All posts by csb10.top

On May 2, West Indies batsman Marlon Samuels was found guilty of a misconduct charge brought against him because of his involvement with an Indian gambler, Mukesh Kochhar. The judgment, which brought with it an immediate two-year ban from the game, was handed down by the Disciplinary Committee of the West Indies Cricket Board (WICB), headed by Justice Adrian Saunders and including Dr Lloyd Barnett, Professor Aubrey Bishop and former West Indies captain Richie Richardson.Following is a condensed version of the report of the WICB Committee:ChargesThe particulars of the first charge were that Mr Samuels had:received the benefit of the provision of hotel accommodation to the value of Indian Rupees 50,486.70 (US$1,238) from Mukesh Kochhar and/or his associates. At the conclusion of the West Indies vs India ODI Series in January 2007, [he] travelled to Mumbai on January 31, 2007 and stayed there at the Hyatt Regency Hotel until Sunday February 4, 2007. One night of the hotel stay was included in the Series travel and, as such, the cost was paid by the BCCI. On February 4, 2007, while checking out of the hotel, [he] called Mukesh Kochhar on his mobile and after speaking to him, handed over the phone to the cashier, who was informed by Kochhar that somebody would be sent to the hotel with the cash owing which was Indian Rupees 50,486.70 (US$1,238). About 30 minutes later a man called Yogesh Arora attended the hotel and paid the bill in cash.The particulars of the second charge were that Mr. Samuels had:engaged in conduct which, in the opinion of the Executive Board, relates directly or indirectly to the Rules of Conduct i.e. (i) to (xiii) and is prejudicial to the interests of the game of cricket, in that on Saturday January 20, 2007 at 23:45 hrs, while staying at the Pride Hotel in Nagpur, [he] received a phone call from one Mukesh Kochhar and provided to him accurate information regarding the West Indies opening bowlers at the first ODI between the West Indies and India which was played the very next day, January 21, 2007, in Nagpur.Peacock investigationThe circumstances surrounding the allegations made against Mr Samuels had been thoroughly investigated by Mr Alan Peacock, a Senior Investigator of the Anti-Corruption & Security Unit of the ICC. Mr Peacock had compiled a Report of his investigation and this was made available to the Committee. The Committee had the benefit of all the statements that had been taken by Mr. Peacock from persons who were in a position to assist with the investigation. These statements included both the audio recording and a printed transcript of a full and candid interview conducted by Mr Peacock with Mr Samuels on Wednesday April 25, 2007 in the presence of his lawyer, Mr Neita. The Committee also had available to it the audio recording and printed transcripts of a telephone conversation between Mr Mukesh Kochhar and Mr Samuels. This recording was available because the Indian police had been officially recording telephone calls made by Mr Kochhar and the recording of the call in question had been turned over to Mr Peacock.Mr Peacock was present in person to be examined on his report and on such other matters as Mr Samuels’ lawyers or the members of the Committee wished to question him.The evidentiary backgroundThere is little dispute as to the factual circumstances that attend the two charges. Central to all the relevant events is the relationship between Mukesh Kochhar and Marlon Samuels. Mr Kochhar is an Indian national who resides in Dubai. Mr Samuels is a West Indian international cricketer.The two men first met in early 2002. The West Indies team was in Sharjah to play against Pakistan. Marlon Samuels was just 19 years old at the time. While on tour he had sustained a knee injury requiring surgery and so was in the Players and VIP Stand. Mr Kochhar had a VIP box there. Mr Kochhar came into contact with Mr Samuels. He struck up a conversation with the injured youngster. In the course of the conversation Mr Samuels complained about the food at the hotel. Mr Kochhar immediately called up a friend who runs a local restaurant and arranged for food to be delivered to Mr Samuels’ room anytime he called. Mr Samuels and Mr Kochhar exchanged telephone numbers and, although they did not see each other frequently over the years, Mr Kochhar kept in regular telephone contact. The two developed a friendship. Mr Samuels regarded Mr Kochhar, a man Mr Peacock adjudged to be in his late 50s or 60s, as a father figure, a mentor.More backgroundIn January, 2007, the West Indies team was on tour in India. The team played an ODI at Nagpur on Sunday January 21, 2007. On the previous night of Saturday January 20, 2007 at 23:45 hrs, Mr Kochhar called Mr Samuels who was then alone in his hotel room. Unknown to Mr Samuels and to Mr Kochhar at the time, all of the latter’s telephone calls were being intercepted legally and covertly by the Indian police. The call to Mr Samuels was recorded. The tape was turned over to Mr Peacock. The Committee was able to listen to the recording of the entire call. It lasted for about six minutes. On the tape, Mr Kochhar and Mr Samuels exchanged pleasantries as old friends might and then they spoke about the match to be played the next day. Mr Samuels is encouraged to play well, not to give catches, not to get run out and to consolidate his position in the team. The conversation also encompasses team information. Mr Kolchhar asks, inter alia, whether “Chris” is in form; who will open the bowling for the West Indies; when will Mr Samuels come on to bowl. Mr Samuels gives an answer to each of these questions. He informs Mr Kolchhar that the opening bowlers would be (Jerome) Taylor and (Ian) Bradshaw.In his remarkably frank and candid interview with Mr Peacock, recounting this telephone call, Mr Kochhar said:”During our conversation we talked about the fact that the ball moves around in the morning and slows down in the afternoon. I asked him who the opening bowlers would be and he told me Taylor and Bradshaw. We discussed that Marlon would be third bowler and Chris Gayle would be fourth or fifth bowler. He told me there would be new faces in the team, making a debut. I gave him words of encouragement and told him to consolidate his play”Some of the information that was given to Mr Kochhar by Mr Samuels turned out to be accurate. Taylor and Bradshaw did open the bowling for the West Indies the following day and Samuels did bowl first change. It may be sheer coincidence but that bowling