Australian Dollar Rises Despite Unwinding of Carry Trade

When two weeks ago the Royal Bank of Australia (RBA) cut interest rates, one would have expected the Australian Dollar to suffer proportionately. Instead, the currency continued its steady upward rise, and touched a six-month high, before falling back slightly. One surprised analyst lamented, “These types of inconsistencies can make trading forex difficult or down right frustrating at times.”

The interest rate cut marked the sixth since September, since which point the RBA has trimmed its benchmark lending rate by 425 basis points, leaving it at 3%. [See chart below courtesy of "The Fundamental Analyst."] Traders have reacted to the successive declines in yield and simultaneous pickup in risk aversion by unwinding carry trades, many of which had been long the Australian Dollar. The massive sell-off that ensued left the Aussie a long way below the level of parity with the USD, which only last year many analysts had viewed as inevitable.
The most recent rate cut, in contrast, was greeted positively by traders, perhaps because they were expecting a larger (50 basis point) rate cut, but more likely because their priorities had changed. A pickup in risk aversion in recent weeks has definitely reinvigorated interest in comparatively risky currencies such as the Australian Dollar. Overall, the markets remain risk-averse, and investors are increasingly making bets in accordance with economic fundamentals, rather than yield levels. ” ‘The focus will remain on the global backdrop…Risk appetite is still fragile and the market is increasingly realizing that the recent recovery was excessive.’ ”



In the case of the Australian Dollar, traders were heartened by the RBA’s decision to lower interest rates to a 49-year low since it reflected the Bank’s commitment to dealing with the economic crisis. But at this point, the Australian economy is still in poor shape. “Prime Minister Kevin Rudd said yesterday for the first time that a recession in Australia is inevitable amid a slump in global growth that is eroding demand for natural resources from the world’s biggest shipper of coal and iron ore.”

Meanwhile, “The global economic downturn has pushed Australia’s economy into its first recession since 1991, Reserve Bank of Australia Governor Glen Stevens said.” According to the minutes from the RBA’s last meeting, “Conditions in the labor market continued to soften” and “Further falls in employment and rises in unemployment were expected.” These observations should be viewed in the context of a 5.7% unemployment rate.

The near-term prognosis for the Australian economy remains quite poor, regardless of whether a recovery materializes in 2010, as forecast by economists. Accordingly, analysts expect the RBA to lower its benchmark interest rate further, probably to 2.25% or 2.5%; there is a “bias toward further modest rate cuts, although we continue to think that the RBA may well pause for a few months to assess the impact of the current round of fiscal stimulus,” offered one forecaster.

Given the lull in market activity, some commentators have turned to technical analysis. “Westpac Currency strategist Robert Rennie said their own risk measurement models are clearly flagging a bumpy period ahead for high yielding currencies. ‘Our proprietary models are…clearly telling us to watch risk sentiment and data much more closely than we have over the past six weeks.’ ” In short, traders should not become complacent as result of the Aussie’s recent rally, and should continue to monitor economic data for signs of progress and/or hiccups on the road to recovery.

Swiss Franc in Spotlight

The Swiss Franc is in the same boat as the US Dollar and Japanese Yen, benefiting from an increase in risk aversion and an unwinding of carry trade positions. In other words, the currency rising on the back of the sound monetary policy of the National Bank of Switzerland, with its low rate of inflation and proportionately low interest rate. Despite the fact that the Swiss economy is poised to contract in 2009, its economy is in better shape than its rivals, and its current account balance is still in surplus. As a result, the consensus among analysts is that investors will continue to flock to the Franc, as Switzerland is sill perceived as a relatively low-risk place to invest. Especially compared to the Euro, which has risen against the Dollar of late, the Swiss Franc remains undervalued. Bloomberg News reports:

Investors are drawn to the franc in times of international tension and economic upheaval because of the country’s history of neutrality and political stability.

NZD, AUD Down in 2009?

While the Australian Dollar and New Zealand Kiwi technically started 2009 in the black, most analysts believe that both currencies will continue their record declines that began in 2008. All economic indicators continue to point downward, due to the adverse conditions created by the worldwide recession. The economies of Australia and New Zealand are extremely dependent on exports of raw materials and dairy products, respectively. Unfortunately, due to a contraction in demand and a decline in speculation, the prices for both types of commodities appears unlikely to erase even a fraction of the losses suffered last year. The death blow into the heart of both currencies will likely be delivered by their respective Central Banks, which are expected to make additional interest rate cuts. This will further erode the rate differential with the US/Japan, that previously signaled the currencies as attractive investments. Bloomberg News reports:

The average forecast is for the currency [AUD] to reach a low of 62 cents in the first quarter before recovering to 66 cents by the end of 2009. New Zealand’s dollar…will bottom at 52 U.S. cents in the second quarter and recover to 55 cents by the end of the year…

Credit Crisis Pummels Australian Dollar

The Australian Dollar has lost nearly 1/3 of its value (relative to the USD) over the last few months, as the credit crisis continues to drive investors away from areas perceived as risky. In other words, the best (and perhaps the only reasonable) explanation for its fall has very little to do with Australian economic fundamentals. Then again, the rise in the currency that took place over the last decade was also rooted in technical and financial trends, although rising commodity prices were also a factor. The Australian Dollar (as well as the New Zealand Kiwi) was one of the prime beneficiaries of carry-trades, due to unusually "generous" interest rate levels. Now that investors are chasing stability/capital preservation instead of yield, however, the currency has seriously fallen out of favor. The Australian reports:

Equity markets would continue to drive currency markets, while being influenced by the ongoing financial crisis. "These are unprecedented times in volatility for the Australian dollar and currencies," said [one analyst].

SA Rand Latest Victim of Credit Crisis

Over the last two months, the South African Rand has plummeted, losing nearly 20% of its value against the US Dollar en route to a five-year low. It seems the currency has become the latest victim of the credit crisis and the resulting widespread risk aversion. The sudden exodus away from the carry trade, for example, has affected the Rand disproportionately, as many foreign investors had come to South Africa over the last few years to take advantage of the country’s 12% interest rate. Now, the country is facing a horrible crisis, and is worrying about its ability to finance its current account deficit, which already exceeds 7% of GDP. Accordingly, analysts predict the Rand will continue to drop. Bloomberg News reports:

"The portfolio flows we have seen over the past couple of years are going to dry up and we will not be able to fund the deficit with the portfolio flows." The rand may slide to 9.20 rand by the end of the year…

Parity Party for the AUD

Is the "parity party" on or off? That is the question on the minds of currency traders following the Australian Dollar. Last week, analysts indicated that the party had been postponed, if not cancelled entirely. This week, there are signs that perhaps some of the bearishness surrounding the AUD is overblown. To be sure, the Australian economy is slowing, and the Central Bank will almost certainly lower interest rates. At the same time, some analysts believe that commodity prices have fallen too far, and will recover in time, as the long-term fundamentals that have underlied their rise still remain in place. Besides, the currency’s losing streak is already the worst since 1980, which suggests investors have gone too far. The most likely scenario is a bumpy 2008 for the currency, followed by a strong 2009. News.com.au reports:

[One analyst] said a recovery in global commodity prices could give the currency a much-needed bounce over the next few months. Citigroup has also forecast that the global markets have turned "too bearish" on commodity prices.

Bank of Australia Lowers Rates

It would seem as if the world is conspiring against the Australian Dollar. In the last couple months, the currency has plummeted nearly 20% from the 25-year high it had reached against the US Dollar. A combination of global economic weakness, falling commodity prices, and a trend towards risk aversion have turned the tables in favor of currencies perceived as more stable in times of crisis. To add insult to injury, the Central Bank of Australia decided to cut its benchmark lending rate, narrowing the interest rate differential that had been partially responsible for the Australian Dollar’s multi-year appreciation. Bloomberg News reports:

"In the near term, the question will be do we hold here or go down a bit more on interest rates?” said [Central bank Governor Glenn] Stevens.

Australia, New Zealand to Lower Rates

I won’t lie; the Forex Blog is admittedly Dollar-centric, in that developments in forex markets are usually assessed relative to their projected impact on the US Dollar. Sometimes, we forget that their are other currency pairs that move irrespective of the Dollar. Take the Australian Dollar and New Zealand Kiwi, for example. As both currencies are backed by high interest rates, they have benefited equally from the carry trade and as a result, they behave quite similarly. Combined with the fact that they are practically neighbors, it’s easy to forget that there are unique circumstances that weigh separately on them.

