Repercussions of the Condon report?
Sir Paul Condon's report on corruption in cricket has been widely hailed and approved by the ICC in its last meeting. Its recommendations are expected to bring some positive improvements in the game but it may be too early to expect an immediate and visible change in the situation.

Speaking at Lords, he remarked, "the match fixing still exists on the international stage and the game's reputation is still being tarnished by criminal activity. My own view is that things are still going on within matches".

After studying the problem in a wider perspective and formulating his report, Lord Condon now seems to be looking at the performance of players 'within matches'. I agree that Sir Paul may have been the top detective of his times but wonder if he needs to have been a cricketer to understand the intricacies of the game. To analyse the types of shots, how they are played, the variety of bowling and how it is achieved and more. The mood, temperament, the tensions, the behaviour of players on the field and pitch conditions are amongst other factors that also need to be analysed and assessed in the light of psychological-cum-circumstantial factors.

In a recent article in an English newspaper, it was alleged that the first victim to be studied by the ACU is to be Inzamam-ul-Haq of Pakistan. The writer claims that Inzi has been hauled up for 'coming down the pitch and getting stumped' in a NatWest Series match. However, no confirmation on the 'charges' made in the article is available to date.

Not meaning to defend any player of corruption, on the contrary, I advocate the severest punishment for the guilty but one needs to look in-depth when studying individual, on-field performances. There are many players who get out in this or other ways where any observer may suspiciously remark, 'Oh that was silly, why did he do it'? There are many instances of being out attempting a wild six, offering a simple catch while driving, flicking at a ball outside off that looks an almost deliberate edge to the slips, leaving their stumps exposed and so on. Can one possibly analyse every such shot and link it with surreptitious intentions of a batsmen?

Similarly, bowling has even more variety and at a critical point can you really make out why a bowler delivered that type of a ball on a particular occasion? A full toss could wreck the stumps but it can also be hit for a six and a wide at the 'wrong' time can turn a victory to defeat. Similarly, how would you account for a fielder fumbling the ball, conceding a vital boundary, dropping a sitter or at times missing a throw for a run out? There are countless occasions in cricket where one error has cost the match albeit, committed by a bowler, batsman, fielder, captain or even an umpire.

Enough is enough, I say to the writer of the article or to the ACU! We have already admired your report and please make sure you know all about the vagaries of on-field cricket before being dragged into specific player performances. The report has done wonders and may it succeed in wiping out corruption but please do not demoralise players on unsubstantiated allegations. There is so much of cricket these days that any incident taken out of context would raise any avid fan's suspicions. In my view, many such allegations remind me of a 'cold-war' erupting in what has now become a major economic sport, the game we love and call, Cricket.

Duckworth-Lewis warrants a debate?
Recalling World Cup 92 held in Australia, many found that the championship was played under a rather unrealistic formula devised to determine a victory target for the matches disrupted or delayed for various reasons. At times, the revised targets forced on teams batting second, were humanly impossible to achieve. That system was severely criticized by the cricket community in general as well as by teams who suffered defeats. A great tournament was marred and a new system was required.

Even with the introduction of a far more realistic, Duckworth-Lewis Method, the cricket world still continues to face an unhappy situation for weather-affected matches. A case in point is the NatWest Series match between England and Australia at Old Trafford. Though Australia defeated England by an impressive margin of 125 runs, it was the revision of target under the D/L Method that raised eyebrows.

Australia was 208 for 7 in 48 overs when the game was interrupted for heavy rain. The umpires declared the innings ended and went into a conference to calculate the target for England. To the bewilderment of many cricket fans the target was revised to 212 runs to be scored in only 44 overs.

The system appears to have been based on various scientific hypotheses. While considering that the team would have scored so many runs if they had played the full quota of 50 overs, why should one forget that the remaining 3 Aussie batsmen could also have been out in the next over without any addition to the score? We all know this has in this game of glorious uncertainties.

To compensate for the number of overs lost by the team batting first, the revision of target is natural and essential. It must, however, be done by suitably reducing the overs for the team batting second but not by raising the target score. A target bigger than the runs physically scored by the first team is not only demoralising and possibly even against the spirit of the game.

In this particular case, the runs that flew from the Australians bats were 208. The additional 4 runs came from where? A hypothetical calculation is surely not cricket?

© CricInfo Limited