

The rapid professionalisation of cricket on the one hand and the reluctance of cricketing nations such as England to grant the status of full tours to new cricket-playing countries resulted in a proliferation of matches in South Asia and the Middle East — with even more money, under the sponsorship of some large companies.

Even when there was evidence that dubious dealings were creeping into cricket, the game’s administrators adopted to ignore it. Twenty years ago the famous Australian speedster Dennis Lillee and his wicketkeeper colleague Rodney Marsh laid 500-1 bets on England defeating their Australian team in the 1981 Test at Headingly.

But cricket’s mandarins took no action South African skipper Hansie Cronje and his team twice discussed throwing a match during the 1977-98 tour of India. Australians Shane Warne and Mark Waugh are alleged to have taken money from bookmakers to provide information about playing conditions and other matters.

Again, cricket administrators in Australia and the ICC failed to highlight the fines imposed on Warne and Waugh or take tougher action against them. Cronje now says, “In a moment of stupidity and weakness I allowed Satan and the world to dictate terms to me.”

Satanical or not, compared to some other sports, corruption in cricket is a relatively new phenomenon. In 1950, when the West Indians touring England beat the home team at an historic match at Lords, the Mecca of cricket, their fans composed a calypso song. It went like this:

Cricket lovely cricket
West Indies won by ten wicket
Yardley did his best
But Goddard won the test
With those little pals of mine
Ramadhin and Valentine.

It sang the praises of the spin twins Sonny Ramadhin and Alf Valentine who would continue to mesmerise opposing batsmen for many years.

Today, if songs are sung for those in the world of cricket they are unlikely to be music to the ears of crickets lovers. These would be songs of lament or denigration — like the one put together by a radio disc jockey in South Africa after the Hansie Cronje affair.

It was a prosaic appeal for forgiveness: “Hansie, Hansie, give him another chancie.”

Clearly, it is no longer ‘cricket lovely cricket’, but cricket ugly cricket. — Gemini News

Akram joins elite club
By S. Pervez Qaiser

Pakistani all-rounder Wasim Akram became the fourth bowler in the history of Test cricket to have scalped 400 wickets. He achieved this feat when he had Russell Arnold, caught by Mohammed Akram in Sri Lanka’s second innings at Sinhalese sports Club Ground, Colombo. It was his 96th Test match.

The first bowler to take 400 wickets in Test cricket was New Zealand’s Richard Hadlee. Hadlee achieved this feat in his 80th Test match against India at Christchurch in 1989-90 series by dismissing middle order batsman Sanjay Manjrekar, caught by Dean Jones.

India’s Kapil Dev was the second bowler to complete 400 wickets in Test cricket. Kapil reached this milestone in his 115th Test match against Australia at Perth in 1991-92 series when he dismissed opening batsman Mark Taylor, leg before wicket.

West Indian speedstar Courtney Walsh was the third bowler to have scalped 400 wickets. Walsh achieved this feat when he trapped Australian Ian Healy leg before at Port of Spain in the 1998-99 series. It was Walsh’s 107th Test match.

Wasim Akram made his Test debut against New Zealand at Auckland in the 1984-85 series. John Wright was his first victim in Test cricket.

In his 30th Test match against Australia at Melbourne in the 1989-90 series, Akram completed his century of wickets by dismissing tail ender Terry Alderman.

The left arm fast bowler reached the milestone of 200 wickets in his 51st Test match at Bulawaya in 1994-95 by dismissing Zimbabwean opening batsman Grant Flower.

Akram’s 300th wicket came in his 70th Test match against England at The Oval in the 1996 series. His 300th victim was Alan Mullally. Wasim Akram played 39 series in 15 years and 144 days to reach this milestone.

Indian opener Krish Srikkanth has the dubious distinction of being dismissed most often by Wasim Akram, nine times, followed by West Indian Curtly Ambrose, eight times. Zimbabwean Grant Flower has been dismissed by Akram on seven occasions while West Indian Malcolm Marshall and Courtney Walsh were sent back by Akram on six occasions apiece.

Akram took 152 wickets in 38 Test matches in Pakistan. He dismissed 252 batsmen in 38 Test matches outside Pakistan. He has taken 10 wickets in a Test match five times and five wickets in an innings on 25 occasions. Only Richard Hadlee, New Zealand-36 times, and Ian Botham, England-27 times, have taken five or more wickets in an innings most times than Wasim Akram.

