While Ruchir maintains the daily updates, am working on migrating him, and other colleagues on this blog, to the new site. Will take a week, tops. In the meantime, Ruchir, Manish and others will be found here; I meanwhile have as of today begun posting, on cricket and all else, here.

I don't get it -- these guys are playing cricket every day, aren't they? Why then would they need practice before playing more cricket? Humph! These players and their newfangled notions -- I really have no patience with this s***.

'I', here, would be the BCCI, and its response to a request from the players that they would like some time for practice ahead of their Test tour of Australia.

How do you explain to a Niranjan Shah, or a Sharad Pawar that playing ODIs at home against Pakistan doesn't exactly prepare you for Tests against the number one side in the world? That even players who play cricket every day need practice time -- to work on faults that have crept into their game, to fine tune their play, to try new things, to learn, to improve?

Until someone finds a way to make money out of practice, I am afraid the BCCI response will always be the same: sorry, no time.

I did say I was taking a bit of a breather from the cricket (which will continue till Monday), but this one seemed too good to pass by.

The algorithm developed by Narayanan and Maini — published in the May edition of the actuarial journal The Actuary — tries to correct this. “The challenge was to somehow incorporate the ‘not out’ innings into the batting average while accounting for the fact that the batsman could have scored more had the innings continued,” Narayanan said over the phone from Singapore, where he works with actuarial multinational Watson Wyatt.

The new method includes the unbeaten innings in the denominator. But to be fair to the batsman, it gives it a fraction value.

This is done by comparing the average number of balls (ANOB) the batsman faced in an innings over his career with the number of balls he faced (NOB) in an unbeaten innings. Divide NOB by ANOB to get the “weightage” of the innings.

“If a batsman faces an average of 50 balls an innings, and faced 25 while remaining not out, this (unbeaten) innings would be considered half an innings (weightage 0.5),” explained Maini, vice-president of Max New York Life India.

If NOB equals or is more than ANOB, the weightage given is 1. The runs are now divided by the number of innings, which include the sum of the weightages for all the unbeaten innings.

You want more? Here is a link to the full article, from the current issue of The Actuary.

Your turn -- what do you make of it all? Will come back here Monday, to check.

Oh, brilliant. I did say I was going to be away from this blog till the middle of next week, but stumbled on this column by Harsha Bhogle, that I just had to throw up here for information and debate.

I am not surprised at all that there are few takers for India’s unnecessary venture to Ireland. If anything, it gladdens me because it suggests, as the financial analysts like to say, that there is a full blown correction on in the cricket equity stakes. Sponsors are asking for quality, they are unwilling to back lame horses, and that is a sign of health, not despair.

Since sponsors speak the language of money, and since that is the language that Indian cricket is most conversant with, they have a vital role to play in regulating Indian cricket. When they rush in, as part of a herd, they inflate prices and anything that is illogical and hasty is unhealthy. There is no doubt that the over-supply of money has fattened Indian cricket, and I’m not only talking of those that play the game but more of those that manage it, and has diverted it from its principal objective of producing winning teams.

It isn’t that the arrival of money is bad in itself but it tends to lull people into thinking that all is well. Indian cricket needs to be marketed too, its image needs to be looked after too especially at a time like this, when fans are feeling let down and the marginal followers have deserted it. This was the time to sneak below the radar and do some serious planning, take some hard decisions. Instead we are playing irrelevant cricket.

It could well be the best thing to happen to Indian cricket in recent times -- sponsors picking and chosing what they will back. Too often in the past, the BCCI has shoe-horned matches and no-account series into little gaps in the Indian cricket calendar, regardless of the damage such money-making exercises do. And they have done this because each series, no matter how stupidly planned and organized, has fetched them an extra few million by way of revenue.

For instance, ask yourself why, with the start of the England tour just a week away from that date, India would want to play South Africa in Ireland? More so as India and South Africa are slated to meet often enough over the next twelve months?