order had never previously been employed by a West Indies captain nor has it ever been employed since. Some of the information given to Mr. Kochhar turned out to be false. No player made his debut during that match and we were unable to determine whether any debutant was in the squad named from which the final 11 was chosen.In June, 2007, Mr Peacock interviewed Mr Henderson Springer, the West Indies assistant coach on that tour to India. Mr Springer could not remember any of the details of the team meeting the night before the match at Nagpur but he confirmed that there definitely would have been one. He stated that at such team meetings the usual format would be to discuss the other team’s weak points and the tactics of how to do well themselves. During the meeting the players would learn who was in the team the next day and usually who the opening bowlers would be. They hardly ever discussed who the third bowler would be. Mr Springer could not remember if any of these points was actually covered in the meeting the night before the Nagpur match, and he could not remember if there was any discussion about when the likely debutant would actually be making his debut.Mr Kochhar admitted to Mr Peacock that he bets heavily on cricket. He has always done so. He denied, however, that he was a cricket bookmaker and Mr Peacock turned up no evidence to disprove that denial. Mr Kochhar also admitted that he did place bets on the West Indies/India match at Nagpur on January 21, 2007. He told Mr Peacock that he could not remember what the bets were or whether he had won or lost because he had placed bets on so many matches. He told Mr Peacock, off the record as he was worried about the police in the UAE and the tax authorities in India, that he regularly gambled between 3-5 lakhs a time i.e. approximately US$7,000-$12,000.Towards the end of his interview with Mr Peacock, Mr Kochhar noted: “I have never actually discussed my cricket betting with Marlon, he has never asked me to put a bet on for him, but maybe he knows I bet because of Sharjah.” It must be said, however, that no further evidence was presented to the Committee that Mr. Samuels was ever aware of Mr. Kochhar’s betting activities and therefore the Committee makes no finding that he was aware of them.At the end of that 2007 India tour, Mr Samuels and Mr Chris Gayle spent a few extra days in Mumbai. The pair had arranged to be participants in a television or video production from which they expected to earn US$2,000 each. The arrangements fell through. The players went to the site prepared to do the shoot. From bitter experience, they saw it fit to demand payment in advance. When payment was not forthcoming they declined ultimately to participate in the production.Like Mr Gayle, Mr Samuels became personally responsible for defraying his hotel and accommodation expenses for the extra days he had stayed on in Mumbai. Mr Gayle paid his bill with a credit card. Mr Samuels attempted to do likewise but his card was declined. He had spent that morning shopping. He therefore needed money to pay his hotel bill. He called Mr Kochhar from the hotel lobby and asked him to settle the unpaid hotel expenses. Mr Kochhar there and then arranged to have someone immediately go to the hotel and settle Mr Samuels’ bill. The bill came up to 50,486.70 Rupees or US$1,238.Mr Samuels stated in his interview with Mr Peacock that this was the first time he had ever asked Mr Kochhar to do anything of the sort and that he had every intention of repaying him the funds. Mr Kochhar, in his interview with Mr Peacock, confirmed that Mr Samuels had indicated to him (Kochhar) that he (Samuels) would give the money back when he returned to the West Indies but Mr Kochhar said that he told him that it was unnecessary and that there was no need to repay him.The funds were never repaid. Mr Samuels explained that as soon as he returned to Jamaica he was required to go off to the West Indies’ World Cup training camp and then, shortly after that, the news of this matter hit the international press. A transcript of the Kochhar/Samuels telephone call the night before the Nagpur ODI was leaked to the Indian Press and Cricinfo published the transcript for all the world to see. In light of the enormous international controversy that ensued following this publication, Mr Samuels’ lawyers stated that Mr Samuels did not think it prudent further to communicate with Mr Kochhar.Comments on affidavits given on Samuels character. (including Tony Becca and Michael Holding)Mr Michael Holding, who needs no introduction in cricketing circles, said in his affidavit that he came to know Marlon Samuels from the latter’s childhood as a member of the Melbourne Cricket Club. He deposed that “as a result of the nature of the academic side of his time at Kingston College, Marlon received extra lessons from my mother for a considerable period”. Mr Holding described Marlon as “naive and, quite unfortunately, seriously lacking in judgment and discernment, but he is by no means a dishonest person nor one who would in the slightest be given to the kind of corrupt activity now alleged against him”.The charge related to divulging confidential team information.After the legal submissions had been made, the Committee continued to have grave doubts not merely about whether the second charge, as amended by the Committee, had been proved but also about the propriety of the very charge itself. The essence of the charge relates to the divulging of confidential team information. The charge in question is set out at para 5 above. The particulars of the charge describe conduct which is said to be contrary to Part C 4 (xiv) of the Code of Conduct. What is prohibited by Part C 4 (xiv) is conduct prejudicial to the interests of the game of cricket and which conduct “relates directly or indirectly to any of the above paragraphs (i) to (xiii)”.When we deliberated among ourselves, we sought in vain to locate the impugned conduct of Mr. Samuels within Part C 4 (i) to (xiii) of the Code of Conduct. We recalled counsel and sought assistance from Mr Jones. We did not find his answers convincing either as to the aspects of Part C 4 (i) to (xiv) to which the alleged conduct relates or as to whether there was any evidence in favour of his submission that “team” or “dressing room” decisions had been divulged.The only aspects of Part C 4 (i) to (xiii) of the Code of Conduct that could conceivably relate to the particulars described in the second charge are those referred to at C 4 (viii) and C 4 (xi). Part C 4 (viii) prohibits a person from “[receiving] from another person any money, benefit or other reward (whether financial or otherwise) for the provision of any information concerning the weather, the teams, the state of the ground, the status of, or the outcome of, any match or the occurrence of any event unless such information has been provided to a newspaper or other form of media in accordance with an obligation entered into in the normal course and disclosed in advance to the Cricket Authority of the relevant member country”.The difficulty with treating Part C 4 (viii) as related to Samuels’ conduct is that the whole emphasis in C 4 (viii) is placed on the giving of confidential information for reward. But there is no evidence before us that Samuels exchanged or had any intention of exchanging for reward the information he shared with Mr. Kochhar. If anything, the evidence is quite to the contrary. Part C 4 (viii) is therefore of no help in determining exactly what is the conduct of Mr Samuels that “relates directly or indirectly to any of the above paragraphs (i) to (xiii)”.Part C 4 (xi) is equally unhelpful. That part speaks to a person who has “received any approaches from another person to engage in conduct such as that described in any of the above paragraphs (i) to (x) and has failed to disclose the same to his captain or to his team manager, or to a senior Board official or to the Anti-Corruption and Security Unit”.The problem here is immediately obvious. To use Part C 4 (xi) in this manner would suggest that there is described in the Code, somewhere between paragraphs (i) to (x), some conduct that is akin or “related directly or indirectly” to the conduct particularised in the second charge laid against Mr Samuels. But there is no such conduct so described between paragraphs (i) to (x). In short, it did not appear to us that the Code, as it is currently worded, prohibits per se the improper divulging even of confidential team information in circumstances where the person giving out the information does not himself: bet on matches (i), or encourage others to bet on matches (ii), or gamble (iii), or encourage others to gamble (iv), or become a party to match fixing (v), or underperform (vi), or encourage some other to underperform (vii), or trade the information for reward (viii).This may or may not have been an oversight on the part of the ICC but in light of these circumstances, we felt unanimously that the charge related to divulging confidential team information should be dismissed and we did so.The charge related to receiving a benefitThe Committee was divided on this charge. A majority thought the charge proved. Prof Bishop, for reasons he has given in the appended dissent, thought otherwise.The majority considered that the gravamen of this charge is the receipt of any money, benefit or other reward (whether financial or otherwise) which could bring the person receiving the benefit or the game of cricket into disrepute.What did the majority consider to be the circumstances at play here? By 2007, Mr Samuels was an experienced, well travelled international cricketer. He must have been aware of the work of the Anti-Corruption Unit. …The benefit received by him was obtained from someone with whom he had been discussing on the telephone team tactics and information concerning a match scheduled to take place just hours after the phone discussion. There is no evidence to suggest that the receipt of the benefit was directly linked to the telephone discussion as suggesting a quid pro quo. But the majority considers that the telephone conversation provides an important part of the context which must be taken into account in order to determine whether, in the eyes of an objective by-stander, the receipt of the benefit could bring the game into disrepute.The penalty to be imposedThe Committee as a whole was extremely disappointed to note that the prescribed penalty to be imposed for commission of the offence the majority found proved is a minimum ban for a period of two years. The apparent mandatory nature of this minimum penalty does not at all sit well with the Committee. While we appreciate the need to be firm in wiping out every vestige of corruption in international cricket, we have serious reservations about the propriety of a Code that prescribes mandatory minimum punishments generally and particularly for the offence the majority found proved.From the standpoint of both the offence concerned and the person who might commit the same, an enormous range in character and in culpability is possible. The circumstances in which this particular offence may be committed and the personal background and motive of the offender may vary radically from one accused person to another. As indicated before, the offence does not only target the corrupt and the dishonest. It is therefore wholly unreasonable and unfair to visit upon all who are caught within its reach a uniform and very severe penalty of a mandatory two-year ban. Indeed, the distinguished ex-West Indies captain, Mr Richie Richardson, a member of the Committee, could not bring himself to sign the Minute of our decision without expressing the reservation that, “based on the evidence during the hearing, the applicable two-year ban is excessive, harsh and unfair”. The entire Committee shares these sentiments. We consider a minimum two-year ban to be entirely disproportionate in the circumstances.We were of the view that given the circumstances that attended Mr Samuels’ commission of the offence and in light of the unchallenged evidence we received as to his character and judgment and his complete cooperation in this investigation, if we had the power so to recommend we would have recommended that Mr Samuels be bound over to be of good behaviour for a period not exceeding two years.Recommendations to the BoardThe Committee recommends to the WICB that it should use its good offices to have the ICC re-visit the Code of Conduct. This Report has drawn attention to certain anomalies in the Code. There may well be others that exist quite apart from the matter of mandatory penalties generally and in particular for some of the specific offences laid out in the Code.Finally, and further to what is stated at paragraph 51 above, the WICB need to take up with the ICC as a matter of urgency the prospect that Mr Samuels could be banned from playing cricket for two years when it has not been proven by the Committee that he did anything dishonestly or for a corrupt purpose.

