Bangladesh thrash West Indies by 160 runs in second ODI at Khulna

Kolkata, May 29: Former skipper Kumar Sangakkara believes missing Angelo Mathews due to an injury hurt Sri Lanka badly in the summit clash of the 2011 World Cup, which hosts India won after a gap of 28 years.

Having played a key role in their thrilling semifinal win against New Zealand, Mathews was forced out of the final against India at Mumbai's Wankhede Stadium by a quadriceps muscle injury.

Reflecting on the six-wicket loss to India, the former Sri Lankan captain said Mathews' injury forced him to opt for a 6-5 combination and was also the reason behind his decision to bat first after winning the toss.

"In that WC final, that's the biggest thing I look back and think...You can talk about drop catches and all of that happens. But the composition of the side and the fact that we were forced to make the change was to me the turning point," Sangakkara said in the latest episode of Instagram series 'Reminisce with Ash' hosted by India off-spinner Ravichandran Ashwin.

Mahela Jayawardene's unbeaten 103 went in vain as India hunted down 275 with Gautam Gambhir setting up the chase with a 97-run knock before skipper Mahendra Singh Dhoni finished off in style, smashing Nuwan Kulasekara for the winning six in his unbeaten 91.

"But for 100 per cent, if Angelo (Mathews) had been fit, I know for sure we would have gone for chase... I'm not sure whether the result would have changed. That balance of team that Mathews would give at seven really was a bonus," the former wicketkeeper batsman said

"If you take our entire campaign, whatever we did Mathews' overs and his ability to bat with the tail and read situations was an incredible bonus to us. He was a young chap who came into the side and from day one he could read situations. It's just instinct, how to up the rate, how to control the bowler, when to accelerate."

During the conversation, Ashwin also asked him about the controversial toss when the coin was flipped twice amid the cacophony of the Wankhede and eventually Sangakkara elected to bat.

"The was crowd was huge. It never happens in Sri Lanka. Once I had this at Eden Gardens when I could not talk to the first slip and then of course at the Wankhede. I remember calling on the toss then Mahi wasn't sure and said did you call tail and I said no I called head.

"The match referee actually said I won the toss, Mahi said he did not. There was a little bit of confusion there and Mahi said let's have another toss of the coin and heads went up again," he said.

"I am not sure whether it was luck that I won. I believe probably India might have batted if I had lost."

The loss prolonged Sri Lanka's wait for another world title as yet again the 1996 champions failed in the final hurdle.

"Whether we win or lose, we have this equilibrium on how to take a win or loss. The smile hides a huge amount of sadness, of disappointment, of thinking of 20 million people back in Sri Lanka who had been waiting for this for so long, since 1996.

"We had an opportunity in 2011, opportunity in 2007, then T20 opportunities in 2009 and 2012," Sangakkara said.

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.

Jun 19: The BCCI is open to reviewing its sponsorship policy for the next cycle but has no plans to end its association with current IPL title sponsor Vivo as the money coming in from the Chinese company is helping India's cause and not the other way round, board treasurer Arun Dhumal said on Friday. Anti-China sentiments are running high in India following the border clash between the two countries at Galwan valley earlier this week. The first skirmish at the India-China border in more than four decades left at least 20 Indian soldiers dead. Since then, calls have been made to boycott Chinese products.

But Dhumal said Chinese companies sponsoring an Indian event like the IPL only serve his country's interests.

The BCCI gets Rs 440 crore annually from Vivo and the five-year deal ends in 2022.

"When you talk emotionally, you tend to leave the rationale behind. We have to understand the difference between supporting a Chinese company for a Chinese cause or taking help from Chinese company to support India's cause," Dhumal said.

"When we are allowing Chinese companies to sell their products in India, whatever money they are taking from Indian consumer, they are paying part of it to the BCCI (as brand promotion) and the board is paying 42 per cent tax on that money to the Indian government. So, that is supporting India's cause and not China's," he argued.

Oppo, a mobile phone brand like Vivo, was sponsoring the Indian cricket team until September last year when Bengaluru-based educational technology Byju's start-up replaced the Chinese company.

Dhumal said he is all for reducing dependence on Chinese products but as long as its companies are allowed to do business in India, there is no harm in them sponsoring an Indian brand like the IPL.

"If they are not supporting the IPL, they are likely to take that money back to China. If that money is retained here, we should be happy about it. We are supporting our government with that money (by paying taxes on it)."

"If I am giving a contract to a Chinese company to build a cricket stadium, then I am helping the Chinese economy. GCA built the world's largest cricket stadium at Motera and that contract was given to an Indian company (L&T)," he said.

"Cricketing infrastructure worth thousands of crores was created across country and none of the contract was awarded to a Chinese company."

Dhumal went on to say the BCCI is spoilt for choice when it comes to attracting sponsors, whether Indian or Chinese or from any other nation.

"If that Chinese money is coming to support Indian cricket, we should be okay with it. I am all for banning Chinese products as an individual, we are there to support our government but by getting sponsorship from Chinese company, we are helping India's cause."

"We can get sponsorship money from non-Chinese companies also including Indian firms. We can support our players any way but the idea is when they are allowed to sell their products here, it is better that part of money comes back to the Indian economy."

"The BCCI is not giving money to the Chinese, it is attracting on the contrary. We should make decision based on rationale rather than emotion," he added.