By turning an emphatic thumbs down on the series, the sponsors are sending out a message -- one that, hopefully, the BCCI will heed.

Very interesting lineup for the first Test in Bangladesh, I notice: Five bowlers with a three-pace two-spin breakup; no Yuvraj Singh or VVS Laxman (which means the team management, in picking Karthick and Dhoni over the two seniors, decided to go with current form over labels, glory be).

Watching the match, off and on, but not covering it either on Rediff or on here; working, for now, on the project I told you guys about.

Thus far, the domain is up, the blog software I want to use has been installed and is running, and while I haven't begun fiddling around with the look and feel, links, membership and such, I have over the last couple of days, as time permits, been seeding it with the sort of posting that I hope to do much more off when the whole thing is up and running.

This first look at what I am up to is primarily to ask for feedback, thoughts, suggestions, whatever. Do note -- this is a tenth of the finished product; hopefully, by the time it is fully up and running, it will incorporate blogs by various people, on their particular interests.

For now, while working on the back end of this thing, am lining up volunteers: If there is something you follow passionately -- news, either as a whole or some section thereof; current events; movies, sports - again, overall or any particular sport you are passionate about; arts; writing -- heck, if there is anything of interest that you follow with a passion, and want to write about, mail me and let's talk about it -- panix at rediffmail.com or prem.panicker at gmail.com are the ones to use, so my office mail doesn't get distracted with this.

Thanks much and see you guys around; I should be back on the cricket blog here middle of next week, once work on this one gets streamlined.

Let's see -- the latest sting operation "uncovered" the following:

#: Greg Chappell was at outs with Sourav Ganguly and Sachin Tendulkar. That is new, from a coach who at the outset of his tenure suggested to members of the media that there were a few "cancers" within the squad, that needed to be surgically eradicated if the team was to function as a team?

#: Tendulkar and Ganguly were both vying for the captaincy, and their route to that ambition was to give the designated captain, Rahul Dravid, less than the fullest cooperation due to him. Simultaneously, they had created their own camps among the younger players -- who, while backing their respective candidates, were similarly at outs with Dravid.

#: Yuvraj Singh was a law unto himself.

#: Sponsors were fiddling around with team selection, in a bid to ensure that "their men" played.

#: The seniors couldn't stand Chappell, because among other things, he was too "big" a player for them to boss around.

That is a summation of the "startling" revelations -- so what exactly is new, or startling, about any of it?

Actually, there is one eye-opening aspect to the whole sting operation: the selectors, all of them, knew.

Yet, if you throw your mind back to the various stories that were flying around in the days before the team to Bangladesh was chosen, the refrain was: How can we drop the seniors? What cricketing ground is there to drop them?

Also recall the official statements being made by the BCCI: Everything was A-okay in the team, there was no dissent, no factionalism, it was all one happy family and no, sponsor pressure was not an issue, we lost in the World Cup because of the format of the tournament.

While all that pap was being fed to consumers, the BCCI knew what was going on, the selectors knew what was going on -- and clearly, there was no attempt to do anything concrete about it. Greg Chappell was offered the NCA. Dravid, who apparently had no control over the team -- seniors and juniors alike -- is still the captain. Rebels in chief Sachin and Sourav were "rested" for three ODI games, with the selectors going to great pains to point out that there was no question of their being disciplined -- they were being rested because there is a great deal of ODI cricket to play still.

In other words, dissent was okay with the board and the selectors; factionalism was okay with the board and the selectors; everything the players did -- all of which clearly undermined the team's prospects in the World Cup -- was okay with the board and the selectors; none of it is deemed worthy of salutary punishment.

So then, why precisely must the rest of us get excited about these "new revelations" that are neither new nor revelatory, since all of it is okay with those who run cricket in this country?

England's former assistant coach Matthew Maynard, now replaced by Andy Flower, is considering an offer from the Board of Control for Cricket in India to work at the National Cricket Academy in Bangalore.

