Category Uncategorized

Chris Schofield returned to form in a superb Lancashire win over Kent at OldTrafford today which kept them firmly in the hunt for their first outrighttitle since 1934.John Crawley’s side completed a 154 runs victory after claiming the extrahalf hour of the third day, bowling out relegation haunted Kent for 125.It earned Lancashire 16 points, putting behind them their recent troublesin one-day cricket, and Schofield celebrated his best all-round performancefor the club.The 21 years-old Schofield first took his overnight 22 to an unbeaten 70as Lancashire battled their way from 110-7 to 198 all out. He put on preciousruns with Gary Keedy and Mike Smethurst but broke Kent’s hearts in a lastwicket stand of 51 with Peter Martin.There is no doubt that Schofield has batting talent. This season he hadalready notched up two half-centuries for Lancashire and one for Englandagainst Zimbabwe at Trent Bridge.But he also made a big contribution with the ball after Martin and Keedyhad made early inroads into Kent’s forlorn bid to reach a victory target of280.Lancashire captain John Crawley held him back until the score reached 70-4but his introduction into the attack paid immediate dividends with threewickets in four balls – the last delivery of one over and the second andthird of the next.Min Patel foiled him of a hat-trick and resisted Lancashire for a further70 balls. But Schofield had the final say when Patel miscued him to mid offto be last man out for 35, giving the leg-spinner 4-25.

The revamp explained

Who conceived the idea of the ICC revamp?
The three most powerful boards – BCCI, ECB and Cricket Australia – did. In January last year, a working group comprising former BCCI president N Srinivasan, former ECB chairman Giles Clarke and former CA chairman Wally Edwards designed a ‘position paper’ that recommended changes to the ICC constitution, governance structure and revenue-sharing model of the ten Full Members.
Was it accepted by the ICC board?
After opposition from some boards like CSA, PCB and SLC, the Big Three climbed down from their more extreme positions with reference to governance and constitutional changes, but did not change the new revenue distribution model.
What were the important decisions accepted?
The ICC revenue distribution model was reformulated to give BCCI, ECB and CA a graded percentage share of revenue, with a larger chunk going to these three boards when compared to the rest. It was also decided to have the BCCI nominee be the ICC chairman for the first term lasting two years. Srinivasan became the first chairman. The influential Finance & Commercial Affairs committee was led by Clarke until June 2016.
An Executive Committee (ExCo) was formed for the first time to take major policy decisions that would be ratified by the ICC board. Edwards was the first chairman of ExCo, with future heads being picked on a rotation basis from the Big Three boards. After resistance from other members the ExCO strength was increased from four to five, with CSA being included.
ICC Business Co (IBC) was set up to replace the existing IDI (ICC Development International). The IBC was in charge of issuing tenders for the ICC’s next media rights and sponsorship cycle (2015-23).
What about the Future Tours Programme (FTP)?
The existing FTP was disbanded and a new one, where members would sign legally binding contracts, for bilateral series between 2015 and 2023 was put in place. The proposed World Test Championship was scrapped.

