BWF rankings: Kidambi Srikanth becomes world number 1 shuttler

Feb 16: Mayank Agarwal finally found some form going his way and Rishabh Pant mixed caution with his customary aggression as India's warm-up fixture against New Zealand XI ended in a draw in Hamilton on Sunday. The match was called off an hour after lunch with India reaching 252 for four just 48 overs into their second innings. Agarwal, who had gone through a wretched period since the second Test against Bangladesh, retired on 81 off 99 balls with 10 fours and three sixes to his name. To the relief of the Indian team management, Pant played in his customary manner to reach 70 off 65 balls, but also showed discretion when the opposition bowlers were in the midst of a good spell.

There were four sixes -- two each off leg-spinner Ish Sodhi and off-spinner Henry Cooper. While Sodhi was hit down the ground, Cooper was dispatched over extra cover on a couple of occasions.

He didn't curb his aggression though; there were times when he was ready defend against the spinners and also leave some of the deliveries that the Kiwi pacers bowled.

Even though Pant is easily the better batsman compared to his senior Wriddhiman Saha, the innings might have come too late in the day considering that the latter is a better keeper and possibly a more responsible batsman in pressure situations.

The biggest positive to have emerged from the second innings is Agarwal's poor run coming to an end.

The Seddon Park track easing out was definitely a factor but Agarwal's footwork was more assured as he played some glorious on-drives and pull-shots off fast bowlers.

Before this game, Agarwal had played 10 competitive games including first-class, ODIs and List A matches and couldn't cross the 40-run mark in 11 completed innings.

He even bagged a pair against New Zealand A in an unofficial Test match. Once he had got his form back, he didn't come out to bat after lunch giving Saha an opportunity to score an unbeaten 30, his runs coming mostly against non-regular bowlers.

The Agarwal-Pant pair added 100 runs in 14.3 overs and it also helped that part-timers like Cooper was introduced into the action. In the morning, Prithvi Shaw (39 off 31 balls) was bowled through the gate by Daryl Mitchell as the batsman left a gaping hole between his bat and pad.

Shaw, though, seemed to have done enough during his brisk 72-run stand with Agarwal, which could put an end to the debate around the opening slot even though the tracks in Wellington and Christchurch could be a test of technique for the flamboyant Mumbaikar.

It was a match that Shubman Gill would perhaps like to forget in a hurry as he was dismissed cheaply for the second time in a row. He scored 8 before Daryl Mitchell trapped him leg before.

Melbourne, Jun 20: If 15 teams can be allowed to enter Australia for the T20 World Cup then fans will not be stopped from watching live action from the stadiums, Cricket Australia's interim CEO Nick Hockley said on Saturday.

Hockley replaced under-fire Kevin Roberts, who recently got the boot from Cricket Australia, which is grappling with financial woes.

Different possibilities are being worked out for the T20 World to go ahead as scheduled later this year and one of them is to host the tournament before empty stands in the wake of COVID-19 pandemic.

However, Hockley said crowds will be allowed, though, hosting 15 teams with players, officials and support staff is "complex" as of now, hinting that probably the ICC flagship event could be pushed back.

"The reality is, and we've got much more understanding about this in recent weeks, is crowds are most likely to come back before international travel. Our biggest challenge is getting 15 teams into the country," Hockley told cricket.com.au when asked if he would like to see the World Cup proceed without fans.

"If I compare it with the prospect of a bilateral tour, you're talking about bringing one team in and then playing individual matches. But the prospect of bringing 15 teams in and having six or seven teams in one city at the same time, it's a much more complex exercise."

When specifically asked whether crowds would be permitted by the time borders have opened to the point that 15 teams will be allowed to travel to Australia, Hockley replied in an affirmative.

"That's the current thinking, yes."

Hockley said it came as a shock when he was asked by Cricket Australia to replace Roberts.

"I've had very mixed emotions. I was very shocked to be asked. I didn't see it coming at all, so I probably haven't had time yet to process it. I feel very sad for Kev (Roberts). On the other hand, I feel this is a massive privilege to be asked, it's a massive responsibility and a massive opportunity even if it's only for the next few months," he said.