"I've been asked to go out to India to work with their academy, and I'm sure there will be one or two more offers coming in," Maynard told BBC Wales Sport.

From this story. Meanwhile, I wonder what the response to Kapil's request was? You really need three guesses?

Till date, various governments have said it was up to the players; the players of various teams have said it is not their business to decide whether to take a call based on politics on whether to play a decreed opponent or no. And the ICC, typical of a body whose working emblem is the ostrich, has said it doesn't have an opinion about anything at all.

That seems set to change, with the Australian government seemingly on the verge of pulling its team out of a scheduled tour of Zimbabwe, even if means ponying up a sizeable fine.

Interestingly, Cricket Australia had earlier said it cannot boycott Zimbabwe on moral grounds, at a time when Australia's government responded to this appeal by petitioning the UN to call for the indictment of Robert Mugabe for crimes of which this is merely one sampling.

Manish Varma points out that the ICC has weighed in on the squash-ball-in-glove furore with "rare commonsense".

Here is the link.

And there an end? Or will the reply elicit a response that will call for a clarification that makes everything as clear as mud?

In passing, I wonder if our favorite horizontal bat exponent, Virender Sehwag, might like a squash ball? Since the technique is clearly okay with the authorities -- and since it clearly works for the one player who has tried it out -- why not give it a shot?

India will play South Africa in Ireland on June 26, 29 and July 1. On July 7, India will play Sussex in the first of two warm-up games ahead of the first in a three-Test series against England.

Not wondering why we need to squeeze in three games against South Africa who we will play in June in the Afro-Asian Cup, then again in February-March in a triangular series in Bangladesh (Oh, by the way, we are touring Bangladesh again in February-March of next year, so we have another chance to "prove a point"); then we play South Africa at home in March, then we go to South Africa in April, then we again play South Africa in June in another edition of the Afro-Asian Cup...

Not suggesting this is insane scheduling.

Not criticizing either the BCCI or the ICC.

Just saying.

What's with the BCCI?
Virender Sehwag says he misses Ganguly, says the Indian team plays too much cricket, he is gagged. The BCCI warns him not to speak on such issues.
Sachin Tendulkar has his first net in months. The media is not invited. When they land up they are asked to shoot for afar.
So TV has a sideways angle of Sachin playing a few shots. So do most photographers. And not even a few words from ST after the session.
On one side, you have the board tomtomming that they will be transperent and mordern in its thinking. And then you have this.
What's so controversial about Sehwag saying he misses Ganguly (who he thinks is his mentor)? Or what's so secretive about Tendulkar knocking a few balls back that the media cannot take whatever shots they want?
The board says it wants to take the game forward. But this stuff reeks of the dark ages of Indian cricket.
Meanwhile M S Dhoni has signed an 'exclusive' deal with the TV channel NDTV. So what will he speak about there? His hairstyle?

The BCCI has handed contracts to Sreesanth and Raina. That’s good. These guys are great prospects and deserve the contracts.
But look at the list. There are only 17 guys there. Why not more people? Like Munaf Patel, Ramesh Powar. Maybe Robin Uthappa. Even Shikar Dhawan. That kid is good.
May be they should have a grade 4 and give Rs 10 lakh contracts to youngsters they feel could make the grade. Have 8-10 young uns there.
The list has a certain Sourav Ganguly in Grade A. That’s 50 lakhs a year for playing for West Bengal. Will be interesting to see what they do when his contract comes up for renewal.

Ajit Agarkar in an interview to DNA, Mumbai, says that he is disappointed that he has never got a regular place in the Indian team.
Quite frankly, I DON'T think the man has done enough to be on the team in the first place.
But I agree with him on this:
"Look at Anil Kumble who has 500 Test wickets," Agarkar says. "Personally, I think he is India's greatest match-winner. But he never got the credit he deserved," he says.