BCCI president Shashank Manohar, who is also the ICC chairman, has criticised the imbalance of power within cricket’s governing body because of the constitutional revamp last year, which gave the boards of India, England and Australia greater authority and a larger share of the revenue.Manohar called the revamp “bullying”, and said there were several faults in the ICC that he hoped to rectify during his term as chairman, which ends in June 2016.”I don’t agree with the three major countries bullying the ICC,” Manohar told the . “That’s my personal view, because as I have always said, an institution is bigger than individuals. You cannot guarantee which individual will occupy the top position in either of these countries. And, the ICC constitution, as it stands today, says that in all the major committees of the ICC, these three countries will be automatically there. So all the financial and commercial aspects and the executive committee will be controlled by the representatives of these three countries, which according to me is wrong. You should have the best man, whether he comes from Zimbabwe, or West Indies, or even from an associate or affiliate to work on a committee, who will promote the interests of the ICC.”Manohar was in Dubai last week to get acquainted with the ICC’s functioning after the BCCI named him its representative to replace N Srinivasan, who had become the inaugural chairman last July. Srinivasan had been the main architect behind the Big Three plan, which was passed by the ICC board last February.When asked whether he would propose to other ICC board members to revoke the decisions taken last year, Manohar said he was speaking in his individual capacity and not as ICC. “I don’t agree with that in principle. I am talking about myself. I don’t know what will happen in the future.”Under the new governance structure, while the BCCI president became ICC chairman, the Cricket Australia chairman would head the five-member executive committee, and the ECB president would continue to head the ICC’s Finance and Commercial Affairs (F&CA) committee, making sure the three boards had control over major policy decisions.On January 9 last year, an F&CA committee “working group” comprising Srinivasan, Giles Clarke and Wally Edwards had presented the draft of their radical revamp to the rest of the ICC board. Central to the draft was the revenue distribution model, which was reworked to give the BCCI, ECB and CA a graded percentage share of ICC revenue, with a larger chunk going to these three boards than the rest.In an interview with ESPNcricinfo, Srinivasan had said it was wrong to see the revamp as a takeover of the ICC by the BCCI, ECB and CA. “If I had to sum it up I will say the proposal gives financial stability to nations who play cricket,” Srinivasan had said.Manohar, however, was opposed to the revenue-sharing formula. “I don’t agree with the revenue-sharing formula, because it’s nice to say that India (BCCI) will get 22% of the total revenue of the ICC, but you cannot make the poor poorer and the rich richer, only because you have the clout. The ICC runs cricket throughout the world.”Secondly there is another angle to it which nobody has thought of. India generates money because the other countries come and play in India. If you do not have a fierce competition, the broadcasters are not going to pay you and the sponsors are not going to sponsor your events. So whatever you generate through bilateral series is because there are good teams playing against you. If all teams are of the standards of the low placed ninth and tenth team and India is a good side, who is going to pay you; what interest would be left with the spectators to watch a game, if it’s a one-sided game always. So if you reduce their corpus, their development is going to be hampered and ICC has to think from that point of view.”Manohar also expressed dissatisfaction at the possibility of conflict of interest because of the dual roles held by officials – at the ICC and at their home board. “According to me there is a conflict now at the ICC level, which I have to sort out. Under the present ICC constitution, the chairmanship is offered to the representative of the BCCI. Under the ICC constitution, after the annual conference, there is going to be an election and the person who is elected the chairman will continue only till the time he continues to be the representative of his country.”So tomorrow here could be a scenario, wherein ‘A’ person is elected the chairman and after 10 days he is removed by his board, ‘B’ would take over as the chairman, and after four months that person is removed, ‘C’ would take over as chairman. When people vote, they vote for an individual; they don’t vote for a member board. It’s the competence of a person to lead the ICC is important, and keeping that in mind, people vote for him. According to me that clause is also a bad clause.”Secondly when I am at the ICC as a BCCI representative, it’s my paramount duty to protect the interests of the BCCI; then how can I protect the interests of the ICC, sitting as its chairman? If there is a conflict between the interest of the BCCI and the ICC, I will have to protect the interest of the BCCI. Then I am failing in my duty, sitting there as chairman of the ICC and not protecting its interests.”So according to me there are many flaws in the ICC constitution, which was amended, because earlier the president’s post was occupied by a person who had nothing to do with any board. The first requirement was he had to resign from his home board from all positions; with the result that he was not attending the ICC meetings as a representative of a member board. David Morgan, [Sharad] Pawar, Alan Issac, they resigned from their offices to sit as ICC presidents. This is a unique situation which has been created because of the amendment which creates, according to me, a direct conflict.”Manohar said he had already raised all these issues with Clarke and other senior ranking ICC officials. “I have spoken about these issues to Giles Clarke (ECB) and he agreed with me.”

What were we thinking? A photo of Graeme Smith on the back of a Harley-Davidson was, we thought, innocent enough. But clearly we underestimated the talents, for want of a better word, of our venerable readership.Of the hundreds of entries, we had a difficult time choosing the winners. It was equally tricky finding those we could publish, too, but fortunately found three from Martin Morrey, Navneeth Santhanam and Stewart Robertson (see below).Navneeth Santhanam
Martin Morrey
Congratulations to all three. Copies of Harry Thompson’s and Lawrence Booth’s will be winging their way to you shortly.

The Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI) has allowed the use of the Kookaburra brand of cricket balls for the first time in India’s domestic season. However, this will be tried out only in the Duleep Trophy, on an experimental basis, while the remaining competitions will continue to use the traditional Sanspareils Greenlands (SG) balls.Confirming this to Cricinfo, Niranjan Shah, the BCCI secretary, said that Rahul Dravid, the Indian captain, had recommended the change. “Rahul Dravid had earlier suggested that we experiment with the red Kookaburra ball in one of the domestic competitions. Therefore, the committee decided that we try it out in the 2006-07 Duleep Trophy.”Legendary spinners Erapalli Prasanna and Bhagwat Chandrasekhar have welcomed BCCI’s move and have urged India’s current crop of slow bowlers to get rid of the mental block that kookaburra balls, with their less pronounced seam, would hinder their wicket-taking ability.”If India’s aim is to win the 2007 World Cup, our spinners will have to master the art with the Kookuburra,” Prasanna, the offspinner who took 189 wickets in 49 Tests in the 1960-70s, told PTI. “It is a matter of getting used to the conditions. If kookuburra balls are used throughout the world, should we also not follow suit? It will definitely be for the good of the Indian spinners, though it may not help them most compared to the pace bowlers.”No doubt it [Kookaburra] is a great advantage to the batsmen and the pace bowlers. But a spinner has to bring coordination of his mind and bowling arm while releasing the ball,” Prasanna said. “Has not Anil Kumble been able to adjust to different balls and remain match winner for his county Surrey in England?”Chandrasekhar, who picked 242 wickets in 58 Tests with his whippy action, concurred with his contemporary. “It is a question of whether you are playing against a weak batting side or weak bowling side,” he said. The art of spin bowling is that one should be able to bowl with any kind of ball, whether SG or the imported kookuburra balls. If I am playing today, I will accept the Board’s decision. I will not bother about what kind of ball is given to me to bowl.”.He believed that the bowlers would benefit from the use of Kookaburra in the “long run”.”If I take only a couple of wickets in the first four or five matches, I am sure I will be able to claim six wickets in the sixth match. It will definitely help the Indian spinners in the long run.”Among all the ten Test playing nations, India and England are the only two countries which don’t use the Kookaburra brand. England use the Duke ball, which has a raised seam, similar to the SG variety, while Kookubarra has a flatter seam. SG balls help finger spinners better, which could explain why spinners don’t get the same purchase when bowling outside the subcontinent.While the SG is handmade, the Kookaburra balls are assembly line-products, manufactured using modern technology. The BCCI had said that they were looking for alternatives, and would consider Kookaburra if they can bring their prices down. The Kookaburra white ball is currently used in one-day internationals played in India.”There was some criticism before England’s tour of India (earlier this year),” Shah added. “However, we did not receive any complaints during the series, so we’re happy with the SG balls. We have no plans yet of changing to Kookaburra completely.”

Division One

Robin Martin-Jenkins struck a season’s best 88 to earn Sussex a healthy 130-run lead over Surrey. He came to the crease with the match evenly poised with Sussex on 180 for six after Azhar Mahmood had taken three quick wickets. But Martin-Jenkins nursed the tail along as 198 runs were added by the last four wickets with Luke Wright and Rana Naved both striking 26. Mahmood finished with 5 for 72 and the Surrey openers, Scott Newman and Richard Clinton, knocked off 54 of the deficit before close to set up a crucial third day.Middlesex took a stranglehold on the match at Lord’s as Warwickshire continued to see their Championship crown slip. Ben Hutton and Owais Shah added 117 to extend a first innings advantage of 51 into a commanding 206 with nine wickets in hand. Earlier, Warwickshire were staring at the follow-on when the fell to 85 for 6 but were rescued by Dougie Brown’s 92, from 160 balls. Luke Parker helped with 43 and a last-wicket stand 53 with Dewald Pretorius got Warwickshire closer than they might have expected, but by the close the margin was huge again.Alex Gidman hauled Gloucestershire back into their match against Hampshire. Gidman and Stephen Adshead added 105 to lift their team from 191 for 6, reducing Hampshire’s lead to 22. James Bruce took three top order wickets – including Ramnaresh Sarwan for 18 as Gloucestershire stumbled in the morning session. But, as with Nic Pothas and Andy Bichel yesterday, the recovering came from a wicketkeeper and an allrounder. Jon Lewis managed to remove Chris Benham before the close to complete a satisfying comeback for Gloucestershire.Glamorgan are facing another huge defeat despite a defiant century from David Hemp. Kent took complete control on the second at Canterbury, firstly through Darren Stevens who completed the first double-century of his career and then an all round team bowling effort as six bowlers chipping in with wickets. Stevens and Andrew Hall extended their partnership to 277, Hall making 133, and Min Patel rubbed salt in the wounded Glamorgan bowling figures with a 55-ball 64. Glamorgan then slumped to 63 for 5 and despite Hemp’s unbeaten 134 it is a huge mountain to climb to avoid defeat.