One of Durham’s longest serving players, Jimmy Daley is leaving the Club.Jimmy made his first class debut for Durham as an 18-year-old back in 1992 when the Club joined the first class circuit. Since then Jimmy has played over 90 first class matches, scored over 4,000 runs with a highest score of 159 not out.Club Chairman, Bill Midgley said “Jimmy has been a great servant of the Clubwho has unfortunately suffered his fair share of injuries over the years. We are grateful of the contribution he has made to Durham and wish him well and will follow with interest his future career.”

Some belated fighting spirit from Matabeleland, mainly in the form of Mark Vermeulen, enabled them to take the match into midafternoon on the third day and force Matabeleland to bat again, however briefly. The Logan Cup holders finally completed their 15th successive Cup and first-class victory by ten wickets.The overnight batsmen, Vermeulen and Mluleki Nkala, held firm with defiance for well over an hour while they added 97 together. Then the dismissal of Nkala, walking after giving a catch to short leg on 42, began a brief collapse. Wisdom Siziba, more used to opening the batting rather than coming in late to face spin, made just a single before being caught at the wicket. In the same over from Grant Flower Gavin Ewing, softened up perhaps by his first ball that spat at him like a cobra from the pitch, top-edged a sweep, and Matabeleland were 217 for seven. Captain Pommie Mbangwa, off the field since Friday evening with flu, was not expected to bat.The diminutive left-arm spinner Keith Dabengwa was not about to surrender, though, and hung on for almost half an hour until lunch. During this time Vermeulen, having reached his century, was happy to take the offered single off the first ball of each over and appeared to be concerned only with ensuring that he carried his bat through the innings. Perhaps somebody spoke to him during the interval, because afterwards he successfully farmed the strike with Dabengwa and Jordane Nicolle until he was finally caught at the wicket off Andy Blignaut for 153. It was his sixth career century: five of them have been over 150 and the other was not out.Mbangwa gallantly came in to bat, only to be dismissed first ball. This meant that Mashonaland had to score six runs for victory, which they achieved in the second over after the keeper conceded four byes. During the morning Tatenda Taibu for Mashonaland appeared to be uncharacteristically sloppy, giving away 20 byes to the spinners. Keeping wicket to spin was not easy on this pitch, but he should have done better.

