Michael Kasprowicz has cancelled his Glamorgan contract because he believes a season of county cricket will harm his chances of keeping his place in the Australian Test side. Kasprowicz, 34, broke the news to the side this week, adding to their problems as they are already waiting to find out whether Matthew Elliott, their other overseas signing, will be fit.”The news on Michael is very disappointing but at the end of the day we can’t do that much about it,” Mike Fatkin, Glamorgan’s chief executive, said. “But we have to be philosophical about it and get on with things. We thought Michael was all set to come over for the whole season and until the last 24 hours didn’t have any inkling of this.”I can understand his ambitions, especially with the Ashes coming up again in the winter, but it leaves us looking for a replacement with just over four weeks to go until the season begins.”Elliott, who underwent surgery on a long-standing knee problem last month, has been given until the weekend to decide whether he can play. “The prognosis is that he won’t be fit to play for us until mid-May,” Fatkin said. “And if he is given the all-clear, how is his knee going to stand up to the rigours of the county season? Matthew has asked us for three weeks from the operation before we make an assessment and that’s what we will do.” If Elliott is ruled out, then Glamorgan will have less than a month to find two overseas players.

Steve Bucknor’s potentially explosive comments, relating to production companies tampering with video footage to undermine umpires, have caused a stir around the cricket world. While no umpire has come out in support, and television producers expectedly brushed aside his comments, there is an undercurrent of unease in the broadcasting fraternity.”I thought it was a surprising comment,” Peter Hutton, a vice-president of TEN Sports, told , while suggesting that it was not even technologically possible to tamper with live video footage. “There’s not enough time to doctor or change things. But clearly you can get shown things from different angles. Most TV umpires know what angles can be made available to them and would insist on seeing everything possible. Sometimes all angles aren’t available because, for example, there might be a player or umpire in the way. As a TV company you can’t guarantee that every angle will be available to the umpire at every incident, and that may be frustrating for someone in the position of third umpire. I certainly would be hugely surprised if anyone did this with malice or with an intention behind this.”But while it might be impossible to alter the nature of the images, there were voices that hinted at television companies selectively controlling the information being made available to the third umpire. “The more technology ICC uses, the more they hand over responsibility to the television producer. The position of the mat is the producer’s responsibility and that can definitely be tampered with,” said Harsha Bhogle, the Indian broadcaster. “Even coming to TV replays that the third umpire sees, suppose there is a 24-camera coverage, you might have 8 cameras dedicated to recording replays. The pictures you get depend on the skill of the cameramen and the skill of the editor in choosing the right replay to show, and finally the director taking a call to show it. If the director is either incompetent or biased, then that is a problem because he controls what the third umpire sees.”One broadcaster, speaking on the condition of anonymity, concurred with Bhogle and even added that, “there have been suspicions in the past that producers, especially from certain countries, have been a touch too patriotic, and have withheld replays that went against home teams.” The problem will exist as long as the ICC use television companies as allies in the decision making process. Then there is the in-built economics of production itself: for the television producer, the primary aim is to produce the best quality broadcast at the lowest possible cost. This means that he would be reluctant to add a camera at midwicket, for example, if it did nothing to increase the quality of the viewing experience, even if it helped give the umpire a better view.

Although few people openly back Bucknor’s claims, there haven’t been too many accusations of this kind. In late 2004 John Bracewell, New Zealand’s coach, made similar allegations against Channel 9, who were broadcasting the Chappell-Hadlee series in Australia. Bracewell suggested that Hawk-Eye pictures of a certain delivery had initially shown the ball pitching in line and hitting the stumps, but subsequent depictions of the same delivery showed the ball pitching outside the map. “It’s absolutely irresponsible reporting,” Bracewell was quoted as saying. Paul Hawkins, the originator of the technology, insisted that Hawk-Eye images are tamper-proof: “There is no way for a production company to `tamper’ with Hawk-Eye’s decision. They either show it or they do not.”It is next to impossible to prove – one way or the other – Bucknor’s charge that television producers are deliberately making umpires look bad, and also influencing the decision-making process by showing replays of only certain angles, selectively leaving out others. But, the fact that he has made these statements has brought to the public domain something many have suspected for some time now.In all this, umpires around the world were keen to keep a low profile. When contacted Simon Taufel and David Shepherd declined to comment, while Rudi Koertzen was unreachable.The International Cricket Council, who have strict guidelines on the matters their members are allowed to comment on, didn’t have much to add either. Brian Murgatroyd would only proffer “no comment” when attempts were made to get a reaction to Bucknor’s statements, but he and his team certainly have plenty to think about now.

