HAVE YOUR SAY

Take sides on the hot topics of the day

Yes

He showed he can bat under pressure, and his bowling will get more incisive in bowler-friendly conditions.

No

His selection affects the team balance. Rohit Sharma or R Ashwin would be better choices.

Yes

Despite recent reversals, he remains England's best leadership option in these difficult times.

No

His leadership is tired and unimaginative, and is taking a huge toll on his batting.

Yes

It's the only way to take the sport to a global audience.

No

It will only add more clutter to an already packed cricket calendar.

Yes

It's not in keeping with the spirit of cricket, unless a batsman is clearly looking to get an unfair headstart on purpose.

No

It's within the laws. It's not rocket science for a batsman to be aware that he can't leave his crease before the ball is delivered.

Yes

It's not against the rules and it is a risky move because a wicket is being sacrificed. Sport should reward high risk with high reward.

No

It is an unnatural tactic and one that demeans the retiring batsman and the game.

Yes

He could win you the game in the 19th over, or provide sufficient cushion for a weaker bowler to defend in the 20th.

No

The 20th over is going to be a high-pressure over, irrespective of what happens in the 19th, and the bowler most capable of handling that pressure should be held back for it.

Yes

They deserved nothing short of match bans.

No

The monetary fines matched the magnitude of the infraction committed.

Yes

Yes, bowlers must be allowed to innovate in a batsman-friendly format

No

No, it's unfair and goes against the spirit of the game

Yes

A wicket at the right time could have a huge impact in the result of a T20 game, more so than in the other formats. Cricket should do it's best to protect T20 from howlers.

No

DRS will only slow down the tempo of T20 cricket. In any case, the value of a wicket in T20 is much lesser than it is in the longer formats.

Yes

On flat tracks, the big-hitters can bat around someone like Cheteshwar Pujara, who will hold one end up. On tough pitches, and during tricky chases, an organised technique is as valuable as the ability to hit boundaries on demand.

No

Pujara's unbeaten 38-ball 40 in Punjab's huge chase against Rajasthan nearly cost his team the match. Run-a-ball scores in the 30s and 40s do more damage than good in a 20-over game.

Yes

The IPL buzz that normally sets in in India will be absent until the second leg of the tournament beings. The attendance in UAE is also unlikely to match the numbers normally seen in India.

No

The IPL is a made-for-TV spectacle, and the timing of the games in UAE will be ideal for fans from India to tune in. UAE's expat population will support the tournament, and interest levels in India will also be quite high by the time the second phase begins.

Yes

The women's event deserves to run on it's own steam, and not become a sideshow to the men's tournament.

No

Women's cricket gets more visibility and publicity from such tournaments being hosted alongside the men's game.

Yes

He's struggling for form and fitness, and India have viable replacements in Ajinkya Rahane and Stuart Binny.

No

He's been India's gun player in ICC events, and is always only one innings away from regaining form.

Yes

He has a domestic one-day average in the mid-50s, and will provide solidity to a line-up filled with stroke-makers.

No

He isn't capable of scoring at a fast clip. More over, he's isn't a proven bowling option, and isn't the sharpest fielder either.

Yes

A maverick like him could have been disruptive in a team that is looking to rebuild from scratch.

No

He is their best player, and teams should find ways to accommodate such special talents.

Yes

The current set-up is inefficient and the ICC needs stronger leaders.

No

The proposed changes will make the rich richer, and herald a bleak future for the smaller countries and the depth of the international game as a whole.

Yes

A summit clash between the best sides in the game could give Test cricket context and make it more attractive.

No

It is an artificial construct. A one-off shoot out, in conditions that could favour one team more than the other, isn't the right way to identify the best Test team in the world.

Yes

With only Imran Tahir and an injured Morne Morkel to follow, the risk of going for a win was too much.

No

After getting so close, they should have taken their chances, especially considering India had set the field back.

Yes

Otherwise, injuries make the match uneven.

No

Teams could misuse it to their advantage.

Yes

He has been phenomenal with the bat during the consideration period, especially considering he was leading a struggling Australian side coming to terms with the retirement of many experienced players.

No

Clarke has accomplished little of note in limited-overs cricket in the consideration period. While he deserved the Test award, players like Dale Steyn, Hashim Amla and Kumar Sangakkara were far more impactful across formats.

MORE IN THE STANDS

INBOX

Ten horror starts

0 for 4. 7 for 6. Fightback from 0 for 3 - they are all in this list of ten h...

FAN FOLLOWING

No Ishant jokes for a month

After his match-winning performance at Lord's, India fans can't complain. Or ...

YOUR SHOTS