Sania ends partnership with Martina, teams up with Strycova

May 6: They have similar impact on their teams but Virat Kohli is driven by sheer passion to subdue the rivals while Steve Smith just enjoys batting, says Australia opener David Warner.

India skipper Kohli and top Australian batsman Smith are arguably the top two cricketers of the current era. They achieve new milestones consistently, invoking debates, who is better between them.

"Virat's passion and drive to score runs is different to what Steve's would be," Warner said while speaking to Harsha Bhogle on 'Cricbuzz in Conversation'.

"Steve is going out there for a hit in the middle, that's how he sees things. He's hitting them out in the middle, he's having fun, he's enjoying himself, just does not want to get out."

Warner feels, while Kohli is batting he is aware that if he sticks around the middle his team will be on top of the proceedings.

"Virat obviously doesn't want to get out but he knows if he spends a certain amount of time out there, he's going to score plenty of runs at a rapid rate. He's going to get on top of you. That allows the guys coming in, especially in the Indian team you've got a lot of players who can be flamboyant as well."

The Australian opener added that both men are mentally strong and a good knock by them boosts the morale of the entire team.

"When it comes to cricket, they both have got the mental strength, the mental capacity to score runs. They both love spending time in the middle.

"They stabilise, they boost morale - if they score runs, everyone else's moral is up. If they are out cheaply you almost sense that on the field that everyone is (down on morale and thinking) 'now we all have to step up'. It's a very bizarre situation," he added.

Asked about the similarities between himself and Kohli, who are both live wires on the field, Warner said the passion to do better than the opponent keeps him going.

"I can't speak for Virat, obviously, but it's almost like we got this thing in us when we go (out to the middle) we need to prove people wrong, prove someone wrong."

"If you're in that contest, and if I'm going at him for example, you're thinking, 'Alright, I'm going to score more runs than him, I'm going to take a quick single on him'. You are trying to better that person in that game. That's where the passion comes from."

Warner also explained how he breaks down a match into smaller competitions.

"Obviously you want to win the game but you almost break it down to: If I can score more runs than Virat, or if Pujara scores more runs than Steve Smith, you have these little contests and that's how you try to narrow the game in the sense that if we do these little things, we can be ahead of the game or we can be behind the game.

"The passion is driven by...I know my sense - one, the will to win and two, wanting to do better than that person in the opposition," said Warner.

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.

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.