Over the next 12 months, both countries’ Central Banks are expected to significantly lower their benchmark interest rates as a result of slowing economic growth. However, as New Zealand does not have a large stock of natural resources to depend on in times of economic turmoil, it is projected to lower rates quite sharply, compared to Australia. Accordingly, the Australian Dollar may represent a buying opportunity against the Kiwi in the near-term. Bloomberg News reports:

New Zealand’s dollar is likely to fall 8.7 percent to NZ$1.33 versus Australia’s by year-end as the nation’s economic slowdown accelerates, boosting prospects the RBNZ will lower borrowing costs…according to RBC Capital Markets.

Reserve Bank of Australia Could be the First to Hike Rates

Based on the chart below, which plots the Australian Dollar against the New Zealand Dollar over the last two years, one might be tempted to conclude that the two currencies are identical for all intents and purposes. Rather than suffer the inconvenience of separately analyzing the Australian Dollar, why not just read yesterday’s post on the New Zealand Dollar, and leave it at that?


But this chart belies the fact that while the two currencies, have risen and fallen (in near lockstep) in sync with the ebb and flow of risk aversion, this could soon change. While the near-term prospects for the New Zealand economy are dubious, sentiment towards the Australian economy is more consistently optimistic. “Central bank Governor Glenn Stevens said the nation’s economic downturn may not be ‘one of the more serious’ of the post-World War II era.” In addition, “Stevens said the nation’s economy may rebound faster than the central bank had predicted six months ago on improving confidence among consumers and businesses alike.” The latest projections are for a fall in .5% contraction in GDP in 2009 followed by a 1% rise in 2010.

Meanwhile, government spending is surging: “The Australian government forecast its largest budget deficit on record of A$57.6 billion for fiscal year 2009-10, or 4.9% of GDP.” Combined with the steady recovery in commodity prices and the resumption of residential construction, this could soon trickle down through the Australian economy in the form of inflation. It’s no wonder, then, that the Reserve Bank of Australia (RBA) could begin tightening interest rates as early as December, in order to mitigate against the possibility of inflation in 2011 and 2012.
In fact, Governor Glen Stevens has been raising eyebrows with his unequivocal comments about raising rates. “I’ve never seen written down … I’ve never heard in discussion in the institution, some rule of thumb that says we wait until unemployment’s peaked before we lift the cash rate…I think it depends what else is happening, and also depends how low you went. We eased very aggressively,” he said recently. As a result, traders are betting that rates will be 1.13% higher one year from now than they are today.

This development should be of especial interest to forex traders. Australian interest rates are already the highest in the industrialized world. When you consider “the market’s expectations that the RBA is likely to be the G-10 central bank which is likely to hike first,” it goes a long way towards explaining the 18% rise in the Aussie that has taken place in 2009 alone. Compare a hypothetical 4% RBA benchmark rate to the .1% in Japan and ~0% in the US, and carry traders will start to salivate.

Canadian Dollar Slated to Outperform Other Commodity Currencies

In the same vein as Monday’s and Tuesday’s posts (covering the New Zealand Dollar and Australian Dollar, respectively), I’d like to use today’s post to look at another commodity currency – the Canadian Dollar. The Loonie, it turns out, has also benefited from the a recovery in risk appetite and concomitant boom in commodity prices; it has appreciated by 7% against the USD in the last month alone, en route to a ten-month high. “All in all, with almost everything going its way these days (besides the crummy weather and the impact on tourism), a return trip to parity – last visited nearly one year ago – doesn’t seem far fetched,” chimes one optimistic analyst.

Like Australia and New Zealand, Canada’s economic fate is tied closely to commodity prices. Simply, as oil and other natural resources have inched closer to last year’s record highs, the Loonie has rebounded proportionately. “Raw materials account for more than 50 percent of Canada’s export revenue. Crude is the nation’s largest export.” Of course, this relationship works both ways. Any indication that the global economic recovery is stalling, and commodities prices would likely tumble, bringing commodity currencies down likewise.

Unlike the Australian Dollar and New Zealand Dollar, the Loonie has never really held much appeal as a carry trade currency. Even at their peak, Canadian interest rates were mediocre, from the standpoint of yield. The current rate is a measly .25%, compared to 2.5% in New Zealand and 3% in Australia. Moreover, while Australia may begin tightening as soon as the fall, “The Bank of Canada committed to keep its key policy rate at the lowest possible level until the spring of 2010,” after voting to hold rates at yesterday’s rate setting meeting. This interest differential could explain why the Aussie has outpaced the Loonie of late.

Another key difference – and potential explanation for the currencies’ recent divergence – is that Australia is considered part of the Asian economic zone, while Canada’s economic fortunes are closely aligned with those of its main trading partner, the US. China, alone, is helping to lift Australia out of recession. The US, meanwhile, is still struggling to find its feet. Hence, it is projected that Canadian GDP will contract by 2.3% in 2009, while Australian GDP may fall by a modest .5%. “When things look bad, you are more likely to sell Canada than the Australian dollar because its economy is moderated by Asian growth,” explains one analyst.

Going forward, this regional differentiation could actually work to the advantage of Canada, which is forecast to grow by an impressive 3% in 2010, compared to 1% growth in Australia. Accordingly, one analyst advises that “Investors should sell Australia’s dollar against Canada’s as a ‘relative commodity play’ because an attempt by China to reign in bank lending on concern it may be creating asset-price bubbles could slow Asian growth…’The Canadian dollar should outperform because it is much more closely linked to a recovery in the U.S.’ “

Australian Dollar Rises, Remains Closely Correlated with Stocks

The performance of the Australian Dollar over the last six months has been nothing short of incredible: “Since the end of February, the Australian dollar has risen 29% against the U.S. currency,” and a still-impressive 18% if you backtrack to January, when the Aussie was still in free-fall.

As has been the trend in forex markets of late, the currency’s rise cannot be attributed to an improvement in fundamentals. The economic picture remains nuanced (that is putting a positive spin on it), and definitive proof of recovery has yet to emerge. “We really are trawling pretty deep to try and get any snippet of information that might have some backhanded relevance as far as Australia goes,” said one analyst.


As a result, fundamental analysts have been forced to wait for a “more precise picture about the timing [of] any Reserve Bank of Australia interest rate hike.” On this front, investors are ratcheting down their expectations of a rate hike anytime soon, as “The RBA has signaled that there’s a danger of raising rates too soon.” Futures prices reflect the expectation that rates will rise by only 37 basis points from current levels before 2010, and by 161 basis points 12 months from now.

With such economic uncertainty, investors have turned their attention elsewhere. “Nomura Chief economist Stephen Roberts said in the absence of any clues about the fundamental drivers of the currency, nearly all the cues in foreign exchange markets are being taken from equities.” Some analysts have posited a close relationship with the US stock market: “The correlation between the Aussie dollar and U.S. equity market in particular has been very strong over the past few weeks, with our analysis showing a correlation as high as 95 percent.”

For other analysts, the relationship is with the Chinese stock market. This correlation makes more sense logically, since the Australian economic recovery is largely contingent on continued growth in China and the concomitant purchases of Australian commodities. “Currency markets will be watching the Shanghai share market, which has been a pretty big influence on the Aussie recently,” summarized one analyst. A reporter for the WSJ tried to spell it out even more clearly in an article entitled, “Australian Dollar Up Late, Closely Tied To Chinese Stocks.”

Unfortunately, the correlation with (Chinese) stocks runs both ways. When the Chinese stock market tanks – often for inexplicable reasons – as it has for the last three weeks, the Australian Dollar follows suit. Another analyst is more blunt: “The story for the Australian dollar and other risk- and growth-oriented currencies is similar to the share markets. They’ve had a great run and are probably due a bit of a pullback.”

Central Banks Prop Up Dollar

By all accounts, the decline of the US Dollar has been measured, and without incident. This, despite the fact that most investors reckon the Dollar is doomed, both from a long-term and a short-term perspective. What, then, is preventing an all-out collapse?

Personally, I think the best answer is that Central Banks (and their sponsoring governments) don’t want the Dollar to collapse. In other words, a schism is forming between private investors and public government, whereby investors (on a net basis) are rooting against the Dollar, while Central Banks are rooting for it. That’s not to say that there is a global conspiracy involving Central Banks, designed to prop up the Dollar. Rather, it is that Central Banks are simply trying to protect their short-term financial interests, and long-term economic interests. By this, I mean simply that foreign Central Banks have everything to gain from a strong Dollar, and seemingly everything to lose from its collapse.