Division Two

Alistair Cook guided Essex to a useful 49-run first innings against Durham but Dale Benkenstein’s unbeaten 96 went most of the way to cancelling out Cook’s 107 and it is Durham who hold an advantage. Paul Collingwood made 46 and Gareth Breese 42 to enable Durham to build a lead of 226 despite losing both openers with 13 on the board. A first innings lead seemed a long way off for Essex when 134 for 7 following James Middlebrook’s run out but, Cook combined with Graham Napier (51) adding 86. However, Durham showed all the fighting qualities that have taken them top of Division Two and will fancy their chances of another win.Lancashire’s top order squandered the hard work of their bowlers by slumping to 38 for 3 in the face of some impressive bowling from Leicestershire late in the day. Ottis Gibson bowled Mark Chilton with the first ball of the innings and he also removed the dangerous Mal Loye. Aftab Habib and David Masters had shared a vital ninth wicket stand of 77 to lead Leicestershire from 183 for 8 to within 31 runs of Lancashire’s first innings 291. Habib hit 12 fours and a six in his 84 and Tim New also reached a half-century before he was trapped lbw by Glen Chapple, who took three wickets.1st dayShoaib Akhtar ripped through Northamptonshire to give Worcestershire control at New Road. Although he only sent down 9.2 overs he claimed 5 for 55. Martin Love made 51 before falling to Nadeem Malik and Northants wasted a solid platform of 147 for 3. In reply, Stephen Moore held firm on 41 and although Graeme Hick fell for a duck Worcestershire will certainly be the happier of the two teams.Two of Somerset’s youngsters, Arul Suppiah and Wesley Durston, combined to give their team control against Derbyshire. Both players struck their maiden first-class centuries and added 112 for the fourth wicket. Durston was marginally quicker to his milestone – taking 154 balls – with Suppiah not far behind on 176. Derbyshire stuck to their task but showed little penetration after an early wicket apiece for Ian Hunter and Graeme Welch.

Sourav Ganguly has dropped a hint that he may be thinking of pushing himself up the order in one-day internationals, to open the batting, once again, for India. Sachin Tendulkar and Virender Sehwag are currently India’s one-day openers, but Ganguly has suggested that those two spots are not fixed, and form will play a large part in determining who opens for India.Speaking to the news channel, NDTV, Ganguly said, “It could be between Sachin, Sehwag and myself. I have played as an opener in one-day cricket for some time. We need to work on it. Sehwag stands well as an opener at the moment, but whoever is in good form at that stage will open.”Ganguly and Tendulkar were India’s regular opening pair for a few years, until Tendulkar missed out on a triangular in Sri Lanka, the Coca Cola Cup, in 2001. Yuvraj Singh and Sehwag were both tried as openers in his place, and Sehwag seized the day with an explosive 70-ball 100 in a crucial game against New Zealand.Tendulkar was later demoted down the order, in a controversial move aimed at strengthening the middle order. The logic behind it was that India, then, had a problem finishing matches, and it seemed to make sense that their best batsman should fill that lacuna. But almost as soon as the tactical shift was made, voila, the finishers appeared, making Tendulkar’s new role virtually redundant. Yuvraj, Rahul Dravid and Mohammad Kaif demonstrated this by playing magnificently in the NatWest Trophy in 2002, with Yuvraj and Kaif sealing a remarkable win in the final, chasing 326 successfully after India were 146 for 5.Deprived of the position where he was most comfortable, Tendulkar appeared unhappy, and India went through a bad run of games starting from the 2002-2003 series against New Zealand, where they lost the one-dayers 2-5. By the time the World Cup came around, Tendulkar was back where he was most comfortable – at the top of the order. His spectacular form propelled India to the final, with his memorable 98 against Pakistan regarded as one of the great one-day innings. Tendulkar finished on top of the run-scoring list in the World Cup, with 673 runs at 61 – and Ganguly, who had batted in the middle order, came second, with 465 at 58.As the year closed, Ganguly lost his No. 3 position as well, with VVS Laxman striking a fine vein of form in that position in the VB Series. For a batsman with a penchant for innings building, and a hunger for big scores, it wasn’t quite the ideal position, so Ganguly’s comments, in that light, come as no surprise. But Tendulkar will clearly not be inclined to give up his position, and Sehwag has lived up to his potential at the top of the order as well.Ganguly has opened for India in 192 one-dayers, and averages 42.52, with 19 centuries and 44 half-centuries. Sehwag has opened for India in 70 one-day internationals, averaging 38.4, with six hundreds and 11 fifties. But Tendulkar’s record at that position comfortably surpasses that of his team-mates; in the 223 games he has opened in, he has scored over 10,000 runs, with 34 centuries and 48 fifties, at an average of 49.66.

