Ganguly out of SA Tests

[Maranello]

As I said, "Ganguly probably did attempt to slow down the over rates to break up the batsmen's tempo".

Of the 74 minutes, I would say as many as 25 were due to factors entirely outside his control.

Nevertheless, that is still a 50 minute delay - over 20% of the allocated time - and a sanction was required. I would have preferred for him to be banned from 2 or 3 ODIs, and not Tests. The punishment should match the crime... another tenet of natural justice I am sure! (and if it is not, it should be!)

[Occasional Fan]

Sorry, Maranello! I was only going for a cheap laugh!

Clive Lloyd was the match referee, and he gave an allowance of 24 minutes for the ball changes and cramp treatments (the BBC report I linked above mentions this). As you say, that still leaves a lot of time unaccounted for. There might be some room for considering a rule change (though I'm not convinced) once this case is over, but Ganguly is a professional and either knows the rules he plays by or should do. He pushed the officials' tolerance beyond breaking point this time. As I said to Don, for a second offence of such blatant proportions he really shouldn't be expecting a sympathetic appeal hearing or a rule change in this case (which a ODI ban would require given India's present schedule). That said, the ICC doesn't always come across as having the strongest of spines. Anything could happen, and if I were a gambling man I'd bet on a reduction of sentence to one test match.

[Maranello]

Yes, the ICC does get pushed around a lot and I agree that they might cave in here too. However, if they do not, and set Ganguly as a precedent, and then follow it actively and consistenly, I for one would be applauding them.

I had not read Clive LLoyd's comments, so quite gratifying to know that my off-hand guess of 25 minutes is within 4% of his expert conclusion!

[Occasional Fan]

Agree completely on the need for precedents, once set, to be followed. Tough for Ganguly that he is the precedent, but, as I say, he should know the rules! And well done on the 25 minute point!

[Zainub]

It was so frustratraing for everyone each time the ball was changed - for both teams and for the fans, especially for the ones watching on TV. Once in each innings, ok, well that's tolerable, but 4 times in each innings and 8 times in a match resulting in 24 minutes in all being wasted - that's absolutely ridicolous. With all the technoolgy there is available I really find it surprising that manufacturers can't make a ball that can stay white for 50 overs...they should consult those people who make golf balls...or do whatever - changing the ball sometimes gives a marginle though unfair advantage to one side , and it's another aspect of the game I think ICC should be re-looking at.

[Occasional Fan]

Wasn't part of the problem that there was a very heavy dew under the lights, so that the balls were getting waterlogged? That would be a very difficult one to counter without changing the material the ball is made from.

[Maranello]

Correct, the balls were getting very wet and very soft - all the changes were called for by the umpires, not by the fielding captain.

[Zainub]

I don't think that should be too difficult a problem to solve either - there must be some material out there that doesn't absorb water, change color/shape and yet swing and seam. There must be.

[Maranello]

Yes, but it would not be leather then!

A synthetic material could always be used - but then the ball will bounce differently to what it does now, swing in new and unheralded trajectories and speeds and will not have a real seam, so movement off the pitch would be limited. All batsmen and bowlers at all levels will have to re-learn their trades and many would find the game too boring to bother with. Finger spinners will probably change their profession en masse.

I can't imagine much worse for cricket!

Instead, why don't we do the decent thing, ban all day/night cricket at International level, use proper Red balls for ODIs and not have the whole ball-change fiasco?

[Zainub]

What a wonderful idea - really, I've always had a dislike for day and night games because it will always give one side an unfair advantage (one will play in the day and the other in the night and those happen to be two entirely different playing conditions)...really a great idea!!!