Cricket Spot-Fixing Trio Should Face Maximum Penalty, If Found Guilty

If Pakistani cricketers Salman Butt, Mohammed Asif, and Mohammed Amir are found guilty by the ICC of spot-fixing, I believe they should face the maximum penalty of a lifelong ban.

Mohammed Amir, a particularly talented young man, is attempting to make a plea that he is young (18 years old) and has no prior disciplinary record, and should be let off easy. This plea has a lot of support from both Pakistanis and non-Pakistanis, as Amir's magnificent bowling is a match-winner for a deteriorating Pakistani cricket team at the highest levels of the game, and at 18 years of age with 51 Test scalps to his name, this young man is a legend in the making.

As much as Mr. Amir is an asset to the game, I feel leniency by the ICC would be entirely inappropriate if indeed wrongdoing is established. Competing at the international level, the apex of the game, comes with perks and responsibilities, neither of which are mitigated by a tenderness of age.

Pakistan recently demolished New Zealand by 10 wickets in a Test match at Hamilton, bowling the hosts out twice in 3 days, and finding time to put up a very respectable 388 runs in between. Beset by controversy and chronic structural problems in Pakistan Cricket, the team continues to punch above its weight category in the international arena, and the country seems to be drawing from a fairly rich pool of talent (see article). These cricketers will be replaced soon enough by new, hopefully more ethically compliant, athletes.

This is the first corruption case to be handled by the newly assembled, centralized anti-corruption apparatus of the ICC. A clear message should be sent, both to players and to spectators, that corruption, however small, will not be tolerated from anyone, however young and promising.

A verdict is expected later today.

***Update*** They've deferred judgement to the 5th of February. Anti-climactic, but wholly appropriate that they want to give the issue full consideration before considering an outcome.

C25K Completed!

Nailed it! (Sort of)

It took me 38 minutes, and it hurt in places it never hurt before. But I got it! Average pace of ~ 7 minutes, 30 seconds per kilometre. That's a speed of about roughly 7.9 kmph. That can certainly improve.

I started at week 3 of the C25K program, and by that standard, I ended at week 7 of the program, 2 weeks ahead of schedule!

Needless to say I didn't follow the plan to the letter, and took many liberties. At the point where I should have been on week 6, lesson 1, which is a run-walk alternation aimed at aerobic capacity building, I ran a straight 22 minutes. The week 6 goal was a 20-minute run without breaks so I was well ahead at that point.

Haven't done a run-walk alternations since. 22 minutes, then 23 minutes, and now 38 minutes.

Although I'm a day early, I'm still a dollar short, though.

The actual goal is to run 5K in 30 minutes.

That's an average velocity of 10 kmph, at about 6 minutes per kilometre. That's unprecedented for me, because my fastest pace yet has been a meagre 6 minutes 59 seconds per kilometer, roughly 8.5kmph, and I managed to keep that pace up for only 24 minutes.

I'm going to need an average pace of 10 kmph, which means every time I recoup at 8 kmph, a comfortable trot, I need to be able to go at 12 kmph for exactly the same time to make sure I can make the cut.

C25K Runner's Program

C25K means Couch Potato '2' 5 Kilometres. It's a program of gradually increasing the endurance of a couch potato (comparable to the endurance of just a potato) to the level of a normal adult Homo sapien: able to run either 5 kilometres or for a half hour, at a stretch, without a break.

I started from week 3 because I'm about 2 weeks fitter than a couch potato. Oh yeah, I'm ripped!

So I Google'ed around for blogs of people who have done the C25K program. None of them go beyond 4 weeks. I think, oh, one of them ended at Week 6. Not a good sign at all, I don't think. Well, here I am telling you. I am now on week 4, week 3 was too easy (I'm ripped!).

Twenty20 Cricket: My Thoughts

Cricket was never really my forte; Bangladesh never had a team while I was young, and the India-Pakistan animosity/competition never really trickled down to me, and so cricket was never in my mental map of "things to note."

I learnt as much about the technicalities and mechanics of the game in the World Cup earlier this year as I had learned in all my time watching the Sharjah Cup on television on lazy Friday afternoons in Abu Dhabi.

But I'm still a (potential) customer to the ICC. So my opinion ought to count for something, I hope!

In short: I quite like the game. I have a penchant for structure, skill, and sophistication, and cricket has all three in truckloads. I quite especially relish the commentary, especially if someone intelligent is doing the talking, like John Wright (such a nice guy!), Ian Chappell, or Tony Greig (very opinionated!). I love their insight into the game, and really, it's folks like these that stand testament to the elegance of the game.

But I think it's the faux bourgeoisie that irk me. I think they're trying to put up barriers for casually interested folk like me to take an interest in the game.

The current Twenty20 World Cup has provoked a lot of ire from players and commentators alike. Players are saying they don't like the format, because it doesn't give them enough time to think, and devise action strategies. Commentators, though they won't say it, strongly suggest shortening the game cheapens it. Other commentators are suggesting (again, very subtle-like) that Twenty20 is somehow inferior, because it seems to level the playing field between teams of highly differing skill levels.

Perhaps it was the (deserved) surprise win of Zimbabwe over Australia in the South Africa Twenty20 that has turned heads, or the fact that they feel they're being robbed, since what they believed only them and a limited circle of enlightened gnostics enjoyed is being usurped by the fickle adoration of the unwashed masses.

I don't know what it is, but I don't like that attitude!

Let's call a spade a spade. Cricket is a sport, and honestly, I'm not willing to spend five days watching a game before I know its outcome (the bona-fide format of Test cricket). It's not because I have an attention span deficit, but because it's simply not the amount of time I'm willing to devote to it.

I'm a wage slave, not unlike most folk out there. I simply don't have the emotional and mental manna at the end of a 45-hour work week to offer the sport, or almost any other activity, some of which are far more important than sport. And let's face it, for a sport to survive you need spectators.

The players should suck it up, I'm afraid. Soccer players do much more in much shorter time than cricketers do, and despite the deceptive simplicity of soccer, a lot of strategy goes into it, as much on-the-spot, thinking-on-your-feet sort of stuff as preparation. The spontaneity gives it beauty, and sometimes produces strokes of genius.

And if Twenty20 levels the playing field a bit more, so be it! I've yet to hear of a match that a team was about to win, but lost because of the format of the game. Australia lost to Zimbabwe earlier this year, because Zimbabwe played better cricket. Upsets are fun, and honestly, Australia's domination in the sphere of cricket for the past 7 or so years is probably the strongest argument not to care about the game. It's almost become a no-brainer as to who'll win the World Cup, or who the best team is, since Australia hasn't lost a single World Cup game in three World Cups! That's no fun!

The commentators will lament the Cricket of Old. I can see how it must have been fun, I really can. Old men spending five days in the sun, their women and children sipping tea and playing in the grass while other people (the colonials, perhaps?) cooked, cleaned and tilled the earth. I really don't share their nostalgia.

I like cricket. I like the fact that every spot in the cricket ground has a name, every stroke of the bat has a name, every technique of throwing the ball and each speed of throwing it has a name. Typical English bureaucratic thinking, and quite sophisticated at the end of the day. I just don't like the arrogance senior aficionados of the sport in the media seem to have for it.

Let it go, let Twenty20 grow, because the fans are the future of the sport, and we want something we can enjoy, and something we don't have to dedicate significant portions of our time on Earth to experience.