Billy Bowden, the high-profile elite umpire, has had his feathers ruffled of late. He was well below-par while officiating the Australia-West Indies Test series, and a recent poll among Australia’s 25 contracted players revealed that almost three-quarters of them rated him as the worst umpire on the circuit.The criticism led to Bowden, usually an out-and-out self publicist, refusing to talk to the media last week, although that didn’t last too long as he soon broke his silence to tell reporters that he wasn’t worried by the flack. “I am happy,” he said. “I can look at myself in the mirror.”Bowden became embroiled in a row after some questionable decisions went against West Indies, leading to their board making a formal complaint about the overall standard of umpiring during the series. The West Indies’ frustration boiled over on the final morning of the third Test when they repeatedly ignored his direction to stop talking in the field.Bowden arrived in Australia straight from officiating in the Pakistan-England series where he was again subjected to less than flattering reviews in the media. BSkyB analyst Bob Willis branded him a “show pony”.Bowden has been accused of being in awe of the Australians, and by having such a flamboyant and eccentric persona, he attracts more than his fair share of attention.But in New Zealand, Bowden has found support. Adam Parore, the former wicketkeeper, told the New Zealand Herald that he was by no means the worst on the circuit. “Billy’s problem is that he sets himself up, as all showmen are prone to do, and, at times, players find it hard to take him seriously. That said, it’s only the opinion of the Aussies, who had just come off an Ashes defeat when guess who was one of the umpires? Grain of salt Billy, I would suggest.”And in the same paper, columnist Chris Rattue was even more outspoken, labeling the poll “a disgrace, an arrogant response from spoilt brats smarting after losing the Ashes.”

Auckland’s win over Northern Districts highlighted a topsy-turvy day in the State Shield. Auckland was aided by Mssrs Duckworth and Lewis after the only black cloud in the country perched over Eden Park late in the day. In fairness, Auckland looked comfortable chasing, being 188 for 2 in 37.4 overs after Paul Hitchcock (108) posted a hard-hitting century in 99 balls. When the downpour came the revised target was 177 so Auckland won by eight wickets. Earlier, Northern posted a competitive 267 thanks mainly to captain James Marshall’s stylish 87. He was run out on the last ball of the game attempting a cheeky bye. Twin brother Hamish looked untroubled getting through to 39. Mayu Pasupati was best of the bowlers with 4 for 46.Peter Fulton fell from a great height yesterday as part of a Canterbury team thrashed at home by lowly Central Districts. Fulton, the player of the recently completed series against Sri Lanka fell lbw third ball to Michael Mason for no score. Canterbury was dismissed for 109 as Ewen Thompson and Lance Hamilton both finished with figures of 4 for 22. Central had no problems knocking off the total in 24.2 overs, with Ross Taylor (55) and Geoff Barnett (52) not out after an unbroken 91-run stand.Wellington was taken for a wild ride at Carisbrook by Otago, which demolished the previously unbeaten team. Otago seamer Warren McSkimming took a match-winning 5 for 9 off 7.3 overs as Wellington was skittled for a paltry 81 in 28.3 overs. McSkimming dismissed Chris Nevin off the first ball of the match and things scarcely improved for Wellington thereafter. Otago passed the total in 19.3 overs with Neil Broom (18) and Jonathan Trott (7) the not out batsmen. Luke Woodcock top scored for Wellington with 20 while Aaaron Redmond scored 34 for the home team.

Cricinfo received a considerable amount of feedback following Inzamam-ul-Haq’s reaction to his dismissal in the ODI at Peshawar – most of it critical of him and a large number mentioning Sachin Tendulkar’s run out in 1999. We publish here a selection.