Southern Electric League Premier Division 3 pacesetters Purbrook and Alton both crashed to their first defeats of the season.Purbrook posted a tidy 226-8 only to be beaten by three-wickets at Bashley (Rydal) II, for whom Neil Sexton and Chris Gates produced key knocks.Alton’s unbeaten record was ended by Flamingo, who drallied from an uncertain 23-4 to reach a rain-cut 140-8 and bowl the Wey Valley club out for 127, with Nick McMurray taking four of the wickets.The upsets strengthened the leadership claims by St Cross Symondians, who crushed Hartley Wintney (209-7) by eight wickets, with Steve Shaw and Ben Adams at the helm.See Saturday’s Pink for a full Premier Division 3 round up.

West Zone, scoring 496, took a decisive first-innings lead of 204 runs over South Zone in the Duleep Trophy league match at the MA Chidambaram Stadium in Chennai on Thursday. Batting for the second time, South Zone were 8 for one at close of play on the third day.Resuming on their overnight score of 181/3, West Zone batsmen Hrishikesh Kanitkar and Kaushik Aphale piled on the runs. The two batsmen added 145 runs for the fourth wicket, but with the scores level on 292, Aphale (76) was bowled by Hemal Watekar. Aphale faced 136 balls and struck nine boundaries in 176 minutes at the crease.Test discard Nayan Mongia started off by cracking a couple of boundaries, but he did not last any longer, caught by MR Shrinivas off the bowling of left-arm spinner Sridharan Sriram for just nine. Kanitkar was then unlucky to miss out on a double hundred, caught by Venkatesh Prasad off the off-spinner Watekar. The former India all-rounder made 192 runs off 295 balls, striking a huge six and 29 fours.Ajit Bhoite (9) too fell to the guiles of Watekar, and West Zone looked like losing the initiative at 366/7. Ramesh Powar and Sairaj Bahutule, however, added 101 runs off 27.4 overs to add to the woes of the home side. Bahutule struck five fours and three sixes to make 68 runs off 107 balls. Powar made 54 off 95 balls, striking nine fours.Another discard Venkatesh Prasad picked up the wickets of Powar and Ajit Agarkar (4) to finish with figures of 25-10-53-3. The young off-spinner Watekar was the most successful bowler, picking five wickets in a marathon spell of 48.3 overs.South Zone had an inauspicious start to their second innings, losing the wicket of skipper MSK Prasad for a duck, cleaned up by Ajit Agarkar. With one full day’s play remaining, West Zone look well on track for an outright victory on Friday.