Geoff Boycott, the former England and Yorkshire batsman, has expressed his concern over Michael Vaughan’s future with England. The England captain continues to struggle with his persistent knee injury, which first forced him out of England’s tour of India. He hasn’t played since, and has only recently returned to the nets.”You can put as much spin on it as you want but it is worrying,” Boycott wrote in his column for the BBC. “England need him for the Ashes – they need him back now – but they definitely want him in Australia. After all, he was the leader when we won the Ashes back.”No team likes to lose its leader, that is no reflection on Andrew Flintoff, but you don’t want to lose your chief.”On Sunday, David Graveney attempted to allay fears over Vaughan’s fitness in an interview with BBC Radio Five Live. “I’ve seen him batting in the nets so things are going in the right direction,” he said. “Michael Vaughan is a crucial part of our team and I haven’t had any information to suggest that there’s anything dramatic happening.”Yet Boycott is concerned that Graveney’s optimism is masking the seriousness of the situation. “No-one wants to write off his career – he’s 31 and in his prime so nobody within the framework of the team will want to be negative, and quite rightly so,” Boycott said.As at Lord’s, Andrew Flintoff will captain England in Vaughan’s absence in the second Test at Edgbaston on Thursday.

Post-match talk: West Indies v India, 3rd ODI, St Kitts
Download MP3 (right click and select “save target as”)
Streaming Audio: Real :: WMAA marvellous 115 not out by Ramnaresh Sarwan, following his 98 not out in the second one-day international, gave West Indies a 2-1 lead in the series against India. It also took Sarwan’s one-day average past 47, more than seven points over his Test average of 39.89. Why this difference? Cricinfo’s Amit Varma discusses that with Anand Vasu, who did the ball-by-ball commentary for this game.They also chat about why the much-hyped New India suddenly seems like Old India, and look at Ajit Agarkar, who has outlasted younger turks like Zaheer Khan and Ashish Nehra, and who took 2 for 25 and 2 for 32 in these two losses.Download MP3 (right click and select “save target as”)
Streaming Audio: Real :: WMA

Fred Trueman, one of the greatest fast bowlers in the history of the game, has died in a Yorkshire hospital at the age of 75, his wife announced. He was diagnosed with lung cancer in May and was rushed back into intensive care earlier this week.A classical easy action, a mop of unruly jet-black hair and a menacing scowl were the trademarks of Trueman, who was the first man from any country to take 300 Test wickets, a landmark he reached at The Oval in 1964. Since then many have gone past his overall figure of 307, but few have matched his average (21.57) and strike rate (a wicket every 49 balls).Trueman’s tally might have been nearer 400 if he hadn’t missed numerous matches and tours because of various disciplinary breaches, some true, some imagined – he was once hauled before the Yorkshire committee for some misdemeanour, and escaped punishment by pointing out that he was 200 miles away playing for England at the time. But on his day Trueman was fast and frightening: in his first Test series, in 1952, he helped reduce India to 0 for 4 on his debut, and took 8 for 31 – the best Test bowling figures by a genuinely fast bowler at the time – in the third match. In the second half of the ’50s he formed an incisive new-ball pairing with Brian Statham, the legendarily accurate loose-limbed Lancastrian, who raced him neck-and-neck to the 250-wicket mark.

