Praveen fined for arguing with umpire

Praveen Kumar, the India seamer, has been fined 20% of his match fee for arguing with umpire Marais Erasmus over an unsuccessful lbw appeal on the first day at Trent Bridge. Praveen pleaded guilty to the charge of a Level 1 breach of the ICC Code of Conduct.

The incident occurred in the 18th over of the day, during which Praveen appealed for a leg before against Kevin Pietersen. Erasmus turned it down. Praveen was disappointed by the decision and argued with Erasmus before being ushered away by Harbhajan Singh and Suresh Raina.

Pietersen had been struck in line and, though he had made a big stride forward, replays suggested the ball would have clipped the bails. The absence of DRS for lbws during this series, at India's insistence, denied Praveen a chance of a referral.

Praveen was found to have breached Article 2.1.3 of the Code of Conduct, which relates to "arguing or entering into a prolonged discussion with the umpire about his decision." Praveen admitted to the breach and accepted the fine imposed by match referee Ranjan Madugalle.

Praveen bounced back later and bowled an outstanding spell of 6-4-7-2. He removed Andrew Strauss, for 32, and Eoin Morgan in the space of three deliveries. He could have had Ian Bell's wicket had Rahul Dravid not spilled an easy chance at first slip. Earlier in the day, MS Dhoni had given the new ball to Praveen on an overcast morning despite Sreesanth being in the side in place of Zaheer Khan. Praveen swung the new ball both ways and made use of the two-paced pitch with the old ball. He dismissed Graeme Swann with a ball that reared from a length and smashed the glove before lobbing to gully.

In his short Test career, Praveen has had several run-ins with umpires. Billy Bowden warned him at Lord's for running on the danger area of the pitch. Praveen had been removed from the attack for a similar offence in the first Test in the West Indies after two warnings from Daryl Harper.

Afridi disappointed with Butt's 'petty' statements

Shahid Afridi has said he was disappointed by the "petty things" PCB chairman Ijaz Butt brought up whilejustifying Afridi's axing as Pakistan's one-day captain.

"I am disappointed because such petty things coming from the head of the board were unwarranted," Afridi told the Daily Times. "He himself made me captain, and everyone, from experts to fans, had praised my leadership and the unity in the team."

Afridi led Pakistan to the semi-finals of the 2011 World Cup, their best performance at cricket's flagship one-day event since 1999. After that, he led Pakistan to an unassailable 3-0 lead in the five-match one-day series in the West Indies before a selection meeting bust-up between him and coach Waqar Younis sparked off a controversy. Pakistan went on to lose the two dead rubber games, and Afridi was stripped of the one-day captaincy. He responded by announcing a "conditional retirement" from the game.

Last week, Butt defended the move to axe Afridi by blaming him for the losses in the West Indies, and deeming him as "not captaincy material", in an interview with Geo Super television channel.

Afridi, who is currently in England playing in the Friends Life t20 tournament, said he would consult with his lawyers before planning his next move. "I will unmask all these people who are running a smear campaign against me," he said. "I don't want to say anything right now because I am enjoying my time with Hampshire but when I return I will respond to them."

Meanwhile, Afridi's legal counsel, Syed Ali Zaffar, said the player would have a case if he chose to take Butt to court over his statements. "Ijaz Butt's statement that Shahid Afridi will not captain the Pakistan team again is not only very irresponsible but is like an order or direction to the governing council members [who choose the captain in consultation with the board chairman] and to the selection committee not to even consider him," Zaffar told the Nation. "In this regard, Mr Butt is usurping the authority of the governing council members and selection committee and is clearly acting illegally.

"Afridi can take him to court if he so chooses. I will however add that I have had no discussion with Afridi in this regard. Mr Ijaz Butt is a loose cannon. Under Pakistan Cricket Board's constitution the chairman virtually enjoys dictatorial powers."

SLC officially postpones Sri Lanka Premier League

Sri Lanka Cricket has officially announced the postponement of the Sri Lanka Premier League to 2012, citing a lack of time to organise the tournament in the absence of Indian players as the main reason.

"Attempts to obtain the release of the Indian players were unsuccessful, causing a delay in the naming of the final composition of the SLPL teams which then had an impact on making related arrangements in an effective and timely manner," SLC said in a statement. "Therefore, SLC and the SLPL committee find that there is insufficient time to arrange a tournament of this magnitude this year, within the available window."

The Inter Provincial T20 tournament will be held in place of the SLPL, as ESPNcricinfo had first reportedon July 7. The winner of that tournament will qualify for the Champions League T20 to be played in September.

The SLPL would have featured seven teams and was scheduled to kick off on July 19, with the final to be played on August 6. The tournament hit its first hurdle when the BCCI decided to withhold its permission to allow Indian players to take part on the grounds that Somerset Entertainment Ventures, which owned the commercial rights, would be handling the contracts for international players and that it could lead to complications should disputes arise over payments.

In order to assuage the Indian board, SLC was willing to back the Indian players' contracts so that their financial interests were protected, but that was not enough to satisfy the BCCI. There have been suggestions that former IPL chairman Lalit Modi had a hand in the event, but SLC and Somerset have repeatedly denied the allegation, as has Modi.

The BCCI's decision meant the tournament did not have a broadcaster for the lucrative Indian market, a situation that made it much more difficult for the SLPL to find a secure financial footing. Adding to the sense of confusion was the dissolution earlier this month of the SLC committee that had created the tournament and its replacement by a new panel.