In Kingston captain Carl Hooper and coach Roger Harper have held up the Kensington Oval pitch for the second Test of the recent Cable & Wireless Series as an example of what is needed at all levels of West Indies cricket.They were endorsements that are likely to earn the West Indies Cricket Board (WICB) US$10 000 incentive for the best pitch and outfield of the series for Hendy Davis and his ground staff.The initial award, introduced last year for the series against South Africa, went to Sabina Park.I think the Barbados wicket was the best we played on [in the series], Hooper said after the West Indies won the fifth and final Test at Sabina Park on Monday to clinch the series 2-1.If we could have wickets like the Barbados wicket, or close to it, in our Busta Cup cricket, it’ll go a long way to developing our young cricketers, he added.Harper agreed. We need more pitches of that nature, he said.Harper thought the WICB was fully aware of the need for better pitches.We just have to make sure we get the right personnel who are very capable to preparing the sort of pitches that will encourage better cricket, he said.Comparing the pitches at Kensington and at Sabina for the last Test, where the West Indies won their two Tests, both captain and coach agreed the former was more consistent.I thought the Barbados wicket was a better cricket wicket than this one here, Hooper said. A lot of cracks opened on this one and there were a few occasions when I thought it was instrumental in a batsman’s dismissal.He cited Rahul Dravid’s lbw in India’s first innings as an example.The ball kept low and cut back, he said. It was a key dismissal.Harper gave kudos to the Sabina pitch for the final Test, describing it as a very good cricketing pitch.

Pakistan’s three day match at Derby ended in a drawbut not before Yousuf Youhana suffered anotherfailure.Youhana, who scored two centuries against England inthe winter, made only four after Dominic Cork declaredto set the tourists an improbable victory target of152 in 20 overs.The right-hander, who is regarded as one of the topbatsmen in the world, was lbw when he aimed to playTrevor Smith to leg.Youhana has now scored nine runs in three inningsfollowing his first ball duck against the BritishUniversities at Trent Bridge and five on the secondday at Derby.Pakistan’s other top batsman Inzamam-ul-Haq played nopart on the final day after slipping in the showeralthough they are confident he will be fit for nextThursday’s Test at Lord’s.Shoaib Akhtar is unlikely to play against Englandafter he failed to take a wicket in Derbyshire’ssecond innings which was dominated by Mathew Dowmanwho made his highest score for the county.His 145 not out came off 203 balls and included twosixes and 20 fours and won him the Man of the Matchaward.Dowman profited from some undemanding bowling aftertea but the majority of his runs were made againstPakistan’s frontline attack when Derbyshire couldstill have lost the match.Overnight thunderstorms delayed the start until 12.20but Pakistan had a chance of forcing victory if theycaptured quick wickets.Dowman and Luke Sutton denied them and although Suttonand Chris Bassano fell after lunch, Derbyshire were 75runs on at tea with six wickets in hand.Dowman dipped his bread at the start of the finalsession and Cork’s decision to declare gave Pakistansome batting practice and at the close, they had made63-1 although skipper Waqar Younis admitted hisplayers needed more match practice.”We more or less got what we wanted out of this gamebut we still have a lot to do before we get toLord’s,” he said.”We didn’t get enough batting; we need more time outin the middle for players like Yousuf and Inzamam.”Waqar also admitted that Shoaib was running out of timeto stake a claim for the First Test.”He needs more time to get his rhythm but it’s veryhard to say if he’s got enough time to do that beforethe Test.”