By then “Fiery Fred” had great control of swing, and had some claim to being, as he only half-jokingly suggested to John Arlott as the title of his planned biography, “T’Greatest Fast Bowler Who Ever Drew Breath”. Trueman relished Yorkshire’s dominance in the 1960s, and retired after their sixth title in the decade, in 1968, a season he also led them to victory over the touring Australians. He tried a one-day comeback with Derbyshire, which was not a great success.A natural raconteur whose stories grew taller with every telling, he was a radio summariser for the BBC’s Test Match Special commentary team for many years. His catchphrase became “I just don’t know what’s going off out there”, and eventually his role as the curmudgeonly Tyke (he once observed that Ian Botham “couldn’t bowl a hoop downhill”) began to pall and he found himself – to his disgust – dropped once again.

Riding on fine half centuries by Monica Sumra and Mithali Raj, India thrashed Ireland by 106 runs to win the rain-marred second and final one-day international at Dublin, sweeping the series 2-0. Sumra scored 62 and Raj hung on to make 66 to propel India to an impressive 239 for 4 in their stipulated 50 overs after Ireland won the toss and sent them to bat.Former captain Anjum Chopra and Hemlata Kala chipped in to contribute 23 and 30 runs respectively. However, the target was revised for the hosts and reduced to 214 in 40 overs by the Duckworth/Lewis method after rain interrupted play. Ireland scored 135 for 8 with Caitriona Beggs scoring 63. For India, Nooshin al Kadeer and Jhulan Goswami were the pick of the bowlers returning 2-20 and 2-25 respectively.

The slanging match between Michael Holding and the West Indies Cricket Board continued with the former fast bowler claiming that the reasons for his resignation from the cricket committee have been misinterpreted.Holding quit, claiming in his resignation letter, that the cricket committee had been “sidestepped” when the board had rejected billionaire Allen Stanford’s request for an early selection of the West Indies team to tour Pakistan in November. The potential clash of dates led to the cancellation of the Stanford 20/20 Super Stars match – originally scheduled for November 10 between a combined West Indies XI and South Africa.The board, then, in a press release, countered Holding’s allegation by citing Clive Lloyd, the chairman of the committee, who said, “With regards to the cricket committee being ‘sidestepped’ over the selection of players my view of this is that the cricket committee should not have been involved in this issue consequently the responsibility rests solely with the WICB selectors”.In his own statement released on September 9, Holding said, “this is a smokescreen trying to imply that I was saying that the cricket committee should be involved in the selection of the personnel going to Pakistan. That is not so. I was saying that the cricket committee should have been consulted if there had been any problems with the [emphasis in original] of the selection of the team, not the makeup of the team.”Holding also clarified what in his view had actually led to the cancellation of the US$5million winner take-it-all 20/20 match. “Their [board’s] response is that the Stanford group applied directly to the ICC for ratification of it’s 20/20 tournament and not to the WICB as should have been the case and that when the group contacted the WICB , the board was already negotiating the Pakistan tour. Now what a load of rubbish. The facts of the matter are that the Stanford group got in touch with the ICC asking what were the procedures to get the tournament ratified and the ICC’s reply was that it had to be endorsed by the WICB. It was the WICB who then wrote to the ICC and it was the WICB that the ICC responded to way back in January, sending a copy of that letter to the Stanford group.”The board had also disputed Holding’s claim that two of the three selectors – Clyde Butts and Andy Roberts – had not been informed about captain Brain Lara’s reported objection to the early team selection. Holding’s response to this was: “My resignation letter is dated August 26th, the same date Roberts and Butts confirmed that they did not have any discussions with Lara. Anything could have transpired between then and September 5th unless the WICB are making out these two gentlemen to be liars.”Holding said that while he had been consistent throughout in his response, Lloyd had not been so. Referring to the reasons why he and Lloyd resigned from the committee, he said: “I know what Clive Lloyd told me was his reason for declining but since he can’t recall, I won’t go there but as I said before and repeat now, I declined because the ‘cricket committee’ is what I had agreed to be a part of, not this ‘win world cup committee’. Again I won’t try to speak for Clive Lloyd but my overseas commitments haven’t changed since August 2005 so how come I was able to take up the offer of this new cricket committee?”Ken Gordon, the board president, earlier said he will not be drawn into verbal conflict on the matter. “We have spent too much time talking about contentious issues rather than focusing on the important things. Now is the time to go forward.”