Comic opera in Indian women’s hockey
By Ramu Sharma

IT just does not make any sense. Four senior players keep away from a coaching camp prior to the Olympic Qualifying Tournament in Milton Keynes (England), — giving family pre-occupation as reasons —and the Indian team, without them, finishes last among the competing nations. A hue and cry follows and a demand for a life-ban on the players is made by a majority in the meeting of the Indian Women’s Hockey Federation Executive. This is then watered down to a three-year suspension. That is left in abeyance till a enquiry panel goes into the whole matter and reports back to the Executive. The enquiry panel recommendations of a year’s suspension is studied by the Executive and then astonishingly even that is found to be too stiff. Then comes the comic end — an apology within a stipulated time and that is all.

What is one to make of this sudden turnabout in the ranks of the IWHF Executive? Agreed the soft stand is in keeping with the nature and wish of Mrs. Vidya Stokes, the President, But surely she did not carry the house with her? The Secretary, Ms Amrit Bose and a vast majority have been advocating a very strong action. Thus despite the reported “unanimity” in decision, the differences in the rank and file of the IWHF has been very transparent.

Much needs to be explained over the dilution of the enquiry Panel’s recommendations. In asking for a year’s ban on the players the panel had obviously gone into the whole issue, starting from the boycott of the camp. It must have studied the complaints, the observations of the concerned people and also explored the causes which led to the stand-off between the IWHF and the players. That at the end of the enquiry it had obviously come to the conclusion that the players were not free from blame and should be penalised. In asking for a ban of only one year the panel again perhaps kept in mind the general disposition of the President.

But the IWHF Executive, by rejecting the recommendations of the panel, and settling for an apology instead, has virtually made nonsense of the whole affair, starting from the first meeting of the Executive to decide on the strategy to deal with the erring players to the appointment of the inquiry panel and then in reviewing the recommendations of the said panel.

If all that the Executive wants is an apology from the four players — Sita Gosain, Pritam Rani Siwach, Manjinder Kaur and Sandeep Kaur, — then question arises as to what apology and what for? The dilution of the recommendations of the inquiry panel means that the players did not do anything wrong. They had given “family pre-occupation” as reasons for not joining the final camp and the IWHF’s latest stand amounts to accepting their reasons as valid and true.

Even the IWHF will agree that the players have not been cleared by the inquiry panel. It recommended a ban for one year only because it found some justification in the IWHF’s earlier suspicion, voiced by a majority, that the players were far from innocent. The IWHF’s latest stand is ambiguous. If it did not want to take action against the erring players then it should have sorted out the whole thing even before the team left for Milton Keynes. Why then the noisy Executive meeting, the setting up of an enquiry panel and the rest of the drama? For what purpose?

According to reports the players had , in their depositions before the panel, put all the blame on Ms Bose. Nothing was apparently decided about this particular aspect of the investigation. And what about the observation of Mr. Ramesh Nambiar, one of the members of the panel? He is reported to have claimed that he had left the meeting well before all the decisions were taken and he had made several points against the administration in the whole episode. He was not the only one who was unhappy with the IWHF Executive decision.

The IWHF Executive has also been guilty of inconsistency. While letting the four players go with an apology, it has decided to take action against the coach of the team, Mr. G.S.Bhangu and the manager, Ms. Rupa Saini, though the nature of punishment has not been decided.

And what is the fault of the coach and manager? As for as the coach is concerned, it appears he is paying the penalty for the team losing — common thing in Indian hockey — and also for having reportedly stated that the team would not suffer because of the absence of the four senior players. Mr. Bhangu and Ms Saini on the other hand blamed the IWHF for not ensuring the presence of the four players in the camp. It is believed they had repeatedly stressed on the need for the inclusion of the concerned players in the team.

Discipline is very important and players should not be allowed to dictate to the federation on the appointment of coaches and selection of teams. This is entirely the prerogative of the Federation and the selection committee. A player cannot demand inclusion of some others merely because he or she is a friend. That is not done.

And finally one cannot help but draw a comparison of the stand taken on the issue of players by the IWHF and the IHF. The latter sidelined six players from the team that won the gold medal in the Asian Games in Bangkok in 1998 while here four players are let off with a mere apology even though their absence cost India a possible place in the Olympic Games.