Four-Nations Hockey: India settle for silver after shootout loss to Belgium

Jun 25: After asserting that the 2011 World Cup final was "sold" by "certain parties" in Sri Lanka to India, the island nation's former sports minister Mahindananda Aluthgamage has now called his claim a "suspicion" that he wants investigated.

The Lankan government has ordered an enquiry into the matter and a special Police investigation unit recorded Aluthgamage's statement on Wednesday. He told the team that he was only suspicious of fixing.

"I want my suspicion investigated," Aluthgamage told reporters.

"I gave to the Police, a copy of the complaint I lodged with the International Cricket Council (ICC) on 30 October 2011 regarding the said allegation as then Sports Minister," he said.

Aluthgamage has alleged that his country "sold" the game to India, a claim that was ridiculed by former captains Kumar Sangakkara and Mahela Jayawardene who demanded evidence from him.

Set a target of 275, India clinched the trophy thanks to the brilliance of Gautam Gambhir (97) and then skipper Mahendra Singh Dhoni (91).

"Today I am telling you that we sold the 2011 world cup, I said this when I was the sports minister," Aluthgamage, who was the sports minister at the time, had stated.

Sangakkara, the captain of Sri Lanka at that time, asked him to produce evidence for an anti-corruption probe.

"He needs to take his 'evidence' to the ICC and the Anti corruption and Security Unit so the claims can be investigated thoroughly," he tweeted.

Jayawardene, also a former captain who scored a hundred in that game, ridiculed the charge.

"Is the elections around the corner...like the circus has started...names and evidence?" he asked in a tweet.

Aluthgamage said that in his opinion no players were involved in fixing the result, "but certain parties were."

Both Aluthgamage and the then President Mahinda Rajapaksa were among the invitees at the final played at the Wankhede Stadium in Mumbai.

Following his allegations, Aravinda de Silva, the former great who was the then chairman of selectors, has urged the BCCI to conduct its own investigation.

De Silva has said he is willing to travel to India to take part in such an investigation despite the current COVID-19 threat.

New Delhi, Jul 12: Former India batsman Sachin Tendulkar has urged the International Cricket Council (ICC) to do away with 'umpire's call' whenever a team opts for a review regarding a leg-before wicket (LBW) decision.

The Master Blaster has also said that a batsman should be given out if the ball is hitting the stumps.

Whether more than 50 per cent of the ball is hitting the stumps or not should not be matter, he further stated.

"What per cent of the ball hits the stumps doesn't matter, if DRS shows us that the ball is hitting the stumps, it should be given out, regardless of the on-field call," Tendulkar tweeted.

With this tweet, the former India batsman also shared a video, in which he has a discussion with Brian Lara regarding the working of DRS.
"One thing I don't agree with, with the ICC, is the DRS they have been using for quite some time. It is the LBW decision where more than 50 per cent of the ball must be hitting the stumps for the on-field decision to be overturned," Tendulkar said in the video.

"The only reason they (the batsman or the bowler) have gone upstairs is that they are unhappy with the on-field decision, so when the decision goes to the third umpire, let the technology take over, just like in tennis, it's either in or out, there's nothing in between," he added.

This call for doing away with umpire's call has been recommended by many former players.
Whenever a verdict pops up as 'umpire's call, the decision of the on-field umpire is not changed, but the teams do not lose their review as well.

ICC recently introduced some changes to the game of cricket, and they gave all teams liberty of extra review as non-neutral umpires will be employed in Test matches due to the coronavirus pandemic.

As a result, all teams will now have three reviews in every innings of a Test match. 

New Delhi, May 15: Former England skipper David Gower feels Sourav Ganguly has the right "political skills" to lead the ICC one day and he has already displayed that as BCCI president, which is a "far tougher job".

The elegant left-hander is very impressed with Ganguly's leadership abilities and believes that he has what it takes to head the global body in the future.

"One thing I have learnt over the years is that if you are going to run BCCI, you need to be many, many things. Having a reputation like he (Ganguly) has is a very good start, but you need to be a very deft politician.

"You need to have control of a million different things," Gower said ahead of "Q20", a unique chat show for the fans presented by 'GloFans'.

Gower reckons being president of the BCCI is the toughest job imaginable in world cricket.

"And of course, you need to be responsible for a game that is followed by, I mean, should we say a billion people here in India," he said.

"We all know about the immense following for cricket in India. So it is indeed a wonderful thing to behold. Sourav has the toughest task imaginable in charge of BCCI, but so far I would say the signs are very good.

"He has listened, given his own opinion and has pulled strings gently," he said.

Political skills are a must in administration and that's where Gower finds his fellow left-hander ticking all the boxes.

"He is a very, very good man and has those political skills. He has the right attitude and can keep things together and will do good job. And if you do a good job as BCCI chief in the future, who knows?

"But I would actually say the more important job, to be honest, is running BCCI. Being head of ICC is an honour, there is a lot that can be done by ICC, but actually look at the rankings, look at where the power is heading up. BCCI is definitely the bigger job," he said.

On the cricketing front, Gower believes World Test Championship has given the format much-needed context.

"The idea of this World Test Championship has come about for one very simple reason that people are worried about the survival of Tests. Back in the seventies, eighties, I don't think we needed context to be fair.

"Test cricket was very much more obviously the most important format and if there was anything to be judged by, it was the performances in Test matches both as an individual and as a team.