I must admit that it is not easy to concentrate on cricket, much less enjoy it while a brutal war rages in Iraq. Still the show must go on. So far so good for the new-look Pakistan team. But Sharjah was never going to provide a real test. It’s a friendly environment and the nature of the opposition in this particular tournament is not all that hot.But the main idea is to re-build and there appears to be little doubt that there is more cohesion, more spirit in the team. This generally happens with a new team. The skill lies in the ability to sustain the exuberance. Not only is the team new but also the management.There seems to be a general approval about the re-building process and the virtues of youth are being extolled even by those who themselves set a bad example by hanging around when it had become apparent that it was well past the time for calling it a day.The key is going to be providing some security to the new players. They need to be given a long run and though we should monitor their performance carefully, we should accept that there will be some false starts. But what needs to be avoided is the sense of smugness that some kind of revolutionary change has taken place in our cricket thinking.This is not the first time that Pakistan has experimented with a new-look team. When Kerry Packer arrived on the scene, like Pied Piper he was able to take away the best players.Packer had made it clear that he would make the players available for national duty but so incensed were the various cricket boards with the players who had ‘deserted’ to Packer that they gave these players the boot. In the end the prodigals were received back and they dined on the fatted calf.I think it is wholly wrong to portray the axed senior players as some sort of villains. To wholly blame them for the World Cup debacle is manifestly unfair. The senior players per se were not a part of the problem.The re-building process should be de-linked from the poor performance of the team in the World Cup. Rather, we should take the stand that we would have proceeded with the re-building irrespective.Re-building is an attempt to acquire a bank of players so that there is a greater pool of players available for national duty. There seems to be no need to follow the political pattern of debunking previous leaders.On the contrary, these senior players should be actively involved in the re-building. Most of them rendered distinguished service to cricket. There is an irony of sorts that to date in the Sharjah tournament Pakistan has needed the contributions from Abdul Razzaq, Younis Khan, Yousuf Youhana and Rashid Latif to see them through.Once South Africa pulled out for wholly untenable reasons, the tournament seemed less competitive. And it was generally expected that it would be a Pakistan-Sri Lanka final. But Zimbabwe had other ideas and it is Sri Lanka that had to take an early flight back home.Sri Lanka has looked jaded and a troubled team. Usually, it gives the impression of being a happy team. On his return from the World Cup, Sanath Jayasuriya had resigned as captain but his resignation had not been accepted. Now he has resigned once again and may have played his last match as captain.I have absolutely no idea about the internal politics of Sri Lankan cricket but can only guess that something is not quite right. There was some palaver about the selection of the team. Kumar Sangakkara was initially dropped but re-instated in the team as a specialist batsmen. He showed his detractors, if there were any, that he was not amused and he slammed two hundreds on a trot.Sri Lanka too has been unlucky. Chaminda Vaas has had to go home without having bowled a ball, a sprained ankle and Dilhara Fernando was nursing a stiff back. But more than that, I don’t think that Muttiah Muralitharan is in his best form. He still remains a bowler who commands respect but I may be wrong, and I hope that I am, he seems not to be taking wickets.Muralitharan did not have a particularly good World Cup and at Sharjah he has had only modest success by his standard. I am wondering if he has fully recovered from his shoulder injury.New Zealand is proving to be a difficult team. It walked out of a tour of Pakistan because of an unrelated bomb blast at an adjoining hotel in Karachi.Then it refused to play in Nairobi and forfeited the points (and I hope will be made to pay a financial penalty as well) and now we learn that it is monitoring the deadly pneumonia outbreak in Asia before deciding to tour Sri Lanka later this month.As far as I know there have been no cases of this pneumonia in Sri Lanka though there have been few cases in Canada. If there is any health hazard, it would apply to all teams taking part in the tournament.Actually it should be the other way round. Since the New Zealand team is scheduled to fly to Colombo via Singapore, there is danger that the New Zealand team may become carriers of the mysterious virus.I think that the New Zealand cricketers need to grow up. They have to live in a world that the rest of us do. If they are constantly feeling threatened, they should pull out from international cricket until they are satisfied that the world has become a safe place.It will, unfortunately, have to be a long wait. Somehow the New Zealand players think nothing about brawling in night clubs but they are terribly concerned about security.I think if there is any health hazard, I imagine that the Sri Lankan government would be aware of it. But somehow New Zealand does not seem to ‘trust’ home governments. They prefer to deal with their own independent sources.

