KKR in IPL play-offs after five-wicket win over SRH

Mumbai, May 21: Former India opener Gautam Gambhir has chosen legendary Sachin Tendulkar over current skipper Virat Kohli as a better batsman in the ODI format, considering the changed rules of the game and the Mumbaikar's longevity of career.

Tendulkar, who retired in 2013, played 463 ODIs and amassed 18, 426 runs with 49 hundreds at an average of 44.83.

Kohli, on the other hand, has played 248 ODIs and scored 11, 867 runs with 43 tons at an average of 59.33.

"Sachin Tendulkar, because probably with one white ball and four fielders inside the circle, not five fielders outside, it will be Sachin Tendulkar for me," Gambhir said on Star Sports show 'Cricket Connected'.

Nowadays, a one-day innings is played with two white balls and with three powerplays.

In the first power play (overs 1-10), two fielders are allowed beyond the 30-yard circle, while in the second powerplay (overs 10-40) four fielders are allowed. In the last powerplay (overs 40-50), five fielders are allowed outside the 30-yard circle.

Gambhir, who was the star performer in 2011 ODI World Cup final which India won, feels that the change in rules has helped batsmen.

"It's difficult because Virat Kohli has done phenomenally well but I think the rules have changed as well, which has helped a lot of new batters," elaborated Gambhir, who played 58 Tests and 147 ODIs.

"The new generation, with 2 new balls, no reverse swing, nothing for the finger spin, five fielders inside for the 50 overs, probably that makes batting much easier.

He said he would also go with Tendulkar, considering his longevity and flow of the ODI cricket format at that time.

"Probably I’ll go with Sachin Tendulkar if we see the longevity and flow of the one-day cricket format.

"Look at how Sachin Tendulkar has played, different rules, that time 230 to 240, was a winning total," Gambhir signed off. 

New Delhi, Mar 13: The remaining ODI series between India and South Africa has been called-off amidst the rising concerns over the coronavirus pandemic.

"The second and third ODI between India and South Africa in Lucknow and Kolkata respectively are called off," the BCCI source told media persons.

The first match of the series was abandoned due to rain and wet outfield without a toss at Himachal Pradesh Cricket Association (HPCA) stadium on Thursday.

The second and third ODI was scheduled to be played at Lucknow and Kolkata on March 15 and 18 respectively. Earlier on Thursday, the BCCI has decided to play the remaining two ODIs behind closed doors.

"After holding discussions with the MYAS and MOHFW, the BCCI on Thursday announced that the remaining two One-day Internationals (ODIs) of the three-match series of South Africa tour of India, 2020, will be played without any public gathering, including spectators," the BCCI had said in a statement.

The Union Health and Family Welfare Ministry has advised all the federations to avoid large gatherings.

World Health Organisation (WHO) on Wednesday had declared the coronavirus outbreak a 'pandemic' and expressed deep concerns.

The coronavirus disease was first detected in Wuhan in China's Hubei province, in late December, and has since spread worldwide.

New Delhi, Jun 13: Five centrally contracted Indian cricketers including Cheteshwar Pujara, Ravindra Jadeja and KL Rahul have been issued notices by National Anti-Doping Agency (NADA) for failing to disclose their whereabouts as the BCCI cited "password glitch" as the reason for delay.

The other players to have received the notice include women stars Smriti Mandhana and Deepti Sharma, who are among the five cricketers in the 110 strong National Registered Testing Pool (NRTP). Speaking to PTI, NADA DG Navin Agarwal confirmed that BCCI has sent an official explanation for their five NRTP players' failure to submit whereabouts.

"There are two ways to fill up the whereabouts form in the ADAMS (Anti Doping Administration & Management Systems) software. Either athlete does it himself or association fills it up on his or her behalf," Agarwal said. "Now athletes in some discipline aren't educated enough or do not have access to internet and find themselves unable to handle the whereabouts clause of the ADAMS or upload the filled up

"They use assistance of their concerned federations. So federations have accepted responsibility of uploading their whereabouts," Agarwal said.

He said cricketers too at times find it tough to complete the process on their own. "Similarly in cricket also, although these people are well qualified and they can do it, perhaps they don't have the time for whatever reasons, so the federation concerned, the BCCI has taken upon itself the responsibility of uploading their whereabouts." So why didnt BCCI upload the the three-month whereabouts this time?

"Well they have given an explanation which appears to be reasonable but a decision will be taken. They have said that there has been a glitch with regards to password in ADAMS. Now they have said that issue has been resolved," Agarwal added. NADA DG added that "BCCI's explanation will be discussed as to whether it will be counted as one of three filing failures or not. It will be decided on the explanation given and how they (BCCI) proceed from here."

While country has been under lockdown, the rule to submit three months of whereabouts is mandatory. Three such failures to disclose leads to one Anti Doping Rule Violation (ADRV), which could lead up to two years of suspension upon hearing.

While BCCI has "officially gagged" its employees from talking to the media, it couldn't be ascertained that why as normal a glitch as a password error took days to resolve. A BCCI veteran, who has been privy to cricket operations, asked why the five cricketers were not told to upload the form themselves.

"This was lockdown period where they are not living out of suitcases. Some of the names have also engaged in multiple instagram chats and podcasts which their agents are managing," he said.

"If cricket operations team were having a glitch in fixing password, well the five cricketers could have been asked to do so and they would have done it individually with some guidance. "Probably NADA would be lenient this time but if it becomes an official warning, then who's responsible," he added.