From an economic standpoint, foreign Central Banks also benefit from a strong Dollar, especially those whose economies are powered by exports. “A stronger local currency relative to the dollar attracts foreign investment and tempers domestic price pressures by keeping import prices in check, but also cuts into the competitiveness of the country’s export sector.” Given that inflation is currently a moot issue whereas economic growth remains tenuous, Central Banks have made it clear that they currently favor weak currencies. “If (their currencies have) too much strength and the U.S. recovery falters, it’s bad for emerging market growth,” and could even lead to a so-called “double-dip recession.”

In order to alleviate this possibility, many Central Banks have intervened directly in forex markets and depressed their currencies through the purchase of Dollars. During only one trading session earlier this month, “Asian central banks said to be intervening in currency markets overnight by buying dollars included South Korea, Hong Kong, Taiwan, Thailand, the Philippines and possibly, Indonesia, according to analysts.”

Meanwhile, Central Banks in industrialized countries are using increasingly strong rhetoric to try to talk down their currencies. The Banks of Canada and England have achieved modest success in the last few weeks in convincing investors that overvalued currencies would be met with decisive action. The Royal Bank of Switzerland has intervened several times, while the European Central Bank has expressed concerns about “volatility” (code for the rapid appreciation in the Euro) in forex markets. It’s still not clear where the Bank of Japan stands. The newly appointed Finance Minister has already flip-flopped several times, settling finally on a course of action that would prevent the Yen from rising too high and threatening the nascent recovery.

Consider also foreign Central Banks’ collective holdings of US Treasury securities, which increased by nearly $800 Billion over the last year, a large portion of which was accounted for by the Banks of China and Japan. According to the most recent Federal Reserve data, they are collectively adding to their stockpile at a pace of $10 Billion per week. As the WSJ explains, “The inflows highlight the challenges facing nations with large dollar holdings, particularly developing countries. A weaker dollar is, in theory, bad for their investments as it eats into returns when translated back into local currencies.”

In other words, continued foreign Central Bank investment in US Treasury securities is perhaps rooted less in investment strategy, then in the simple desire to prevent their current holdings from depreciating. At the same time, those banks that intervene directly in forex markets often have little choice other than to hold their forex reserves in US Treasuries.



You can see from this that the idea of an alternative reserve currency would actually run counter to the interests of many of these Central Banks. With the exception of a few (i.e. Iran, and to a lesser extent, China) that would like to see the Dollar fail for political reasons, the vast majority of banks have a vested interest in the Dollar remaining where it is. Otherwise, they would witness the value of their Dollar-denominated assets collapse, as well as a collapse in exports to the US.


It looks like, then, there will be a showdown at some point between the Central Banks and investors. If you accept the notion of efficient markets, then it should be obvious who will win in the long-term. On the other hand, you can’t underestimate the determination of some of these banks.

How will Foreign Investment Tax Affect the Real?

On October 20, the executive office of the government of Brazil enacted an emergency measure, calling for a 2% tax on on all foreign capital inflows. And with one foul swoop, this year’s 35% rise in the Real had come to an end, right?

The tax certainly took investors by surprise, with the Brazilian stock market falling by 3% and the Real falling by 2%, the largest margins for both in several months. The tax is comprehensive and applies to essentially to all foreign capital deployed in Brazilian capital markets, whether fixed income, equities, or currencies. While the tax doesn’t apply to those currently invested in Brazil, the possibility that it would cause potential investors to stay away was enough to cause a sell-off.

The ostensible reason for the tax levy is to prevent a further rise in the Real. By most measures, the currency’s rise has been excessive, more than erasing the losses incurred during the credit crisis. The concern is that a more expensive currency will derail the Brazilian economic recovery before it has a chance to firmly get off the ground. “Brazil’s currency needs to weaken as much as 19 percent for sustainable economic growth, said Nelson Barbosa, the Brazilian Finance Ministry’s top policy adviser.”

According to cynics, however, the tax is a backhanded effort to raise revenue to fund a growing budget deficit. The government continues to spend money (perhaps to offset the negative impact on exports brought on by the Real’s rise) as part of its stimulus plan, but is increasingly tapping the bond markets to do so. The tax is expected to bring in an impressive $2.3 Billion over the next year, which could go part of the way towards fixing the government’s fiscal problems.

The real question, of course, is how the Real will fare going forward. The initial reaction, as I said, was ‘The Party’s over…‘ But investors with a longer-term horizon aren’t fretting. “In the medium term, the measure will have a limited impact. The fundamentals point to a stronger real, with commodities rising and the dollar weakening globally,” asserted one economist. While investors aren’t happy about paying an arbitrary 2% fee to the government, such pales in comparison to the 10%+ returns that investors still aim to reap from investing in Brazil over the long-term.

Ignoring the possible bubbles forming in Brazilian capital markets (admittedly, a dubious suggestion), Brazil still looks like a good bet, especially on a comparative basis. Interest rate futures point to a benchmark interest rate of 10.3% at this time next year, compared to ~1% in the US. Even after accounting for inflation and the 2% tax levy, the yield spread between Brazil and the US remains impressive. For that reason, the Real has already stalled in its expected fall against the US Dollar, standing only 1.7% below where it was on the day the tax was declared.



It’s unclear how determined the Brazilian government is towards pushing down the Real. The comments by its finance minister suggest that the consensus is that it is not slightly – but extremely overvalued. Thus, it’s likely that the government will enact other aggressive measures to prevent it at least from rising further. It continues to buy Dollars on the spot market, and is trying to make it easier for Brazilians to take money out of Brazil. It is not yet ready to tamper with its floating currency, but by its own admission, the “government was studying additional measures to regulate the heavy inflow of foreign investments and its impact on the country’s currency.”

There are also implications for other (emerging market) currencies. As I wrote earlier this week (”Central Banks Prop Up Dollar“) a number of Central Banks have already intervened or are currently mulling intervention in forex markets, to push down their currencies. You can be sure that other governments will be studying the situation in Brazil closely, with the possibility of implementing such policies themselves.

Flintoff reaffirms England commitment

Andrew Flintoff has reiterated his belief that Twenty20 cricket will not impinge upon the primacy of Test cricket, by pointing out that it was his matchwinning feats at the game's highest level that have made him so attractive to the various clubs and franchises around the world that are now bidding for his services in the twilight years of his career.

On a short stop-over in London to promote his new autobiography, Flintoff defended his decision to turn down an ECB incremental contract, and confirmed that, following talks with the ECB, his over-riding ambition is to continue to play for England for as long as his form and fitness permits.

"Everything with them has been fine and above board," said Flintoff of his dealings with the ECB. "They know where we're at, and the reasons we're doing what we're doing. I'm available for every England game, except obviously Test matches, and for whatever they want me to do. Like every other player who plays for a county, you have to perform to get in the side.

"My motives are true," Flintoff added. "I want to play for England for a period of time, and I'd love to play more Test cricket but it's a physical impossibility, so the next best thing for me is to play ODIs and Twenty20s. Playing for England is what I've wanted to do since I was a kid, and I feel lucky to do it. I don't know how long left I've got to do it, so I want to play every possible game."

Despite his stated intentions, Flintoff's priorities were called into question last week when his agent, Andrew 'Chubby' Chandler, said that a desire to go bungee-jumping had been a deciding factor in his decision to reject the ECB's offer. But while Flintoff laughed off that particular notion, saying that bits of his body would fall off if he attempted anything quite so extreme, he insisted there was a serious point to his desire for autonomy.

"I've seen a lot of cricketers reach the end of their career and it has crept up on them," he said. "It happens very quickly, and in the end they have nothing to do. I want to forge another career so that there's a natural progression for when I do have to finish cricket. Obviously it's for personal reasons, but I've also got three kids and a family, and I want to provide for them. I want to work, and I didn't want any restraints over that.

"But I don't think it'll become the norm. Everyone gets lost a little bit in the rewards of playing Twenty20 cricket. The rewards come through playing Test matches and performing, because if you get your game right on the field, everything else will follow. I've experienced two sides of that, in my early 20s I took my eye off the ball and got carried away with other things, but then when I got my game right, the rewards are there for you.

"We've got a new generation of cricketers who are going to watch Twenty20s and can identify with it a bit more, but I don't think that'll have a negative impact on Test cricket," he said. "I still feel Test series, whether they are against Australia, South Africa or India, are the showcases of the summer. We're very fortunate in England to play in front of full houses, and for me it's everything. I'm bitterly disappointed I'm not going to be playing any more."

Flintoff added that he had not discussed his "freelance" decision with anyone outside his family and management group, but he nevertheless threw Kevin Pietersen's name into the mix as an example of a player who he believed would not seek to follow his example. "Everyone's asking will [Pietersen] do this and that, but he's desperate to play for England. I don't think it'll be the start of anything new.