Hockey did not commit when asked if he would like to assume the role full time, but he did say that he would quit as CEO of the T20 World Cup Organising Committee.

"My approach throughout my entire career has been to focus on doing the best job I can with what I've been tasked with, and the future will look after itself. And I'll continue the same approach.

"That's (T20 World Cup) been a real priority over the last 48 hours. We're reasonably well progressed and we will be appointing an interim because you just can't do both," he said.

Mar 3: Just hours after the ending of a week-long “reduction” in violence that was crucial for Donald Trump’s peace deal in Afghanistan, the Taliban struck again: On Monday, they killed three people and injured about a dozen at a football match in Khost province. This resumption of violence will not surprise anyone actually invested in peace for that troubled country. The point of the U.S.-Taliban deal was never peace. It was to try and cover up an ignominious exit for the U.S., driven by an election-bound president who feels no responsibility toward that country or to the broader region.

Seen from South Asia, every point we know about in the agreement is a concession by Trump to the Taliban. Most importantly, it completes a long-term effort by the U.S. to delegitimize the elected government in Kabul — and, by extension, Afghanistan’s constitution. Afghanistan’s president is already balking at releasing 5,000 Taliban prisoners before intra-Afghan talks can begin — a provision that his government did not approve.

One particularly cringe-worthy aspect: The agreement refers to the Taliban throughout  as “the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan that is not recognized by the United States as a state and is known as the Taliban.” This unwieldy nomenclature validates the Taliban’s claim to be a government equivalent to the one in Kabul, just not the one recognised at the moment by the U.S. When read together with the second part of the agreement, which binds the U.S. to not “intervene in [Afghanistan’s] domestic affairs,” the point is obvious: The Taliban is not interested in peace, but in ensuring that support for its rivals is forbidden, and its path to Kabul is cleared.

All that the U.S. has effectively gotten in return is the Taliban’s assurance that it will not allow the soil of Afghanistan to be used against the “U.S. and its allies.” True, the U.S. under Trump has shown a disturbing willingness to trust solemn assurances from autocrats; but its apparent belief in promises made by a murderous theocratic movement is even more ridiculous. Especially as the Taliban made much the same promise to an Assistant Secretary of State about Osama bin Laden while he was in the country plotting 9/11.

Nobody in the region is pleased with this agreement except for the Taliban and their backers in the Pakistani military. India has consistently held that the legitimate government in Kabul must be the basic anchor of any peace plan. Ordinary Afghans, unsurprisingly, long for peace — but they are, by all accounts, deeply skeptical about how this deal will get them there. The brave activists of the Afghan Women’s Network are worried that intra-Afghan talks will take place without adequate representation of the country’s women — who have, after all, the most to lose from a return to Taliban rule.

But the Pakistani military establishment is not hiding its glee. One retired general tweeted: “Big victory for Afghan Taliban as historic accord signed… Forced Americans to negotiate an accord from the position of parity. Setback for India.” Pakistan’s army, the Taliban’s biggest backer, longs to re-install a friendly Islamist regime in Kabul — and it has correctly estimated that, after being abandoned by Trump, the Afghan government will have sharply reduced bargaining power in any intra-Afghan peace talks. A deal with the Taliban that fails also to include its backers in the Pakistani military is meaningless.

India, meanwhile, will not see this deal as a positive for regional peace or its relationship with the U.S. It comes barely a week after Trump’s India visit, which made it painfully clear that shared strategic concerns are the only thing keeping the countries together. New Delhi remembers that India is not, on paper, a U.S. “ally.” In that respect, an intensification of terrorism targeting India, as happened the last time the U.S. withdrew from the region, would not even be a violation of Trump’s agreement. One possible outcome: Over time the government in New Delhi, which has resolutely sought to keep its ties with Kabul primarily political, may have to step up security cooperation. Nobody knows where that would lead.

The irresponsible concessions made by the U.S. in this agreement will likely disrupt South Asia for years to come, and endanger its own relationship with India going forward. But worst of all, this deal abandons those in Afghanistan who, under the shadow of war, tried to develop, for the first time, institutions that work for all Afghans. No amount of sanctimony about “ending America’s longest war” should obscure the danger and immorality of this sort of exit.