Updated
On 23 March 2002, during the last day of the first Test match (no. 1592) between New Zealand and England at Auckland, Nathan Astle smashed eleven sixes during his amazing innings of 222. He set a new record of most sixes in an innings for New Zealand, beating the previous record of nine sixes by Chris Cairns (120) – against Zimbabwe at the same ground in 1995-96. However, the all-time record is still held by Pakistan’s Wasim Akram who cracked 12 sixes during his unbeaten 257-run knock against Zimbabwe at Sheikhupura in 1996.Rather interestingly, Astle’s second hundred (from 101 to 200) came off only 39 balls in 69 minutes, which is believed to be a world record. According to newspaper reports, Wally Hammond during his triple hundred against New Zealand at Auckland in 1933 needed just 47 balls to go from 200 to 300. So that means, Astle’s second 100 in 39 balls is the fastest ever because the current actual fastest (from 0 to 100) was by West Indian Viv Richards, who took 56 balls against England at St John’s in 1985-86.In the almost 125 years of Test cricket, since it took its birth way back in 1877, there have been references of almost 5260 sixes or hits over-the-boundary ropes. Prior to 1912, many scoring strokes that obviously landed over the boundary but according to scoring regulations at that time were awarded only 4 or 5 runs. The following list has however been compiled treating them as if they were a present-day six. The two innings below listed for Joe Darling are examples of this.

-All data updated to 27.02.2002
– Acknowledgement: Inadvertently omitted from the previousedition of this article; Mr Ross Smith’s excellent website https://au.geocities.com/sportandhistory/cricket/test.html

After suffering the doom at Napier, Pakistan needed to pull up its socks, which it did in the 3rd One-day international at Wellington. After a disappointing performance in the previous encounter, it was now the batsmen’s turn to compensate for their failure to provide Pakistan a lead in the five match series. Considering that New Zealand had lately turned into a site of low scoring matches, Pakistan’s score of 243 was a challenging one or possibly a winning total, provided the bowlers bowled economically and the fielders were not lazy and lethargic.The high score helped Pakistan in winning the match though their performance was not without blemish. The fielding was as pathetic as ever. Some vital catches were dropped while easy stumping chances missed. Giving away abnormally high number of `extras’ made the team look ordinary. Despite all the follies, it was, however, wonderful to defeat the Black Caps. The victory opens up the avenues of a series victory for Pakistan by clinching one of the two remaining ODIsPakistan took an adventurous start scoring at the rate of around 6 runs an over. After replacing Imran Farhat as opener Imran Nazir gave Pakistan a good start by scoring 32 useful runs. After his departure another solid partnership ensued between Saeed Anwar (57) and Saleem Elahi (30) that enabled Pakistan to cross 100 of the innings.After Saleem Elahi fell victim to Chris Harris on his own ball, the wickets almost fell at regular intervals. Not allowing liberties to the batsmen, Harris (2 for 31) appeared to be the most difficult bowler to face. The impressive run rate of 6 gradually came down to around 4 and remained so for long. It was the plunder of 51 runs in the last 5 overs that enabled Pakistan to hoist the respectable total of 243.As usual Saeed Anwar was the highest scorer with a brilliant 57 while Yousuf Youhana (47) missed his well-deserved half-century by only 3 runs. Imran Nazir (32) and Saleem Elahi (30) were the other major contributors to the total.Considering 244 not an easy target for victory, the Black Caps were naturally not as confident as in the previous match. Pakistan’s famous two Ws Wasim Akram and Waqar Younis thus got a tremendous start. By launching a fiery attack Wasim got the early break-though by sending skipper Stephen Fleming back to the pavilion with only 12 runs on the board. Waqar followed suit by causing the second blow to the Black Caps when Roger Twose snicked an incoming delivery into the safe hands of Moin Khan. Nathan Astle was the next to go bringing New Zealand to a miserable 19 for 3.The situation, however, took a miraculous turn when Craig McMillan and Lou Vincent stuck to the crease like a rock, punishing all bowlers well and proper. While Waqar was hit for 3 fours in one over, they treated Azhar Mahmood and Abdur Razzaq with real contempt.Poor fielding by Pakistan contributed its share to their long partnership. Vincent who scored some brisk and breezy runs took at least two chances. He was dropped by Imran Nazir when the total was 63 and for the 2nd time by Yousuf Youhana at the boundary line when New Zealand was 102 for 3. The partnership between the two that yielded 99 invaluable runs was eventually broken, when Vincent was smartly stumped by Moin Khan, rewarding Saqlain Mushtaq with his 1st wicket of the match. His quick fire 34 put the Black Caps on the path of free scoring, while placing them at a safe 118 for 3.The tempo of scoring continued for some time after the arrival of Chris Harris but the situation changed all of a sudden when the two Black Caps, McMillan (64) and Chris Harris (11) were back to the pavilion one after the other. The loss of McMillan who raised the New Zealand innings to a respectable score of 152 for 5 was the grave one for his side. While Harris left at the same total, Daniel Vettori’s ouster brought the Black Caps down to 161 for 7 and then to 187 for 8. Azhar Mahmood and Saqlain Mushtaq were in command while Pakistan was back in the game.The Black Caps needed 12 runs an over to win the match. They had their bright moments when Daryl Tuffey survived a stumping chance and Adam Parore stole 12 runs including a towering 6 off an over from Wasim Akram. The sixers having become a rare commodity, the small crowd at the stadium danced and chanted with delight.With the fall of the 9th wicket at the score of 207 it was a matter of touch and go. The pair of tail-enders, Franklin and Martin unable to sustain the pressure constantly mounting from the opposing pair of Wasim and Saqlain succumbed without much of a resistance. The Black Caps were all out for 215 runs offering Pakistan a victory by 28 runs. Pakistan leads the 5 match series by 2-1.

