whatever be the reason, any match cancelled at any level must be resonably compensated by the ticketing charge refund to the extent possible by formula computation that shall be decided by the board with a due representation of members of public of repute who could also voice their concern for all the bad things that crop up while play by the public to enforce the deceisive orderliness in completing the task to acceptance for one and all in the show!
It was not a half hour rain that flooded the ground. With an outward downward sloping field, the water, atleast most of it would ahve drained away, had there been proper drainage. The stands too leaked at so many places that people who had come to the match expecting roof over their heads, were all left drenched.
The small area of tarpauline covers, which were insufficient for the infield, and the lone roller did nothing to clear the field in time for match to restart. What I would suggest to the BCCI would be to invest in infrastructure for ground maintenace. I only hope that with the new person, Prasun Mukherjee taking over, things would change for better. There is a great deal of thinking that needs to be done in order to provide customer centric services at the stadium. Someone mentioned that why not take them to consumer coursts, perhaps that would help, but without proper tort laws in India, it would be a lengthy process. Lets see till when do things remain the same and people keep tolerating them mutely.
This is from Indian Express dated Jan 27.. -- Pune's loss is Kolkata's gain, Eden gets an ODI
Saturday January 27, 03:07 AM
It's official. Pune will not host the opening match of the India-Sri Lanka ODI series on February 8. The match will now be held at Kolkata's Eden Gardens. The other matches will be held at Rajkot (February 11), Goa (February 14) and Vizag (February 17).
BCCI vice-president Shashank Manohar, confirming the venue shift told The Indian Express from Nagpur that the Maharashtra Cricket Association (MCA) has sent the board a letter expressing its inability to host the match as scheduled.
"We've received a letter from MCA president Ajay Shirke today, which categorically stated that owing to unreasonable demands of complementary passes from Pune Municipal Corporation, owners of Nehru Stadium and the Club of Maharshtra (CoM), they will not be able to host the tie," said Manohar.
When Pune hosted the last ODI in 2005, there was massive clamour for passes and it meant only limited seats for the fans. "After deliberations we decided that there was no way we could organise the match at Pune. It had to be shifted," Manohar added.
Incidentally, there was also some problem about Nimbus positioning the cameras at the north end. Whatever the reasons, Pune fans will miss out on the opportunity of watchingTeam India in action. Nevertheless, Pune's loss is Kolkata's gain. -- Do you have definitive proof (which passes the test of journalistic integrity)that the venue was shifted for reasons reported by you!! Very sad, Prem.
I always enjoyed reading Prem's articles but in this article, unfortunately he displays a complete lack of understanding...
Decisions to play at particular ground are made well in advance as sufficient notice is required to get the logistics in place (read, hotel reservations, security, tickets, advertisements etc.) So unless anyone can forecast rain atleast 10 days in advance not much can be done about it. As for the 2nd point of SL being at an disadvantage of playing 18.2 overs in case of 20/25 over game, Im sure D/L has the answer it. Prem can rest assured that India would have chased a fair target. Last point about keeping the crowd in the ground for 3 hours...I feel that the crowd would have felt more cheated if they had been dispersed by 6:30PM, as opposed to doing your best to get the ground ready before the final cut-off (8:30PM) but the best was not to be good enough. It can be argued that Eden Gardens must have had more super-soppers but isnt that always the case?
Dear Prem, In your article, you seem to have hinted that if the BCCI had looked at the weather forecast before moving the match venue to Kolkata, then the fiasco could have been avoided.
This is fair provided that the BCCI (or for that matter any other cricket control authority in the world) has definite guidelines requiring weather forecast to be reviewed a certain days before the match and if unfavorable, decide, perhaps on shifting the venue to another place. If BCCI have such guidelines, then these should be followed in a uniform manner before each match. If not, then why expect the BCCI to look at the weather forecast when considering the venue for this particular match under discussion? After all, it can be argued that weather forecast made 2 or 3 weeks earlier still has a reasonable probability of not comming true.
Given that cricket is played in India more or less throughout the year, a few matches do go down the drain. If say for example, a match at a certain venue is moved to another location because of unfavorable weather forecast and the weather on that place turns out to be normal, will the same people who would have cursed the BCCI for the the match having been ruined not go after their blood for having needlessly deprived them from enjoying the match?
To sum up, I do not think its realistic to use the weather forecasts in deciding on the match venues. It would be foolish to schedule a match in the midst of monsoon (say during Nov/ Dec at Chennai. If BCCI make sure that the matches have been scheduled during normally fair season, they should be considered to have done their job.