The question of ethics itself is unethical. This is an India-Pakistan series. Nobody should ask for any quarters and none should be given. That applies to both teams. Wasim Akram was not wrong when he appealed for Sachin’s wicket. It was too important a wicket to ignore. Nor is Dravid. Let’s play, folks. BodhiI think Inzamam had every right to ask the umpires and even explain why he blocked the ball, which he did. This is because we all know the umpires get it wrong on simple catches sometimes and especially following the Faisalabad Test [against England] decision that went against him, Inzamam had to clarify things.Yasir ZiaThat Inzamam was not attempting a run is one argument and valid at that. To the extent he regained his crease and looked down to make sure he was in, is something any batsmen would do to guard against a subsequent run-out attempt. An equally important point to note is that, even if a run was being attempted, had he not put up his bat, or vanished into a magician’s hat for that matter, all the ball would have managed to hit would be the pitch dust. The ball was not even going towards the stumps. It was way out and on top of that, there wasn’t even anyone behind the stumps to collect it. The keeper and the first slip were still a few paces back, so there was no chance of a run-out which Inzamam was obstructing. Putting up his bat was a willful action, not a willful attempt to avoid a run-out since there wasn’t a possibility of it to begin with. MianIf you look at the replay, you will see that Inzamam started to turn back before the throw and then stuck out his bat when he saw the ball coming. But what follows is even more interesting. After `hitting’ the ball, Inzamam regained his crease and then looked down to see where he is relative to the crease. That is quite clearly an indication that he probably realised he was in trouble if an appeal had been made. It was, and he was given out. Ravi KumarIt seems that this time too Inzamam’s ghost writer has had the last say. It doesn’t sound like Inzamam to grumble too much about such decisions or take up so martial a stance about it. The gentle giant would more or less have forgotten about the incident in normal circumstances. Perhaps someone with poison in his pen has given the cricket world another unnecessary conflict to crow about. Patrick CThe only word I can find to describe india’s appeal is ‘disgusting’. No way Inzamam was going for a run and no way the ball was going towards the stumps. In fact Inzamam was just preventing the ball from hitting him. I agree with his statement that the appeal was unsporting and against the game’s spirit. SajidI fully agree with the comments of Osman Samiuddin. He is spot on! Moin Khan must also recall the Chennai Test in 1999 and the manner in which Ganguly was `caught’ by him. And, of course, we all know Tendulkar’s run out in the Kolkata Test. Moin needs to learn the meaning of the spirit of the game and Inzamam needs to learn the rules of the game. AdityaOf course the laws are there for all to see and read. And of course he was out, and there is no doubt about that. And yet, there is something about the spirit of the game and sportsmanship which seems lacking here. Osman draws comparison between the events in Peshawar to the Sachin Tendulkar run-out in the earlier series. The difference is, Tendulkar was out taking a run, there was the intent for the run and possibility of a run-out. In Inzamam’s case, he was not even attempting a run. He would have made it back to the crease if he had tried to – that is, there was no real chance of him being run out. If he had tried making his ground, the ball may have hit him. If Inzamam had tried to avoid the ball as he did in Faisalabad and found short, would he be out? Inzamam said as much, “if I leave the ball I am out, and if I stop the ball I am out.” The question is of intent. What was Inzamam’s intent? To prevent himself being run-out? No, it was to prevent the ball from hitting him. Azeez TalhaI saw the clip on Google. It is quite obvious that Inzamam was not attempting a run. Rather, continuing with his forward momentum he left his crease and was watching the ball. This ‘forward’ movement is made by most if not all batsmen in ODIs, and is very different to someone attempting a run. So the fact that he wasn’t taking a run the Indians should not have appealed against him irrespective of his action of stopping the ball with his bat which I think was more of an instinctive reaction rather than adeliberate attempt to protect his wicket. Needless to say, if you judge him in accordance with the laws of the game then he did obstruct, and the umpires had to give him out as an appeal was made. AleemNo doubt that Inzamam was out as per the rules of cricket. But Rahul Dravid and his men should talk to their own conscience. Perhaps, with Inzamam’s class and current form that was the only way that the `great’ Greg Chappell and the rest of India could have gotten rid of him. Deen SteenWell, I am not sure what makes you conclude that Inzamam’s actions were those of an irresponsible person. Both teams, India and Pakistan, when playing against each other would accept a win even if they have to go against the spirit of the game (such is the context). Let’s not get into the history, because Indians are sore losers and it has been widely accepted. Minor incidents do occur in the heat of the moment, and to any individual who watches the game to see Indians appealing was just ridiculous. As far as Tendulkar’s run out is concerned, the Indians should have protested or asked for a reconsideration of the decision instead of abiding by it. The Pakistanis weren’t the ones who gave the verdict. Like you mentioned, it was the umpires’ decision. SunnyEveryone seems to relate this to Tendulkar’s dismissal. But no one gives former Pakistan captain Imran Khan the credit during the 1989 series: the touring Indian captain Srikanth was adjudged lbw by the umpire and he showed his dissent. Imran then had him called back and he was clean bowled next ball – that is the spirit of the game. Hussnain BhalliI looked at the replay and believe that Inzamam was just protecting himself. He was just avoiding the ball as he did against England and that time too he was given out. I can understand Inzamam’s frustrations. I believe the rules of cricket shouldn’t be so complicated that a man who has played as many matches as Inzamam does not understand. This shows how desperate the Indians were for a wicket and how low they stooped to get it. I sympathize with Inzamam and hope this sort of thing does not repeat itself. BasilI am a big fan of Inzamam and thought he was harshly given out against England this winter. And in this case he was clearly out of the crease, made no attempt to get back and was definitely obstructing. Not sure what he can argue about – the law’s pretty clear and ignorance is no defence. Dan JamesInzamam – cop it sweet. You bring it upon yourself with your abysmal running between wickets. Sometimes I think you bait the opposition; for what purpose I don’t know – maybe for an overthrow, but you’d be too lazy to take advantage of it anyway. Roman FedrichUnsportsmanlike, Inzamam says, “deplorable” Moin Khan adds. Where was their good sense when they joined the entire Pakistan Team in unison and with full throated ease along with their captain Wasim Akram to appeal against Sachin Tendulkar in the ’99 Test at Calcutta when he collided with Shoaib in the second innings after grounding his bat. Sachin was not out then according to both the law and spirit of the game, whereas Inzamam was quite a few paces out of the crease and had a good chance of getting run out if he hadn’t patted the ball with his bat. Arindam BoseI am sorry to say Inzamam needs to go back to the school and start again about basics of the game. If he doesnot know a law that is not anybody problem. Sahil SaifHis act of sticking his bat out to prevent the ball from hitting the stumps is equally unsporting. If he had been attempting to regain his crease by grounding his bat and the ball hit the bat, an appeal in those circumstances could have been considered unsportsmanlike. But that was not the case; he was caught out of his ground, and he used his bat to prevent himself from being run out. MaheshLove the way Inzamam says it was unsporting for India to claim when he obstructed, wasn’t his action of obstructing the ball unsportsmanlike? Inzamam, please refer to the old adage, “don’t point a finger at anyone as there are three more pointing back at you”. Rory Hendricks

