Sorry Sri Lanka, West Indies are going to win this

Jan 6: Former India opener Kris Srikkanth on Sunday said he would prefer K L Rahul over Shikhar Dhawan in the T20 World Cup later this year.

Former India opener Kris Srikkanth on Sunday said he would prefer K L Rahul over Shikhar Dhawan in the T20 World Cup later this year.

Dhawan is returning to international cricket after a long gap. During the senior left-handed batsman's absence, Rahul has emerged as one of the top contenders for the opener's slot in limited-overs cricket.

"Runs against SL (Sri Lanka) don't count. If I was chairman of selectors, I won't pick Dhawan in the T20 WC squad. There is no competition between him and Rahul. Only one winner," Srikkanth said on Star Sports.

Before the series, the 34-year-old Dhawan said that he is looking forward to a "new start" in a new year and wants to win the World Cup for India.

New Delhi, May 10: Former Australia captain Ian Chappell has proposed radical changes in the LBW laws, stating that a batsman should be given out leg before as long as the ball is hitting the stumps irrespective of the spot of its landing and impact.

Chappell also said captains should agree on one way of working up the ball which will encourage swing bowling, even as the ICC is considering the use of artificial substances to shine the ball instead of sweat and saliva in post-COVID-19 scenario.

"The new lbw law should simply say: 'Any delivery that strikes the pad without first hitting the bat and, in the umpire's opinion, would go on to hit the stumps is out regardless of whether or not a shot is attempted'," he wrote in a column for ESPNcricinfo.

"Forget where the ball pitches and whether it strikes the pad outside the line or not; if it's going to hit the stumps, it's out."

The 76-year-old said the change in lbw law would attract expected criticism from the batsmen but it would make the game more fair.

"There will be screams of horror - particularly from pampered batsmen - but there are numerous positives this change would bring to the game. Most important is fairness.

"If a bowler is prepared to attack the stumps regularly, the batsman should only be able to protect his wicket with the bat. The pads are there to save the batsman from injury not dismissal.

"It would also force batsmen to seek an attacking method to combat a wristspinner pitching in the rough outside the right-hander's leg stump," said Chappell.

He cited Sachin Tendulkar's example on how he negotiated Shane Warne's round the wicket tactic during the 1997-98 Test series in India.

"Contrast Sachin Tendulkar's aggressive and successful approach to Shane Warne coming round the wicket in Chennai in 1997-98 with a batsman who kicks away deliveries pitching in the rough and turning in toward the stumps. Which would you rather watch?

"The current law encourages "pad play" to balls pitching outside leg while this change would force them to use their bat. The change would reward bowlers who attack the stumps and decrease the need for negative wide deliveries to a packed off-side field," he said.

Chappell said his proposed change to the lbw law would also cut down "frivolous" DRS challenges.

"This change to the lbw law would also simplify umpiring and result in fewer frivolous DRS challenges. Consequently, it would speed up a game that has slowed drastically in recent times.

"It would also make four-day Tests an even more viable proposition as mind-numbing huge first-innings totals would be virtually non-existent."

On the substitute of shining the ball without sweat and saliva, Chappell said international captains should find out a way of working up the ball.

"With ball-tampering always a hot topic, in the past I've suggested that administrators ask international captains to construct a list (i.e. the use of natural substances) detailing the things bowlers feel will help them to swing the ball.

"From this list, the administrators should deem one method to be legal with all others being punishable as illegal," the cricketer-turned-commentator added.

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.