Michael Vaughan has signed a new rolling contract with Yorkshire. The deal will become effective as soon as his central contract with England comes to an end.A statement from the club said they were pleased with the improvement on Vaughan’s injured knee, which has kept him out of international cricket for nearly a year: “We very pleased with the progress Michael is making since his operation earlier this year.”Stewart Regan, Yorkshire’s chief executive added: “We fully expect Michael to recover from his operation and are putting our faith in him with a new contract which will kick-in once he leaves the England team. We look forward to having him at Yorkshire for the rest of his first-class career.”Vaughan said: “I have played for Yorkshire since the age of 16 and am delighted to be signing a new contract which gives me the flexibility to remain with the county whilst ever I can play first-class cricket”.Vaughan will undergo another scan on his knee in a week, and a date for his departure for Perth in a bid to be fit for the Ashes will be agreed then. While out there, he will combine playing cricket with fitness training.

The Indian board has decided to bid for the global rights to all ICC events from 2007 to 2015. With the 2011 World Cup to be held in the subcontinent, the BCCI felt that it could generate maximum revenue if it was in charge of the marketing process.The rights to all ICC events for the next eight years is up for grabs as the existing deal with Global Cricket Corporation expires after the World Cup next April.”We are very interested in the bid,” Lalit Modi, the BCCI vice-president and marketing committee chairman, told . “We will be aggressively pursuing the matter and will put forward the best bid as any other marketing agency.”Having already decided to enter the broadcast production arena, the BCCI now appears keen to spread its wings to the sphere of marketing. It is estimated that the global rights for the period between 2007 and 2015 could be worth as much as one billion dollars.Meanwhile, a BCCI committee is set to discuss objections over the ICC’s Members’ Participation Agreement (MPA) on October 3. The board had earlier announced that it would not sign the agreement “in its present form”. The committee, headed by Modi, is expected to suggest alterations that will facilitate an agreement.The MPA lays down guidelines and restrictions that the players must follow, including those that deal with ambush marketing. According to reports, the board has sent a copy of the MPA to Rahul Dravid, the Indian captain, and it will only take a decision once he has responded.The ICC hierarchy is believed to be angry that the BCCI has raised this as a potential problem so late in the day, and Malcolm Speed has requested that the issue be resolved as a matter of urgency.

Richard Caborn, the UK sports minister, has called on ICC to stamp out racial taunts from spectators. He was reacting after Monty Panesar and Kevin Pietersen claimed they were subjected to abuse from the boundary while fielding during England’s warm-up matches in Australia.”No part of sport can accept racism,” Caborn, who is in India leading a British sport business delegation, told . “The sport’s governing body has to get involved and take appropriate action. Authorities have to be at war on this. I’m going to be talking to my counterpart in Australia, we’ve got a little difficulty down there.”However, James Sutherland, the Cricket Australia chief executive, said on Friday that he did not think Panesar being called a “stupid Indian” was racist. Panesar was allegedly taunted by a spectator during the three-day match against New South Wales at the SCG. “I don’t think there’s too much racist about that,” Sutherland said while launching a tourism initiative at the MCG.Caborn believes the impetus to eradicate racism should come from within cricket and that the authorities should learn from football’s example. “It’s an issue for the ICC to deal with, just like FIFA’s done in football,” he added. “In football we’ve been reasonably successful. We’ve tackled it in the United Kingdom through a big campaign that implores people to show a red card to racism.”ICC have toughened their anti-racism code over the past year after South African and Sri Lanka players complained at being targeted during tours to Australia. The England team have not made an official complaint but the ECB acknowledged the incidents.Under the toughened ICC anti-racism code, adopted two months ago, spectators who abuse players risk life bans from matches, while stadiums risk losing their international status. Caborn added winning the anti-racism campaign would depend on “self-policing.””It’s a matter of education . . . dealing with it systematically and educating people at various levels. We had a problem in soccer, but took effective steps to take it out of the game.”