Match facts

October 10, 2012
Start time 1330 (1130 GMT)Hampshire are coming off a sparking limited-overs season in England•Getty Images

How they qualified

Hampshire won the Friends Life t20 by beating Yorkshire by 10 runs in the final at Cardiff.

Big Picture

Hampshire are making their Champions League debut and on paper are a force to reckon with thanks to their limited-overs form this season, winning the Friends Life t20 and the CB40 competition. Led by Dimitri Mascarenhas, the county doesn’t have any England stars, but have a couple of exciting overseas picks like Shahid Afridi – although not in the best of form – and Glenn Maxwell. This will be their only chance to make an impression here since English teams are likely to be absent from the next season. They didn’t get off to a good start in the warm-ups, losing to Uva Next by six wickets.One thing that will be in their favour is that their opponents Auckland played the late game on Tuesday, and will have to turn up for the first game on Wednesday. Auckland’s new-ball bowlers were in top form against Sialkot Stallions, strangling the top order – No. 3 Haris Sohail took 13 deliveries to get off the mark as Kyle Mills bowled his way to the most economical figures in CLT20 history. Their batsmen were also canny in playing out the dangerous left-arm spinner Raza Hasan, while taking on some of the less threatening bowlers. The big win over Sialkot also means auckalnd’s net run-rate gets a healthy boost, which could prove pivotal in deciding who qualifies for the tournament proper.

Players to watch

Dimitri Mascarenhas was Hampshire’s leading wicket-taker in the T20 competition in England with 15 wickets in 11 games and fifth best overall. What made his performance more commendable was the fact that he battled the pain of twice tearing tendons in his shoulder. He played a vital role in the knockouts, taking 2 for 11 in the semi-final and 2 for 20 in the final. His big hitting will be a plus for Hampshire.Martin Guptill didn’t have a productive World T20 for New Zealand, scoring 75 runs in four games. However, Auckland will need him to provide strong starts at the top of the order. Guptill was in spectacular form in the domestic HRV Cup 2011-12, scoring 504 runs in ten games, including a century. He found his touch against Sialkot as well, top scoring with a fluent 70 before picking out deep square leg with a powerful pull.

Quotes

“We haven’t yet had a team from New Zealand go into the main tournament in the CLT20. So, that’s something we want to prove to the world and to ourselves that we can do”
.”We’re not expecting a whole lot from him with the bat, whatever we get is a bonus but we know he can do it if he has to. We will use him more as a bowler who can bat a bit.”