Ganguly out of SA Tests

[Occasional Fan]

Banned for two Tests for allowing a slow over rate yesterday. On the face of it, this seems harsh, but the ICC says this is Ganguly's second infraction in the last twelve months and the suspension has been applied rather than a fine to recognise that. The Indian board will appeal against the ban.

Leaving the sentence aside, is there any reason at all why 50 overs cannot be bowled in a ODI in 3 1/2 hours? I really can't see it myself. The Pakistani innings, which was only 49 overs, lasted 284 minutes - 74 minutes longer than the allocated time.

BBC report here.

[Rachael]

I'm all in favour of this ban: the only thing that upsets me is that it's taken so long for the authorities to use these powers as they are supposed to be used.

IN the Test series in the WI there should have been bans for both Vaughan AND Lara for slow over rates.. and the consensus was that the officials shied away from doing the right thing because without Lara playing any semblance of credibility would have been gone from the series.

I do feel sorry for the ICC folk: they provide the means to tacke fundamental blights on the modern game that are tantamount to cheating, especially where done to maintain the freshness of bowlers in a game where batting sides are working to wear them down - and then find the powers largely unused.

My only criticism of this measure is that it's badly framed: all that a side needs to do to get around it is have a non critical player as captain and the punishment remains acceptable. The opposing team should pick which player they would like to see suspended.. so that the likes of Tendulkar, Warne, Kallis, Flintoff and Akhtar can be forced to miss games - that would see the over rate kept up :-)

[Occasional Fan]

I think the ban is overdue as well, Rachael. Not sure I understand who you are suggesting should pick the player to be banned in this case, however. Should it be Pakistan - the team against whom India were playing when the offence occurred - or South Africa - the next opponents? It's pretty revolutionary sort of thinking anyway, and I don't really go along with it. Seems a bit like asking the victim of a burglary what the sentence should be for the burglar. I'd prefer to leave sentencing with a reasonably independent body.

[Rachael]

I'd say the object of a ban is to give the advantage to the next team (who will benefit) and would therefore like to see the player who wil be most critical to the next game being the one getting the ban. Asking the next opponent woud REALLY be interesting.. but if not then I'd go by something like PWC rating: the player with the highest rating (whether than be as a batsman or as a bowler) would get the chop.

[Occasional Fan]

Hmm. I see where you are coming from - and certainly I prefer the idea of using the PwC ratings rather than giving the choice to the future opponent - but there still seems to be something wrong in terms of natural justice with the idea of suspending a player who, even though key to the side, may not be in a position to influence bowling rate significantly. Having the skipper carry the can seems like the right thing to me. Of course, you could have teams naming people as skippers purely because they can afford to have them suspended, leaving the "real" captaincy in the hands of one of the other blokes. Realistically, however, I'm not sure I can see that happening. It would be like having a private in the ranks dishing out the orders through a mouthpiece who has the pips on his shoulder: wouldn't work in the Army and I can't really see it working in a cricket team.

Maybe there are other players in the Indian team whose absence from the SA tests would cause more inconvenience than Ganguly's, but surely having him suspended is a pretty severe team punishment? (Not too severe: I am not arguing that the punishment is excessive, but it is severe enough for the team and at least falls primarily on an individual who had real influence over what was a pretty woeful bowling rate yesterday.)

[The Great DonTalon]

Now we all know that Ganguly is not the best man manager there is ..in fact he's not even the best captain there is..he shouts at senior players ( Kumble and Srinath here in the Caribbean) and gets up the sleve of everyone else except maybe Dravd and Tendulkar ( on the field that is).

What I would like to ask if this :If this were the England captain , Australian captain or Greame Smith would they have gotten this two match ban or would they have gotten a stern talking to or a suspended sentence ?

I believe that most of you here wouldn't think that those three names just mentioned would be banned for 2 tests.

[Occasional Fan]

A stern talking to or a suspended sentence for a second offence and a 49 over innings which lasted 74 minutes - that's 35%! - over time? Don, that would just make a mockery of the whole disciplinary system. If it was Michael Vaughan and he was getting 50 lashes for it, it would still be pretty difficult to sympathise! Ganguly had it coming and should have seen it a mile off. Same would apply to any of the blokes you name and to any you haven't named, if they were daft enough to infringe to this extent.

[Occasional Fan]

No surprise there, of course. But what is this? If the ICC can't hear the appeal before the end of the week, Ganguly could be allowed to play on Saturday. OK - that's fair enough: in terms of natural justice I am happy enough with sentence being suspended pending appeal, but there are four days between now and Saturday. Surely enough time to get this dealt with? Surely the ICC should have learnt something from the affair of Rio Ferdinand (a footballer)?

BBC report here.

[Maranello]

{i} There were five balls changes in the Indian innings, all of them initiated by the officials and all requiring a few minutes each in which the third umpire brought out a box, the three officials pored over each specimen and finally selected one.

{ii} Salman Butt suffered from cramps during his long innings and play had to be stopped for his treatment on more than one occasion for significant lengths of time. He finally walked off retired hurt and returned at the fall of the next wicket a stronger lad.

Ganguly probably did attempt to slow down the over rates to break up the batsmen's tempo. But a lot of the delay is also caused by his habit to continually talk to the bowlers during overs, to change fields and re-set them every other delivery and have lengthy on-field deliberations with his think-tank.

As such, I am not sure if he was deliberately cheating, and whether the 2 Test ban is justified. It is the 'appropriate' punishment within the rules of the game. However, it maybe is not the most just.

[Occasional Fan]

74 minutes, Maranello? That's a lot of balls (if you see what I mean) and a load of cramp (if you see what I mean again).