An unusual column in Cricinfo.
The writer was obviously a bowler in his playing days. He has some refreshing views on the LBW laws. But I cannot fathom his argument for bowlers with suspect actions.
What is the man trying to say? That we make chucking legal?

The Maestro turns 33 today.
One of his great rivals Wasim Akram launches a passionate defence of Sachin Tendulkar.
Calling him one of the 'unbowlable' batsmen of his era with Viv Richards and Sunil Gavaskar, Akram goes on to shame those who booed him in Mumbai.
Way to go Wasimbhai, some people just don't know how to treat a genius and a national icon.

Sourav Ganguly is refusing to give up on his cricketing career.
The former captain says he will continue to play domestic cricket. He also expressed his disappointment at not being picked in the team for the West Indies.
Another story in the Indian Express says that Ganguly and V V S Laxman do not feature in India's World Cup plans. But it says there is still hope for Anil Kumble.
I hope Laxman still features in India's Test plans. But I really cannot figure why Kumble is not in India's one-day team. We are playing two off spinners. And if the India Express is to be believed we are looking for a left arm spinner. We have a proven leg spinner in the ranks – but he is sat out. I think we should rotate Ramesh Powar and Harbhajan Singh, but Kumble needs to be in the team.

Can someone please tell me what the point was of the two-match series with Pakistan?
A series played for charity, that pays the hosting association $1 million (about Rs 4.5 crore) and has a 45 kg precious stone-encrusted trophy makes my eyebrows go up.
I don't know about you, but this overdose of Indo-Pakistan matches is making interest levels go down. It was clearly visible during this meaningless series.
I got a lot of flak and some support for my last posts against Ajit Agarkar. I agree that he bowled brilliantly in the two matches against Pakistan -- especially in the first match. If he keeps bowling like that, I have no problems with him continuing in the side. But he goes off boil too often for my liking. That's the problem.
I also like the look of Ramesh Powar. The man is a gutsy cricketer. His bowling is competent. He is not afraid of batsmen attacking him -- in fact he seems to relish that. Also his batting is a bonus. In fact in the Mumbai team, when there is a batting crisis, they say, 'send Ramesh Powar'. A team man who needs to be around in Team India's World Cup plans.
I also like the fact that they have stuck with Kaif for the West Indies tour. The man is a proven performer but undergoing a bad streak. He deserves another chance. And the energy he brings to the fielding is always a bonus.
I hope the debate about Sehwag's place in the side is over for now.

Back from a well deserved break, which saw me in Banglore when madness engulfed it after Dr Rajkumar's death. Regular service should hopefully resume, in a manner of speaking.

In my previous post on Agarkar, I was surprised at the number of supportive comments that the fast bowler got.
So I did a bit of digging. The last time Agarkar took 5 wickets was against Sri Lanka when they were here last time. (BTW the man has taken 5 wickets in an innings only twice in a career of 157 matches, proves my point that he is not a match-winning bowler).
Since then here are his stats (overs in brackets): 2/59 (9.4), 2/47 (10), 2/55 (9.4), 1/25 (7), 0/41 (5), 0/33 (7), 2/58 (9), 2/52 (10), 0/21 (6), 1/38 (7), 1/60 (10), 2/34 (7.5) and 0/28 (5).
That's 15/551 @ 36.73 in 13 matches at a economy rate of 5.4 runs per over.
In 13 matches he has bowled his full quota only 3 times and bowled 9 overs 3 times. He is used mostly as a part-time bowler.
Then why is he in the team. For his fielding??

I can't figure the curious case of Ajit Agarkar.
The man has an extremely modest ODI record in recent times. I really cannot remember the last time he won us a match. He's pushing 30 and so isn't really a prospect for the future. His batting too hasn't really helped the team. Yet brilliant prospects like Munaf Patel are sat on the bench, while our man is played. And is asked to bowl four overs.
Bowlers like Zaheer Khan, Ashish Nehra and L Balaji – who showed much more potential – have fallen out of the radar. But AA goes on.
Can you tell me why?