Stratford-upon-Avon:
Lancashire 350-7 (RC Driver 208*)
WarwickshireHastings:
Somerset 341-5 (MJ Wood 82, PCL Holloway 73, JID Kerr 73)
SussexWorksop College:
Northamptonshire 238-9dec (R White 81, AJ Swann 67)
Nottinghamshire 5-0Chester-le-Street:
Gloucestershire 304 (RC Williams 75, M Kileen 4-73) and 55-1
Durham 86 and 163 (RJ Sillence 4-35)
Gloucestershire win by 9 wickets

Trevor Bayliss, Sri Lanka’s new coach, believes that his teams attacking style of cricket would suit them in the upcoming Twenty20 World Championship in South Africa.”Sri Lanka hasn’t played a lot of Twenty20 cricket. But the style of cricket they play can be suited to the Twenty20 game. Sri Lanka is a team that plays an attacking style of the game. With a bit of experience and playing a few practice games, I am hoping the players can learn fairly quickly. I’m confident that we can give a good showing.”Bayliss who coached New South Wales before taking up the Sri Lanka job, had his first session with the national team today.”They are a bright bunch of guys and very friendly people. Before we came here everyone was telling us how good these guys were, lovely people, hard trainers and hard workers. Certainly that’s what we got this morning. I am looking forward to working with them.””The opportunity to coach an international team and also a very successful one at that, was no contest. It’s a dream, I suppose, where you can reach the top in whatever endeavours that you try. I am very happy and honoured that I’ve been given the opportunity to coach the Sri Lankan cricket team,” Bayliss said.Bayliss admitted that he had spoken to Tom Moody, whom he succeeded as coach, on several occasions. “We have got a fairly similar views on the way cricket should be played and the way it should be taken forward. Not a lot will change in the process. Sri Lanka has been very successful in their last 18 months. I don’t want to change too much but continue along those lines. If one or two small things come up we will make the appropriate changes”.”Tom’s opinion of the team was that they were a bunch of guys, very talented, easy to work with and easy to talk to. They play an attacking style of cricket similar to Australia. From that point of view and coming from Australia, there won’t be a big change in the way we are going,” Bayliss said, adding that he would be quite happy for the selectors to select the team and for him to coach it.”Before the match starts, Mahela (Jayawardene) and I will be able to give our views. The attitude I had in New South Wales when I was coaching was the same thing. I didn’t actually have a vote on the selections, but the one rule we put in place for the players was that there should be no whinging. Whatever you have been dealt, just get on with it.”Along with Bayliss, assistant coach Paul Farbrace and trainer Jade Roberts also had an interaction with the media.Bayliss, who had a hand in the appointment of Farbrace, said: “Paul is a coach who knows his stuff and is a very hard worker. He is also a guy whom I will be able to get on with. He’s probably got a similar personality and similar views on the way the game should be played. I think it is important that the two of us should work together.”Farbrace, who was the coaching director at Kent before joining the Sri Lanka team, was upbeat about his new job. “To work with Trevor and the other guys here, it really wasn’t a contest. It’s an exciting opportunity. You don’t very often get the chance to work with exciting teams who are playing good cricket.””Normally in sport you go with things like ‘perhaps I am doing well’ but that’s when things change. This time it is an opportunity to handle a side and an excellent set up. I really want to get into and get stuck in.”Roberts, who is also a dietician, said he would rely on the players to be professional. “I’ve talked to the guys and my opinion is they are a very professional outfit. It’s really upto them.”The three newcomers will join physio Tommy Simsek in the support staff. Simsek is the only remaining member of the Sri Lanka coaching staff from the 2007 World Cup.

The company behind the Bermuda Classic, the veterans Twenty20 tournament held in April, has gone broke after it appeared that government decided not to increase the funding to the Get Fit Foundation (GFF).The Bermuda government gave more than $1 million last year to help underwrite the event, but it was last week reported that GFF were looking for an additional $3 million this year after reporting losses of around $700,000.A spokesman for the company said that without government backing, and with little corporate interest, there was no money left to pay the bills. He added: “As a result, the GEFF directors have no alternative than to work with legal advisors with a view to placing the company into the hands of the official receiver.”The Royal Gazette reported that a number of local firms were owed money by GFF, and it also claimed that the rental charges for the pitches had not been paid.Keith Pont, the former Essex fast bowler who headed the GFF, had claimed that a loss was expected in the first year, but only half the tickets were sold and expected corporate sponsorship did not materialise. He was unavailable for comment.