RE:Regarding sharad pawar.
by Ahmed Ali on Feb 09, 2007 03:09 PM
Mr Panicker,
Thank you for looking at the comments. Please note that D/L method does comes into the picture even before the end of the first innings. This is mentioned on the ICC's official web site and also on Cricinfos detailed FAQ. If you are still not satisfied do a Google for D/L Method and you can go through the results.
Heres the link for cricinfo's FAQ: http://www.cricinfo.com/link_to_database/ABOUT_CRICKET/RAIN_RULES/DL_FAQ.html
Read point No.5:
5. But why should the target score sometimes go down if there is an interruption in the first innings and teams have the same number of overs?
In interruptions to the first innings the D/L method makes appropriate allowance for the comparative resources lost by the stoppage.
Consider the following situation. Suppose Team 1 started well in the style of the renowned Sri Lankan 1996 World Cup winning team but the wheels fell off and they were 150/9 in 30 of the 50 overs. On average Team 1 would be all out shortly, leaving Team 2 to score at the rate of around 3 per over for their full 50 overs. If rain interrupted play at this point and 19 overs were lost per side, then on the resumption Team 1 would have only one over to survive and their run rate would then be close to 5 per over. By all the 'old' methods, for 31 overs also, Team 2 would have to score around 150, around 5 per over, to win - in other words Team 1 would have been greatly advantaged by the rain interruption changing a required scoring rate of 3 per over to 5 per over for Team 2. By the D/L method this advantage to Team 1 would be neutralised so that the target for Team 2 would be well below 150 in this circumstance, and fairly so, which maintains the advantage Team 2 had earned before the stoppage. In other words, and quite logically, Team 2 have to get fewer runs than Team 1 scored to win in the same number of overs.
Prem, I haven't gone through your article...but just browsed through the comments...thought you have managed well with some good mannered yet strong responses to some pretty ordinary questions from few guys.
RE:A couple of points
by prateek sethi on Feb 09, 2007 11:45 AM
Hi Prem,
DL would have come into play in this case too. It doesnt require SL to complete their innings. Had the match been reduced to 20 overs, India would have chased a target higher than 102 in 20 overs.
Example 5: Suspension and termination of Team 1%u2019s innings mid-over and delay to Team 2%u2019s innings.
This is taken form an actual ODI: India (Team 1) versus Pakistan (Team 2), Singapore, April 1996. Team 1 scores 226/8 in 47.1 of a scheduled 50 overs. Rain then terminates Team 1%u2019s innings and delays that of Team 2, which is given a reduced allocation of 33 overs. Number of overs per innings at start of match, N = 50 Team 1%u2019s innings: Resource percentage at start of innings is 100% (5.1). Resource percentage remaining at termination (2.5 overs left, 8 wkts lost) = 6.9% (3.1). Resource percentage lost due to termination = 6.9% (3.4). Resource percentage available, R1 = 100 %u2013 8.1 = 93.1% (5.2). Team 2%u2019s innings (allocated 33 overs): Resource percentage available at star to f innings (33 overs left, 0 wkts lost), R2 = 79.8% (5.4). R2 is less than R1; S = 226. Team 2%u2019s revised target (5.6) is T = S x R2/R1 1 = 226 x 79.8/93.1 1 = 194 (rounded down).
RE:RE:A couple of points
by srinivasa on Feb 09, 2007 12:26 PM
Prateek, you are wrong. This is valid only when the number of overs Team2 is going to face is less than number of overs that Team1 has played. If team2 is going to face the same number of overs as Team1, then the target would be the same.
RE:RE:RE:A couple of points
by Ahmed Ali on Feb 09, 2007 02:51 PM
Prateeks comments are absolutely right. The information has been taken straight from the official site of ICC. No argument with that please.
RE:RE:RE:A couple of points
by prateek sethi on Feb 09, 2007 03:38 PM
> If team2 is going to face the same number of overs as Team1, then the target would be the same.
this is incorrect. The target for Team 2 would be raised if the match was interuppted and shortened during team 1's batting. e.g. Team 1 playes 30 overs and scores 150/4, then there is rain. 40 overs are lost. Team 2 has 30 overs. (this describes your case) In this case, Team 2 is going to face the same number of overs as Team 1, but if you read thru the DL rules, Team 2 has more resources available than Team 1. So, to match their resources, the target would be revised and Team 2 will have to chase a higher TOTAL.