"Years ago, Sir Garfield Sobers played for counties and Australian sides, and we've got a history of overseas players, and players going over to different counties," he said. "This freelance thing is a bit out of context, especially as I'm contracted to Lancashire as well. I don't think it's going to start a trend.

"I'm 31, I know my body and when I can play and not play," he said. "I've still got some personal ambitions that I want to do. I've got some contractual obligations with Chennai next year, and if the opportunity arose to play in Australia [I'd look at that]. I'd have loved to go to Australia when I was younger, but through touring for the past 15 years I've not had the opportunity to do that."

The rumours of Flintoff's future career moves continue to swirl, however, and he stated enigmatically that there would be more details emerging soon. He has been working with the UAE national cricket team while recuperating in Dubai, and has been offered some commentary work for next month's Champions League in India, although that remains dependent on his recovery from surgery. He also denied reports that he is to appear in the next series of Strictly Come Dancing and I'm a Celebrity, Get Me Out Of Here.

Whatever I do, the cricket will come first, and I'll build something around that," he said, reiterating his insistence that he would continue to give his all for England, regardless of the risk of yet more injury. "If I got injured playing for England, then fine, but I wouldn't pull out because I think I'm going to get injured, or to do something else. It's not an option. I'm available for every England game. You can talk about different scenarios, but provided I'm fit and not on crutches, I'm ready to go.

New Zealand aim to continue revival

Match facts
Sunday, September 29, 2009
Start time 2:30pm, 12:30 GMT

Big picture

Daniel Vettori's team often lift themselves at global events and if they don't make the semi-finals it will be something of a surprise © AFP
Related Links
Players/Officials: Brendon McCullum | Owais Shah
Series/Tournaments: ICC Champions Trophy
Teams: England | New Zealand
It is New Zealand's turn to do or die. A victory will take them through to the semi-finals, but a defeat will almost certainly see them heading home (see below). England, though, can already think about the knockout stage after their slick performance against South Africa. This tournament continues to confound, and what excitement that has brought.

New Zealand produced an outstanding performance against Sri Lanka to keep their tournament hopes alive. It was typical of them to bounce back so impressively after a heavy defeat against South Africa. There was grit, determination and no little flair as they out-gunned a talented Sri Lankan team that haven't found their top gear in this tournament. They might still survive, but need England to do them a favour.

Daniel Vettori's team often lift themselves at global events and if they don't make the semi-finals it will be something of a surprise - they are almost always there. However, their hopes have taken a blow with Jesse Ryder ruled out of the tournament after the injury he picked up during his destructive 58-ball 74 against Sri Lanka and his departure leaves a hole in the top order. But Brendon McCullum and Martin Guptill have shown good form and it is up to them to take the strain. The captain, too, is leading from the front and his bowling spell was crucial to defeating Sri Lanka.

England, for their part, won't want to take their foot off the gas. Having waited so long to find winning form in one-day cricket it would be careless to let it slip now. There are also areas to tighten up on despite two hefty victories. In both games the support bowling for James Anderson - especially from his fellow quicks - has been lacking with Stuart Broad particularly culpable of pitching too short. They also dropped two catches against South Africa - one by Paul Collingwood, the other by Owais Shah - and although neither cost them the match those types of mistakes will eventually be punished.

How New Zealand can qualify

A win will obviously take them through - they might even top the group if the margin is comprehensive enough. However, New Zealand have a small chance even if they lose a low-scoring game by a very narrow margin: if they score 250 or less, and England win off the last ball (or a few balls remaining, depending on the target), New Zealand's net run rate will edge ahead of Sri Lanka's.

Form guide
(last five completed matches, most recent first)
England - WWWLL
New Zealand - WLLLW
Team news
The Wanderers has offered plenty of help for the quicks so England will stick with four pacemen. One change of bowling personnel could be Ryan Sidebottom for Graham Onions if Andrew Strauss wants more control, while the health of Matt Prior will be monitored after he was taken ill on the eve of the South Africa game. Steven Davies, the Worcestershire wicketkeeper, is on standby but hasn't yet been named as an official replacement. Eoin Morgan did a solid job behind the stumps and could keep the gloves if the management are confident Prior will be fit for the semi-final.
England: (probable) 1 Andrew Strauss (capt), 2 Joe Denly, 3 Owais Shah, 4 Paul Collingwood, 5 Eoin Morgan (wk), 6 Ravi Boapra 7 Luke Wright, 8 Stuart Broad, 9 Graeme Swann, 10 James Anderson, 11 Graham Onions.

With Ryder ruled out, New Zealand will need a new opener. Aaron Redmond has been called into the squad, but the management will have to decide whether he can be thrown straight into such a crucial contest. When he came in during the World Twenty20 in England he had immediate success, but he was already in the country on that occasion. Other options are reserve keeper Gareth Hopkins or allrounder Brendon Diamanti to come into the middle order and Guptill to open the batting. Vettori said that Daryl Tuffey got a smack to the hand and was being monitored, while Ian Butler was better after an intestinal infection and should be available for selection.

New Zealand: (probable) 1 Brendon McCullum, 2 Aaron Redmond, 3 Martin Guptill, 4 Ross Taylor, 5 Grant Elliott, 6 Neil Broom, 7 Daniel Vettori (capt), 8 James Franklin, 9 Kyle Mills, 10 Shane Bond, 11 Daryl Tuffey/Ian Butler.

Watch out for...

After weeks of prodding around Owais Shah came out of his shell in explosive style as he launched six sixes in his 89-ball 98. His promotion to No. 3 for this tournament looked like a last-chance for Shah, with Jonathan Trott waiting in the wings for the South Africa tour and the eventual return of Kevin Pietersen. Now his place is secure again the fascination will be whether he carries Sunday's mindset forward and plays with similar freedom again.

With Ryder on his way home, the onus turns to Brendon McCullum to provide the boundaries at the top. He has done it many times before, but played second-fiddle to Ryder against Sri Lanka. After New Zealand's defeat against South Africa, some former players suggested McCullum should drop back down the order, but now he should be given the license to attack. If he comes off, New Zealand will be well set.

Pitch and conditions
Both teams have enjoyed the Wanderers - each winning their previous match on the ground - and the extra bounce will keep the quicks interested. However, runs have also flowed when the bowling has been off line.

Stats and trivia
The two sides have met in 69 ODIs, with New Zealand leading the head-to-head 34-29 along with two ties and four no results.
In multi-team tournaments (of five or more sides) there have been seven meetings with New Zealand ahead 4-3.
Quotes

Everyone was picking Sri Lanka and South Africa to go through to the semi-finals and New Zealand and England left to battle it out. But it has a been complete reversal so it's great for both sides.
Daniel Vettori hopes to keep proving New Zealand doubters wrong.

Pakistan look for more discipline in bowling

Pakistan's deal is not quite done yet. Two wins from two, in this tight tournament, at least means onward progress to the semi-final rests in their own hands. Regardless of the result between Australia and India at Centurion, they will be aiming to keep their game in working order when they take on the world champions in Centurion on Wednesday.

"Our preparation is going really well at the moment," Intikhab Alam, Pakistan's coach, said after an energetic training session at the University of Witwatersrand ground in Johannesburg. "You have to have different strategies against different sides. You can't go with the same strategy as we did against India. We have to look at their strengths batting and bowling and prepare accordingly to that."

Pakistan will be confident, despite a poor recent record against Australia; they've won only three of the last 12 encounters between the sides. "You cannot deny they are the world champions. We lost the series earlier this year (3-2) but I reckon we should've won it and we beat them in the T20. We are confident.

"It's always a challenge to play against better sides. This team has so much potential. Everyone has got a role, batsmen, bowlers and fielders and they all know what to do. If plan A doesn't work the captain is there to implement plan B. We have to take Australia's key points and work to that."

Though progress has been smooth, Pakistan are not without dilemmas. The first is a pleasant, selectorial one. Mohammad Asif has yet to play a part in the tournament, despite intense speculation before each of the two games. If the game becomes a dead rubber, he may well get a look-in. "It's a very healthy sign that your bench strength is such that good players have to sit out. The problem is for selectors in picking a team -- if a guy is bowling well, how can you drop him? It is a healthy sign."

The other is an age-old one. On Saturday against India, Umar Gul and Mohammad Aamer gave away six no-balls - and free hits - between them, most of which were punished. Australia will, like India, not waste such offerings. Work is being done on the issue, but match conditions, said Intikhab, are inevitably different.

We are very strict when we do practice and we always call no-balls in the nets. At times what happens is that pressure builds up and you stretch and strive and that is where you go wrong. It shouldn't happen at all. I don't think there will be that much pressure against Australia - we want to keep winning. It's a crime to bowl a no-ball or wide with free hits.