Kenya’s one-day series in Zimbabwe has been cut from five matches to three for reasons as yet unclear.The itinerary for the series was only confirmed last week, and the change has been made eight days before the Kenyans are due to arrive in Harare. While ZC did not offer any explanation for the decision, sources close to the board indicate that it was for financial reasons.A spokesman for Cricket Kenya said that they had not been advised of the alteration. “As of last night, we have had no notification and it surprises me – but we will wait and see.”In a separate development, it seems likely that Zimbabwe will not be taking part in the tri-series in Bangladesh in March which also involves Kenya. Kenya will play three ODIs against Bangladesh instead.

The Pakistan and Sri Lankan cricket boards have reached an agreement not to use the Supersub rule during their upcoming three-match one-day series from March 17.The bilateral decision has been made after a recommendation made by the International Cricket Council (ICC) chief executives last month in Dubai that the trial of the Supersub playing condition should be discontinued.”Pakistan and Sri Lanka believe that as the Supersub experimental rule is going to be discontinued from later this month,” said an official of the Pakistan Cricket Board (PCB). “There is no purpose using it in the coming series. Many other countries have also taken such bilateral decisions in their matches.”David Richardson, ICC’s general manager, said that the Supersub rule had not achieved what it set out to deliver. “The intention of Sunil Gavaskar and the panel of former players on the ICC Cricket Committee, which recommended the trial of this playing condition, was to encourage teams to make greater use of allrounders in the ODI game,” he said. “In practice, teams have elected to nominate a specialist player as the substitute and this is placing undue importance on winning the toss. There is no desire to create a situation where 12 players are used to do the job of 11 so we did not support the alternate view of allowing substitutes to be nominated after the toss. The proposal that the playing condition should be discontinued has been endorsed by the CEC and will now go to the Board for ratification.”If the board accepts this recommendation, the Supersub playing condition will no longer apply to series that start after 21 March 2006.

Chris Silverwood, the former England fast bowler, has been released from his contract with Yorkshire by mutual consent and has signed for Middlesex.Silverwood made his debut for Yorkshire in 1996 and was one of a battery of fast bowlers which the county produced in the late 1990s. Darren Gough, Ryan Sidebottom and Steve Kirby all learned their trade at Yorkshire but have since moved on, leaving the club worryingly bereft of experience in their pace attack.Yorkshire’s loss is Middlesex gain, however, and Silverwood will play a crucial role for the London club who themselves have lost a number of important fast bowlers in recent years.”We are very excited that Chris Silverwood has joined Middlesex,” John Emburey, Middlesex’s coach, told the club’s website. “He gives our bowling squad the aggression that we have lacked in recent years and his experience will be of huge benefit to the younger players on the fringe of the first eleven.”He is still ambitious and believes that a good season with Middlesex could lead to him getting back into the England side,” he added. “At 30 he still has several good years in him and he is looking forward to the challenges ahead.”