Ireland decline ECB's 40-over invite

Cricket Ireland has declined the ECB's invitation to join the new English domestic 40-over one-day competition in 2010. The ECB has ditched 50-over cricket in favour of a shorter format, but Ireland feel their development will be better served by concentrating on the international version.

"Notwithstanding any possible changes to its format down the line, international cricket is our bread and butter and the means by which we are measured on the global stage," Warren Deutrom, the Cricket Ireland chief executive, said. "Therefore, we felt that we needed to focus our limited financial resources on preparing for our international programme."

Ireland's developing reputation on the international stage - they reached the Super Eights of the World Twenty20 in June and the same stage of the 2007 World Cup - also means they are forging their own fixture list ahead of the 2011 World Cup.

"We are very lucky to have England as the Full Member in our region. They have been nothing but incredibly generous with the opportunities they have afforded Ireland at all levels, both within the domestic competition and at full senior level," Deutrom said. "That generosity is now beginning to pay off, and we are starting to take the stabilisers off the bike and stand on our own two feet as a country that has an improving record of achievement against some of the best teams in the world."

Despite declining the 40-over offer they are confident of getting more three-day fixtures with county 2nd XIs and an increased programme of A-team cricket. Their schedule also includes an Under-19 World Cup, ICC World Twenty20 qualifiers, World Cricket League plus the Intercontinental Cup.

Ireland's coach, Phil Simmons said: "Our international fixture calendar has become very comprehensive, and, assuming we get what we think we will get fixture-wise and we continue to qualify for events and their latter stages like the last couple of years, we may have between 40-50 international fixtures in 2010. Leading up to the 2011 World Cup in the sub-continent, I want to focus on primarily the 15 or 16 players who will represent us there, and I feel that the 12 additional games would be a step too far for the guys.

"We'll also be playing in the Under-19 World Cup in January in New Zealand, and it's my intention for a substantial number of that squad to form the basis of the A team. That's not forgetting about the World Cricket League and possible European Championships, you can see they too will have no shortage of cricket.

"The Friends Provident Trophy used to serve us well timing-wise in terms of preparing the players for the international summer. However, given our success and expansion, we are now playing more and more cricket out of season. It's approaching an all-year-round game for Irish cricket, therefore the timing doesn't work as well as in past years."

Netherlands will take Ireland's place in the 21-team 40-over tournament alongside Scotland and an ECB Recreational XI and the board said they would continue to support Irish cricket. "We are pleased that we have supported Ireland in becoming a high performance country within the ICC Associate group," David Collier, the ECB chief executive, said. "Given the heavy expansion of cricket at international level for this group we can understand why Ireland have focused their resources on international events.

The ECB, as the Full Member within Europe, continues to support European Associates and Affiliates, and we continue to have an excellent relationship with Ireland. The Irish women participate in our Women's County Championship while we have an agreement in place to play ODIs in alternate years, and this remains the case as part of a broad agreement with Ireland.

Jefferson leaves Nottinghamshire

Will Jefferson, the opening batsman, has been released by Nottinghamshire after losing his first-team place.

Jefferson joined the county in 2007 from Essex and played role in Nottinghamshire's Championship promotion that season but didn't make any first XI appearances since June this year.

"I am very sad that it has not worked out for me at Nottinghamshire but it has been an honour to represent the club over the past three seasons and I will always have happy memories of my time here," Jefferson said. "Due to a combination of injuries and a lack of consistency with the bat in the longer form of the game over an extended period of time, I feel it is time to move on and find a new lease of life somewhere else.

Director of cricket, Mick Newell, added he was surprised that the moved hadn't worked. "I always look to sign players who have performed consistently well against us and I genuinely thought that Will would kick on and do well here," he said. "I'm amazed that it hasn't worked out for him because he is a talented player and I have no doubt that he can continue playing first-class cricket."

In 22 first-class matches for Nottinghamshire, Jefferson made 939 runs at 26.82 with one hundred.

Pakistan keen to host 2014 Twenty20

The Pakistan Cricket Board (PCB) is interested in hosting the 2014 World Twenty20.

Pakistan has missed out on two global ICC events in recent times due to security concerns; the 2008 Champions Trophy and the 2011 World Cup. The first was taken away last year after a number of teams expressed strong reservations about touring the country.

The fate of the 2011 World Cup, to be jointly hosted in the subcontinent, was decided this year, after the terrorist attacks on the Sri Lanka cricket team in Lahore in March. After the attacks the ICC ruled out international cricket in Pakistan till 2011, though it has set up a task force, working with the PCB, to find ways for international cricket to return to the country.

But Pakistan are quietly confident that the recent improvement in the situation within the country, following military action in northern areas, may lead to more stability.

We are interested in making a bid for the tournament, Ijaz Butt, the PCB chairman, told Cricinfo. "It is very early right now but we are interested. Hopefully the situation will have improved and stabilised in the country by then."

Butt is in Johannesburg currently, where he will be attending the ICC executive board's meeting on October 6-7. It is believed, however, that the ICC hasn't yet begun considering bids for the event and may not do so until the end of the year or early next year.

Are 50-over ODIs in danger actually?

Asking if the 50-over game is in danger sounds timely considering the following:

* I, and I suspect several others, yawned after realizing that two 50-over ODI tournaments will be in progress simultaneously (the 7 ODIs between Australia & England and the 4-match tri-series involving New Zealand, India & Sri Lanka.
* Sachin Tendulkar has a proposal to save the format from becoming irrelevant.
* The ECB announced that domestic games would be 40-overs a side from the 2010 season.

The ICC keeps bleating about how it is proud that there are 3 viable formats of the game, and that all three can co-exist. That's actually rubbish. If the scheduling of tours & tournaments doesn't change significantly, one form of the game (and I'm willing to bet that it won't be T20) will gradually disappear until there's nothing left of it, except for silly-looking administrators (to paraphrase Lewis Carroll).

Let's assume that there will be 3 formats of the game, and that a typical series would have 2 tests (sadly), 5 ODIs and 2 T20 games. Factor in ICC rules (can't locate it) that mandate at least 3 days gap between tests, 2 warm-up games (1 before the tests and 1 before the ODIs), at most 1 back-to-back ODI, 2 days gap between the other ODIs, 1 day gap between the T20 games and at least 1-2 days gap between each leg (Test, ODI & T20) legs of the tour. We're talking of something like a 40-day tour, with 21 playing days. Nearly half the tour's duration would be devoted to the 5-day game (either the actual playing days or the warm-ups or the time between first-class games). It definitely does seem like the softest target. Remove the tests from the tour, and you can easily squeeze in at least 5 more ODIs.

Now, on an average, each team plays around 3 test series during a year. Let's assume that all these series are 2-test, 5-ODI & 2-T20 affairs (which is a very simplistic & minimal assumption). So we're talking of a total touring time of 120 days, out of which just over half are playing days. If only it was so simple.

There are ICC tournaments to contend with, each lasting 30-40 days at least, on an annual basis. Then there are some series that don't fit in to the minimalistic 2-5-2 model. They may have 3 tests, 5 ODIs and 2 T20 games. Others like Australia's tour of England have 5 tests, 7 ODIs and 2 T20 games. That tour started on June 24 (excluding the T20 World Cup) and will end on Sep 20 - nearly 3 months, with nearly 50 playing days! Then there are some other meaningless tri-nation tournaments. Then there're the new leagues - IPL and Champions League.

So, players could be "on-the-road" for something like 220-250 days a year, playing on around 120-140 of those days.

Isn't it still obvious that if the ICC continues to harp on retaining 3 formats, something is going to give?

Yet, will it necessarily result in T20 driving the 50-over game out of existence? I suspect not, primarily for commercial reasons.

Assuming that other factors are identical across both the formats (i.e. teams play out the entire allotment of overs, and lose the same number of wickets), TV viewers watching a 50-over game would see 60% more ads than when they were watching a T20 game (figure it out - 49 over-breaks v/s 19 over-breaks per innings).

Even though you can squeeze in 2 T20 games within the duration of 1 50-over ODI, the number of ad-breaks between overs is reduced by 22% (49 v/s 2x19). We haven't even got to the possibility that more wickets are likely to fall across 50 overs compared to 20 overs, thereby increasing the number of ad breaks!

Even the ECB's (and Cricket South Africa's) moves to 40-over cricket will fail for the same reason - 20% less ad-breaks. The BCCI is unlikely to support the ECB & CSA on this. Cricket Australia moved away from the tri-series format only this year. So they're unlikely to take a plunge without having evaluated the benefits of staging 2 bilateral ODI series compared to the ODI triangular format. There's probably not too much of a point in discussing what other countries will do.

In any case, the ICC had already announced the venues for the next 3 World Cups over three years ago. This doesn't imply that a change in realities won't make them change the format of those tournaments. After all, the 2010 edition of the ICC Champions Trophy (hosted by West Indies) was converted into the T20 World Cup. Such a move would need the BCCI's backing (and by implication a few other boards that kow-tow to them), and that seems very unlikely at this point in time.

Labels: burnout, fatigue, future, odi, prediction, test cricket, twenty20

Rahul Dravid's selection just doesn't make sense

I'm a huge fan of Rahul Dravid. Anyone who has talked cricket with me, and anyone who has followed this blog over the past 5.5 years, would have realized it.

Yet, I really believe it was totally stupid to get Dravid to dust off his blue gear. The very fact that he was named in the list of 30 probables for the ICC Champions Trophy obviously meant that he was always going to be in the final 15. On Sunday, he was picked for the tri-series in Sri Lanka and the Champions Trophy.

There are various reasons bandied around for his selection, including the inability of India's young batsmen to cope with short-pitched bowling at the T20 World Cup, Sehwag's absence, the need to get Dhoni to play his natural swashbuckling style, Dravid's ability to play the short ball, the fact that the Champions Trophy will be in South Africa (where bowlers get significantly more help), and that Dravid proved he still had his limited-over skills & exhibited them in the 2009 edition of the Indian Premier League.

There are many reasons why Dravid's selection makes no sense.

* If Dravid has been selected because the likes of Suresh Raina, Rohit Sharma, Gautam Gambhir, etc. got found out against the short ball, what happens if he succeeds in Sri Lanka and flops in South Africa? Do the selectors recall Rohit Sharma? Even if Rohit hasn't shown any improvement in skills against short-pitched bowling?
* What happens if Rohit Sharma, Suresh Raina, Gautam Gambhir, etc. show a marked improvement in handling quick bowling? Do the selectors give Rahul a vote of thanks for his guest appearance?
* What happens if Dravid fails in Sri Lanka and South Africa?
* What happens if Dravid succeeds in Sri Lanka and South Africa? Do the selectors keep picking him until he announces his retirement?
* What happens if Dravid fails in Sri Lanka but succeeds in South Africa? Given that the next World Cup is in the sub-continent, how would that do the Indian team any good?
* For all the talk about his performance in the 2009 IPL, he averaged 22.6 with a quite pathetic strike rate of 116.
* He hasn't played a single domestic one-day game since March 2008.
* He doesn't seem to have played in the Buchi Babu or the KSCA tournaments. So he's basically going into the two series without any sort of match practice.
* Even England, and let me re-emphasize that, ENGLAND, after so much talk around recalling Ramprakash, Trescothick, etc., didn't do something stupid!

Interestingly though, in 2006, Ganguly was picked in the squad of 30 probables but left out of the final 15.

An related rant, written nearly a decade ago - "Azhar's recall a retrograde step".

Labels: champions trophy, dravid, gambhir, raina, rohit sharma, selection, squad

Aussies, be happy it was Justin and not John

The hottest Ashes news yesterday was not Australia levelling the series 1-1, but Justin Langer's leaked memo/dossier on specific England players & England cricket in general.

If the newspaper ('The Daily Telegraph') really paid to get access to that document, they really have a lot of spare money on their hands. There's nothing in that document that Australia's cricketers or team management would not have already been aware of. Indeed, replace references to England (cricketers or the domestic cricket system) with any other country, and the dossier would still be valid.

John Buchanan made a career out of such well-timed and well-placed leaks.

Australia must actually feel glad that it was Langer's dossier and not one from John Buchanan. At least they could understand what Justin was saying.

Labels: ashes, ashes 2009, australia, buchanan, dossier, england, langer, leak

Where have we seen this one before?

Australia embark on high profile tour, with a squad light on bowling. Injuries impact the selection of the XI. Amidst much speculation about his inclusion, a former captain of the host country announces his retirement. While the series is on, one of the host country's main bowlers also announces his retirement.

Australia pretty much dominate the first test, but can't quite close things out. The cricket early on is gripping, but largely attritional with neither side apparently willing to risk defeat while pursuing victory. There are claims related to 'moral victory' 'momentum',etc. after the first test.

The Aussies are thrashed in the 2nd test, at a venue where until then, they'd lost only once in the ground's history.

Somewhere along the way, individual batting records were broken.

Australia's much-hyped & aggressive opener fails miserably.

This is so much 'deja-vu all over again'! Now all we need is an elbowing incident, a ban, some very defensive strategic bowling by the host team and bizarre captaincy by Australia's skipper.

Say no to drugs testing!

There's a huge tug o' war involving the BCCI, ICC and WADA with other bit-players like the Indian sports minister, FICA & the Olympic Council of Asia offering their opinions on the issue.
Cricinfo does a good job with summarizing the issue, including concerns on all sides.

To me, the BCCI citing security reasons & concern for players as an excuse to not comply with the norms is so funny, sad and ironic. Recent evidence suggests that when it comes to taking care of players, the BCCI is on very thin ground.

* In 2006, the BCCI 'volunteered' its cricketers to play a ODI series in Sri Lanka when South Africa pulled out of tri-series after a bomb blast. Thankfully, that ODI series was rained out almost totally.
* Earlier this year, the BCCI agreed to a tri-series in Zimbabwe (South Africa being the 3rd team) despite the dysfunctional nature of the country and a cholera outbreak.
* The BCCI has always (and will continue to) got its cricketers play meaningless ODIs as a result of board-level give-and-take policies. Players or support staff who warn of burnout and fatigue are gagged.

The ICC became a signatory to the WADA code in July 2006. Last year, the ICC's board approved the code's adoption for tournaments that it conducts (ODI World Cup, T20 World Cup, ICC Champions Trophy, Under-19 World Cup, ICC Trophy, etc.).

The BCCI needs to provide answers to these questions.

* Exactly what were Sharad Pawar (ICC VP) and Shashank Manohar, who are both on the ICC Executive Board, doing when the board made its decision? झक मार रहे थे?
* If they were present, were they aware of the implications when the decision was made (even if it wasn't unanimous)?
* If they were absent, did they know about the agenda and could they have done something about it?
* Why did the BCCI do nothing until the deadline (Jul 31) to convene an emergency meeting regarding compliance with WADA's "whereabouts" clause?
* Did the BCCI ever inform its players about the implications of the 'whereabouts' clause?
* Why should the rules for India's cricketers be different from cricketers from other countries?
* Indeed, why should the rules for India's cricketers be different from superstar sportspersons from other countries?

Could retainerships in Twenty20 leagues prevent premature retirements?

A couple of weeks ago, Andrew Flintoff announced his retirement from test cricket. He was followed by Chaminda Vaas. These retirements come as no surprise considering the physical strain associated with being quick/fast-medium bowlers. If Flintoff plays the remaining 3 Ashes tests, he would end up with 80 tests. The sad part is that he missed a whopping 63 tests. At 143 tests, he'd have been in the top 5 most-capped test cricketers of all time (behind Steve Waugh, Tendulkar, Border & Warne).

Last year, Scott Styris retired from tests. Earlier this year, Jacob Oram threatened to follow his teammate.

The irony is that the same cricketers who extoll the virtues of test cricket, call it the ultimate form of the game, rate their test cricket achievements as being the pinnacle compared to those in other forms of the game, etc. invariably end up retiring from test cricket. Can you point out anyone who has quit ODIs to continue playing tests? So do we all get this lip-service?

Cricket boards really run the risk of many more quality players quitting test cricket. Is it possible for everyone to have the cake and eat it to? Can T20 leagues & international cricket co-exist without antagonizing everyone involved? Is it necessarily a zero-sum game?

Let's make a few assumptions here - some could be wrong of course!


* Cricket administrators (cricket boards & organizers of T20 leagues) are telling the truth when they say test cricket needs to thrive.
* Cricket boards want to exercise maximum control over their players.
* Players believe that test cricket is the supreme form of the game.
* Players want to maximize their earning potential while they're still able to exhibit their skills well.
* Sponsors want the best players to be part of the event (not necessarily play) so that they can be used as great marketing vehicles.
* Cricket boards don't get anything from the IPL (or indeed any of the other proposed T20 leagues) when their contracted players participate in the tournament. So, a cricket board's first reaction to such a tournament is either that they won't allow their contracted players, or the players can participate for a ridiculously short period of time.
* The player's concerns are to not get injured, to play quality cricket, to earn as much as they can and to be able to fulfill their national commitments & contractual obligations with their cricket board.
* The T20 tournament organizer's primary concern is that the best players should be available for the maximum possible period of time, and play well enough in order to make the tournament a great success.
* Players are paid only on the basis of the number of games they play in T20 leagues.
* The money that cricketers earn from the IPL (or other leagues) is far in excess of what they have been earning so far.