South Africa 266 for 5 (Jack 109, Kirsten 103) beat Bermuda 169 for 9 by 97 runs

Gary Kirsten’s second hundred in successive matches guided South Africa to a 97-run win over hosts Bermuda in the final of the inaugural 20-20 World Cricket Classic in Nassau.South Africa’s batting has been the key to their success, and Kirsten and former Transvaal fast bowler Steven Jack finished the tournament with 461 runs between them. Kirsten followed his 134 in the semi-final with 103 this time, while Jack smashed 109. Both reached their hundreds in under 50 balls. Jack, who played his two Tests for South Africa as a bowler, raced to his century in 40 balls, including four fours and ten sixes.The Bermuda bowlers all came in for some stick, with Kevin Hurdle being slammed for 71 from his four overs.Bermuda never seemed interested in chasing a daunting ask of more than 13 an over, but they batted well and the spirits of a lively capacity crowd were not dampened.”I think the bowlers have learned a hard lesson tonight,” Gus Logie, Bermuda’s coach, admitted. “We talked a lot beforehand about how we were going to have to bowl against them but we just did not put those plans into practice and we got punished for it.”

James Sutherland, the chief executive of Cricket Australia, has said that he will call Ricky Ponting to hear his perspective of the incident that resulted in him being fined 25% of his match fee during the second Test against Bangladesh at Chittagong.Ponting was found guilty of dissent after the Bangladesh team management complained about his behaviour during the appeal made against Aftab ahmed in the first innings.”I wasn’t there so I haven’t got any context out of what I have seen on TV and read in the newspapers and I want to get Ricky’s perspective on that,” Sutherland told the . ” I am also concerned that an incident like this has occurred. He has been reported, albeit the report has been made by the Bangladesh team, but the ICC match referee has heard the case and found him guilty. I do know that Ricky is absolutely committed to the spirit of cricket and I do know that, generally speaking, the Australian team does get it right.”Responding to criticism over Australia’s demanding playing schedule contributing to their below-par performance in the first Test at Fatullah, Sutherland felt that the right amount of matches were being played. He said that the programme was worked out with the Australian Cricketers’ Association (ACA), the players’ representative body.”The reality is, in consultation with team management and the ACA, it was decided the appropriate course of action was to go from South Africa to Bangladesh without a tour match in between or any sort of a break. They wanted to get straight into it. They felt that they were in Test match mode and the appropriate course of action was to go straight there and get home sooner rather than later so they could enjoy a break – or go to county cricket.”

Derek Underwood, the former England left-arm spinner, has urged the selectors to persist with Monty Panesar this summer, saying that England have in their ranks an attacking spinner capable of bowling sides out twice.Panesar made his Test debut during the tour of India as a replacement for Ashley Giles, England’s premier left-arm spinner, who has been out of action with a hip injury and whose future remains uncertain due to it.After a promising debut in India, Panesar was an automatic choice for the first Test against Sri Lanka at Lord’s. But Andrew Flintoff, the England captain, was criticised for underbowling him, especially in Sri Lanka’s second innings. Panesar didn’t get a bowl in the first innings but struck with two important wickets in his 27 overs in the second, though he was largely confined to watching the fast bowlers toil, with the captain himself sending down over 50 overs.”The thing I like about Panesar is that he always runs in with the purpose of getting wickets,” Underwood told . “He tries to get the better of opponents, not contain them. He looks capable of bowling out a side on a turning wicket and England haven’t had a spinner like that since Phil Tufnell.”He was quick to point out, however, that Giles was still in the reckoning, highlighting his utility to the side. “Ashley has done a great job with bat and ball,” Underwood said, “but in India Panesar learnt to vary the pace of his bowling.”Underwood was speaking at the launch of a junior section of the Primary Club, a charitable organisation of which he is patron. Andrew Strauss, the England opener and president of the club, was also present.

Ashwell Prince, recently announced as South African captain for the Test series in Sri Lanka, says his style of captaincy is a world apart from the man he replaced. Prince acknowledged that “unforeseen circumstances” – Graeme Smith’s injury – led him to captain the national side but that he was up to the task.”People should not expect me to do things the way Graeme did,” Prince told reporters on the eve of South Africa’s departure for Sri Lanka. “Graeme is a very aggressive captain; I am quieter on the field.”Despite the loss of key players, Prince remained confident of success and his abilities. “Not having Graeme, Jacques Kallis and Shaun Pollock [for the first Test] will be a huge setback,” he said. “We realise each one of us will have to contribute something extra. But, the captaincy will not be completely new to me. I have gained valuable experience at Western Province and things went rather well.”Prince added that people skills would not be an issue. “I work well with the coach and senior players and like to work out things tactically,” he said. “One must think deeply about what you have to do as captain. I also get on well with the players and do not anticipate any problems on that front.”Mickey Arthur, the South African coach, said a decision would be taken later whether Prince would continue to lead for the triangular one-day series also featuring India.”We’ll first see how things go in the Test series,” he said. “When Haroon Lorgat [convener of the selectors] joins us on tour, we will decide whether Ashwell will captain the side for the one-day matches.”With Justin Kemp unlikely to play in the one-day series, the possibility of Prince retaining the captaincy seems strong.