Given all these assumptions, how do we best balance the self-interests of the players and the administrators?

The combination of the last two factors hugely influences a player's decision to quit playing test cricket and free up that time to play more and more Twenty20, including at events like the IPL, Champions League, etc.

Adam Gilchrist was largely spot-on in the talk he gave as part of the 2009 Cowdrey Spirit of Cricket Lecture (transcript & video) when he said:

An acceptance that professional players will increasingly make pragmatic decisions about their careers, which may involve playing less Test cricket or even perhaps, none at all. That the arrival of rich, franchised based competitions like the IPL will hasten this trend and reduce the primacy of playing for your country or provincial team. That a young first class cricketer in Bangladesh or the West Indies may have an entirely different set of playing priorities and goals to those youngsters playing in England or Australia. goals to those youngsters playing in England or Australia. That Cricket Administrators must adapt to these realities with clever programming of international fixtures to dove-tail off these competitions and if necessary radically change, even jettison the Future Tours Program in order to achieve this.

Let's leave aside for a moment the reality that Gilchrist contradicted himself in that statement. If the FTP was jettisoned, this would directly result in the likes of Bangladesh, West Indies & Zimbabwe playing less cricket against the 'stronger' (cricketing & economic factors) teams like Australia, South Africa, India & England. That would imply a reduction in the quality of cricket they're exposed to as well as revenue for boards.

Do you seriously expect a cricketer from West Indies to say "No thanks, I'd rather play a test against Bangladesh because I'm so much in love with my administration"? Of course not! He's going to take the first opportunity available to throw away the WICB contract and play in one of the T20 leagues. So actually, by jettisoning the FTP, you could be increasing the risk that "a young first class cricketer in Bangladesh or the West Indies may have an entirely different set of playing priorities and goals to those youngsters playing in England or Australia".

Having digressed, we now go back to the question - how to best balance the self-interests of the players and the administrators?

Would a retainership-based payment structure work?

What if the IPL (or other T20 leagues) split up the player's payment on a 60-40 basis, whereby 60% of the money they get is based on the number of games they play? But the remaining 40% is actually given to their cricket board. The cricket board could reduce the payment made to the player if he skips commitments (training, other contractual obligations, international games, etc.) because he gave a higher preference to playing in the T20 tournament. That 60-40 split is just a number. It could have been 50-50 or even 70-30, but the split-up needs to provide sufficient incentives & disincentives.

Players who are not contracted to their boards would receive a pro-rata amount based on the number of games they played along with other contractual obligations fulfilled.

This gives cricket boards enough incentive to release players for the tournament, knowing fully well that they will get something out of it if the players don't honour their side of the bargain. Players have an incentive to balance playing T20 leagues and international cricket. They don't fall under the 'daily wage worker' category, because really speaking when you're paid on a pro-rata basis, that is what you are! The tournament organizers & sponsors benefit since they know that cricket boards and players are both committed to the event because they both stand to gain.

What are the potential problems associated with such a model? Manipulative boards (and there're plenty in that category) could reduce the payments on the basis of flimsy arguments. Players could opt out of board contracts, thereby removing the boards from the equation altogether and destabilizing international cricket. Tournament organizers & sponsors could offer incentives for players to give up their existing board contracts.

It may still be an option worth considering. If the model can prevent even one star player from quitting test cricket, I'd reckon it has done its job.


Labels: ashes, ashes 2009,
burnout, champions league, colin cowdrey lecture, fatigue, flintoff, gilchrist, indian premier league, lord's, mcc, retire, twenty20, vaas

WICB and WIPA combine to help West Indies set unwanted record

Directly as a result of the farcical WIPA v WICB impasse, West Indies provided Bangladesh its 2nd ever test win a couple of days ago.

Players are totally entitled to receive contracts, but in the absence of these contracts, is industrial action in a sporting scenario the right option? It is not as though the West Indies players were blameless. They didn't have contracts because they refused to sign the contracts that the WICB offered. Did the WICB offer favourable terms? Perhaps not. As it is, West Indies cricket has suffered majorly in the past couple of years with sponsors pulling out.

Would Digicel, the current sponsor, have had the right to demand that the WICB field a XI that would enhance the Digicel brand? Wouldn't Digicel's contract with the WICB have referred to WICB attempting to/ensure that the best players turned out for the West Indies? It's quite obvious that Digicel wouldn't like to have been associated with a side led by Floyd Reifer, who got a birthday present in the form of the captaincy a couple of weeks before his 37th birthday. It's like England naming Ian Ward or Aftab Habib captain and India naming Vijay Bharadwaj skipper. Of course, one thing is for sure - captaincy has a positive impact on Reifer's batting. His batting average went up by a whopping 36%.

The reality is that regardless of the result of the game, no side would have "won" or proved anything. Had West Indies' B side beaten Bangladesh, it would have told us that Bangladesh aren't even good enough to beat a second string WI XI. Now that Bangladesh have won, as a corollary, it implies that West Indies cricket is so much lacking in depth that a 2nd XI loses to Bangladesh. I suspect with the exception of perhaps New Zealand, every other country's 2nd XI should be able to beat Bangladesh.

As a result of the feud between the cricket board and the players, the test had 9 debutants (7 for West Indies, 2 for Bangladesh) and this is the first time since 1961 that 9 or more players have debuted in a test that wasn't the first test played by a country (or the first one played after a prolonged break).

Bangladesh v India in 2000 had 14 debuts, Zimbabwe v India in 1992 had 10 debuts (all the Zimbabwe players except Traicos), West Indies v South Africa in 1992 had 13 debuts (South Africa's first test after re-admission) and Sri Lanka v England in 1982 had 12 debuts. Most of the other games that had a lot of debuts were those played shortly after World War II.

ICC Champions Trophy 2009

ICC Champions Trophy, 2009

SHEDULE

Obama says race not "overriding issue" in criticism

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - President Barack Obama said on Friday some of the opposition he faced was because of his race but denied former President Jimmy Carter's charge that racism was a leading factor in angry criticism of his healthcare agenda.

"Are there people out there who don't like me because of race? I'm sure there are. That's not the overriding issue here," Obama told CNN as he weighed in on a controversy that has simmered since the former president injected charges of racism into the U.S. healthcare debate this week.

"I think there are people who are anti-government," Obama, the United States' first black president, said in one of a series of television interviews on Friday.

"I think there's been a long-standing debate in this country that is usually that much more fierce during times of transition or when presidents are trying to bring about big changes," he said.

Carter raised the point after South Carolina Republican Representative Joe Wilson shouted "You lie" at Obama during a healthcare reform speech in Congress last week and thousands of conservatives rallied in opposition to Obama at demonstrations in Washington.

"I think an overwhelming portion of the intensely demonstrated animosity toward President Barack Obama is based on the fact that he is a black man," Carter told NBC News.

Obama made clear he disagreed with Carter, a fellow Democrat. The president is caught up in a fight to reclaim lost ground from critics of his effort to overhaul the U.S. healthcare system, his top domestic priority.

"I think that race is such a volatile issue in this society, always has been, that it becomes hard for people to separate out race being sort of a part of the backdrop of American society, versus race being a predominant factor in any given debate," he told ABC News.

SIMILAR THINGS SAID ABOUT ROOSEVELT, REAGAN

While acknowledging some of the animosity he faces is due to racism, he said there was a flip side. "Are there some people who vote for me only because of my race? They're probably some of those, too," he said.

As for some of the caustic rhetoric that has bubbled up at conservative protests, Obama told CNN, "The things that were said about FDR (Franklin Roosevelt) were pretty similar to the things that were said about me -- that he was a communist, he was a socialist."

"Things that were said about Ronald Reagan when he was trying to reverse some of the New Deal programs were pretty vicious as well," Obama added.

Obama told ABC that most Americans were just trying to figure out how proposed healthcare changes would affect them but that concern about big government was "probably the biggest driver of vitriol right now."

Obama had mostly steered clear of the issue of race in the weeks since he injected himself into a fierce debate in Massachusetts after black Harvard professor Henry Louis Gates was arrested at his own home on suspicion of breaking into it.

After Obama created an uproar by saying that Cambridge police had acted stupidly in the case, he later expressed regret for the tone of his remarks and had the professor and police officer to the White House for a beer in what was dubbed a "beer summit."

Ahmadinejad says Holocaust a lie, Israel has no future

TEHRAN - President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad called the Holocaust a lie Friday, raising the stakes against Israel just as world powers try to decide how to deal with the nuclear ambitions of an Iran in political turmoil.

"The pretext (Holocaust) for the creation of the Zionist regime (Israel) is false ..... It is a lie based on an unprovable and mythical claim," he told worshippers at Tehran University at the end of an annual anti-Israel "Qods (Jerusalem) Day" rally.

"Confronting the Zionist regime is a national and religious duty."

Ahmadinejad's anti-Western comments on the Holocaust have caused international outcry and isolated Iran, which is at loggerheads with the West over its nuclear program.

The hardline president warned leaders of Western-allied Arab and Muslim countries about dealing with Israel.

"This regime (Israel) will not last long. Do not tie your fate to it ... This regime has no future. Its life has come to an end," he said in a speech broadcast live on state radio.

Germany said Ahmadinejad was a "disgrace to his country."

"This sheer anti-Semitism demands our collective condemnation. We will continue to confront it decisively in the future," Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier said.

White House spokesman Robert Gibbs said Ahmadinejad's comment "only serves to isolate Iran further from the world."

Ahmadinejad won support from Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah, leader of Lebanon's Iran-backed Hezbollah which fought a 34-day war with Israel in 2006. "Our belief and creed ... remain that Israel is an illegal entity, a cancerous tumor, that must cease to exist," Nasrallah said in a televised address.

Ahmadinejad will appear next week at the United Nations General Assembly and Tehran will hold talks on October 1 with major powers worried about the Islamic Republic's nuclear strategy.

Western powers are concerned by what they have called Tehran's defiance and "point-blank refusal" to suspend uranium enrichment and address the issue as demanded by U.N. Security Council resolutions since 2006.

Instead of directly addressing those demands, Iran handed world powers this month a proposal that spoke generally of talks on political, security, international and economic issues but was silent on its nuclear program.

Diplomats familiar with the Iranian proposal said it was vague and did not appear to pass "the smell test."

U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said it was time Iran showed it is serious about addressing international concern. "There will be accompanying costs for Iran's continued defiance: more isolation and economic pressure," she said.

NUCLEAR PROGRAMME

Ahmadinejad repeated Thursday that Iran would "never" abandon its disputed nuclear program to appease critics.

In an NBC-TV interview, he also offered no direct response when asked whether there were any conditions under which Iran would develop a nuclear weapon.

"We don't need nuclear weapons," Ahmadinejad said, speaking through an interpreter. "We do not see any need for such weapons. And the conditions around the world are moving to favor our ideas," he added.

The major powers suspect Iran's uranium enrichment program is a cover for developing nuclear weapons. Iran has repeatedly said it is enriching uranium only to generate electricity, not for fissile bomb material, although it has no nuclear power plants to use low-level enriched uranium.

Next month's major powers talks with Iran offer no clear relief to Israel, which wants world powers to be prepared to penalize Iran's vulnerable energy imports but sees Russia and China blocking any such resolution at the U.N. Security Council.

The major powers, which include permanent U.N. Security Council members Britain, China, France, Russia and the United States as well as Germany, offered Iran trade and diplomatic incentives in 2006 in exchange for halt to uranium enrichment.

They improved the offer last year but retained the demand that Iran suspend uranium enrichment, something Tehran has ruled out as a precondition.

President Barack Obama, who came to office pledging to engage with Iran, has suggested Tehran may face harsher sanctions, possibly targeting its gasoline imports, if it does not accept good-faith talks by the end of September.

But Russia, which has veto power in the U.N. Security Council, last week ruled out oil sanctions against Iran.

Iran, the world's fifth-biggest crude producer, is seen as vulnerable to oil sanctions because it imports 40 percent of its gasoline to supply the cheap fuel Iranians see as a birthright.

TURMOIL AT HOME

At home, Ahmadinejad is facing strong opposition which erupted into unrest following his disputed re-election in June.

Friday, Iranian security forces clashed with supporters of opposition leader Mirhossein Mousavi and arrested at least 10 of them during annual anti-Israel rallies in Tehran.

Thousands of supporters of Mousavi, wearing green wristbands or shawls, were among crowds marching in the "Qods Day" rallies.

The state news agency IRNA said Mousavi and reformist cleric Mehdi Karoubi, both defeated candidates in June, had been forced to leave the rallies after being attacked by "angry people."

Reformist former president Mohammad Khatami took part in the rally, but was attacked by hardliners and had to leave after his robe was ripped and his turban fell to the ground, an ally of Khatami who accompanied him told Reuters.

The June vote, which was followed by huge opposition protests, plunged Iran into its worst political crisis in three decades and revealed deepening rifts within its ruling elites.

Opposition leaders say the poll was rigged to secure Ahmadinejad's re-election. The authorities deny it.

The opposition says 70 people died during protests after the vote. It contradicts the official death toll of 36 people.

(Additional reporting by Yara Bayoumy in Beirut, Alexandra Hudson in Berlin)

Rogge: Obama not going to Copenhagen

LONDON (AP) --- IOC president Jacques Rogge said disputes with the U.S. Olympic Committee will have "no negative effects whatsoever" on Chicago's chances of landing the 2016 Summer Games.

Rogge also reiterated Thursday that he believes the Oct. 2 decision will come down to a handful of votes. He said President Barack Obama told him that first lady Michelle Obama is the best "stand-in" to push Chicago's case at the meeting in Copenhagen.

Rogge spoke in a conference call with reporters two weeks days ahead of the International Olympic Committee vote in the tight race between Chicago, Rio de Janeiro, Madrid and Tokyo.

"I think I can make a bet today and say that it's probably going to be a couple of votes, two, three, four," Rogge said, echoing his comments in an Associated Press interview last week. "Something like four, five votes is only the situation of a change of mind of two or three persons. You see how close it is. You can convince two people more and you might win."

The IOC's 100-plus members vote by secret ballot, with the candidate getting the fewest votes eliminated in each round until one city secures a winning majority. In 2005, London beat Paris by four votes — 54-50 — in the final round to secure the 2012 Olympics.

Chicago, seeking to bring the Summer Olympics to the U.S. for the first time since 1996, has had to endure tensions between the USOC and the IOC over the American body's share of Olympic revenues and its plans to launch a U.S. Olympic television network.

However, Rogge noted that the two sides reached a truce on the revenue issue in March and the USOC agreed last month to put its TV project on hold.

"I think it will have no negative effect whatsoever," he said. "These two things are out of the discussion now, so I don't except a negative aspect."

Obama, who considers Chicago home, called Rogge last Friday to inform him that he wouldn't be going to Copenhagen because he is busy seeking a health care overhaul. Instead, he is sending his wife, who grew up in Chicago, to lead the delegation.

"President Obama expressed in a very clear way his very strong support for Chicago, and you know how charismatic he is when he wants to express the love for his city," Rogge said. "He was very clear to say he's totally behind the bid and will remain behind the organization should Chicago get the games.

"But he explained (to) me that the current political situation in Washington did not allow him to participate in the bid in Copenhagen. He said with a sense of humor that he would send the best part of his couple, and that the first lady would probably be the best stand-in that he could have imagined for himself."

While there has been speculation that Obama could still decide to fly to Copenhagen at the last minute, Rogge said he never mentioned that possibility to him.

"He did not speak about eventually coming to Copenhagen," Rogge said.

In recent years, government leaders have traveled to the IOC meetings to help seal the deal, including Tony Blair for London and Vladimir Putin for the 2014 Winter Games in Sochi, Russia.

Brazilian President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva and Spanish King Juan Carlos have said they will be in Copenhagen for the vote. Tokyo's bid organizers are urging new Prime Minister Yukio Hatoyama to go.

"The IOC is very honored by the presence of dignitaries, heads of state, heads of government," Rogge said. "It is also reassurance that public authorities are behind the bid and will be supportive. However, this is absolutely not a requirement of the IOC.

"If they come, we're glad they come, we're honored, but we don't want them to come at all (costs)."

Asked about Rio's case for taking the Olympics to South America for the first time, Rogge said that could be "one element" in the IOC vote.

"Is it a big role? Is it a lesser role? This is up to each IOC member to decide," he said. "It's one of the issues that will be considered."

Rogge said the members' trust in the bid leaders will prove decisive.

"All being equal between different cities in terms of technicalities, it's the confidence you have in the people who have made the bid and who will be the organizers in staging the games," he said. "You give the games to a couple of people, and the charisma of these people is very important."