Sangakkara resists but England take control

The chalk-and-cheese nature of England and Sri Lanka's cricketers once again came to the fore in the fourth ODI at Trent Bridge, as James Anderson and his seam-bowling team-mates took advantage of a grassy pitch and damp conditions to restrict Sri Lanka's strokemakers to 174 all out. At 20 for 4 after 8.3 overs, however, their predicament could have been much, much worse, but for the efforts of Kumar Sangakkara, who produced his second command performance of the week to anchor the innings with 75 from 104 balls.

Following on from his majestic speech to the MCC at Lord's on Monday, Sangakkara showed that his attack on the "cronies" who are ruining the game in his country had not distracted him from his principal role of scoring runs to win cricket matches. He alone showed the necessary application, firstly to survive as he reached an 80-ball half-century, and then to thrive as he attacked in the batting Powerplay with only the No. 11 Suranga Lakmal for company. He was last man out in the 44th over, caught off a leading edge to give Jade Dernbach his best figures of 3 for 38.

Despite Sangakkara's efforts, England were more than happy with their mid-match position. They are at their happiest when the weather is dank and unsettled, as they proved with victory at The Oval last Tuesday; Sri Lanka prefer to have the sun on their backs, and claimed the series lead after two days of glorious weather at Headingley and Lord's over the weekend. Today, however, a rain-delayed toss greeted the teams in Nottingham, and when it did finally take place at 2.20pm, Alastair Cook was very happy to bowl first with an unchanged attack, and little wonder.

In that Oval contest, Sri Lanka had collapsed to 15 for 4 and 121 all out, and a similar denouement looked to be on the cards when Anderson extracted Tillakaratne Dilshan for a duck in the first over of the day. A full-length delivery swung just a fraction to graze the edge of the bat, and was easily pouched by Craig Kieswetter behind the stumps. Three overs later, Tim Bresnan provided a variation on the same theme to dislodge Sri Lanka's form batsman, Mahela Jayawardene, for 9 - the ball nibbled off the seam and took the splice of a poorly-judged push outside off.

Within five deliveries, Anderson had struck again, as Dinesh Chandimal - the centurion at Lord's - was pinned lbw for a duck by a full-length inducker, as if Cook's invocation of the cricketing gods after that match had paid dividends. And Anderson soon made it three in five overs, as Thilina Kandamby continued his poor series with a limp fence to second slip.

Stuart Broad's introduction to the attack started inauspiciously when he was edged second-ball through the vacant third slip for four, before being launched over the covers for a second boundary in five balls for Randiv. His figures were starting to suffer when Randiv cracked him through the covers in his third over to move along to 18 from 25 balls, but in the same over, he feathered a thin edge down the legside, to claim his first wicket of the series, and leave Sri Lanka's hopes very much in Sangakkara's hands.

Angelo Mathews did his best to provide solid support in a 72-run stand for the sixth wicket, as he proved his Chandimal-assisting go-slow at Lord's had been a strict exception to his usual free-flowing style. He had pushed along to 39 from 49 balls, with one four and a pair of big sixes down the ground, when Bresnan extracted him with a superb finger-tipped catch, as he dived forward in his followthrough to scoop a leading edge.

Jeevan Mendis hung around to assist Sangakkara for a further 26-run stand, before Broad doubled his tally with a lifter that flew through to Kieswetter, before Dernbach's variations proved the perfect antidote to Sri Lanka's stand-and-deliver. Nuwan Kulasekara and Lasith Malinga fell in the same over to full and straight deliveries, before Sangakkara's departure rounded off the innings.

Sangakkara's challenge to cricket

Kumar Sangakkara has made the most important speech in cricket history. Brushing aside the twin temptations of romance and sentiment, the erudite Sri Lankan has dared to confront the truths about cricket in his country. Along the way he struck many meaty blows on the game's behalf. His discourse was nothing less than a challenge to cricket to set higher standards for itself, to reject jealousy, pettiness and greed, and to become part of the enlightenment.

Both cricket and Sri Lanka deserve better from the governors. Alas, the worst remain in office in so many places, with Ijaz Butt running amok in Pakistan; Givemore Makoni, with terrible inevitability, returning to official ranks in benighted and betrayed Zimbabwe; Gerald Majola still in charge in South Africa; and a mixture of government lackeys and bookmaking families running the show in Sri Lanka. Nor is there any reason to retain faith in Giles Clarke, England's puffed-up principal, or Australia's Jack Clarke, whose limitations have been exposed often enough.

Sangakkara, Sri Lanka's second-best cricketer, has never scored a hundred at Lord's, but his lecture can be put alongside the finest innings played on the ground. Actually it was not so much a speech as a plea for proper governance. Nor was it motivated by the darker forces observed in lesser men. Like the rest of us, Sangakkara is no saint, but his denunciation of the controlling forces at home spoke of frustration not ambition, affection not scorn, contribution not calculation. Its value lies in its very independence

That Sangakkara is a man of substance has long been known. Not long ago he visited a school in the north-east of the country, and spoke movingly about the need for all Lankans, Sinhalese and Tamils, to work together. It was a timely gesture because the government had recently banned the Tamil version of the national anthem. Likewise it prevented outside scrutiny of the allegations of executions, rapes and other abuses in the last months of the civil war. Channel 4's devastating exposé has put that back on the table. Sri Lanka is listed as one of the five most dangerous countries in which to work as a journalist.

As Sangakkara observes, Sri Lanka's cricket troubles began in the 1996, the year the World Cup was won. In the wrong hands success can be as damaging as failure. Hitherto the board had been run by benevolent and capable gentlemen from the old school. None had a finger in the pie, none needed the money, and all accepted stringent codes of conduct. In short, they were men of integrity. Over the years I have not spent much time siding with the "establishment" (itself a glib word) but these were men of honesty and honour, and I took their side in the subsequent struggles. The reason was simple: they were right. Accordingly I presented their case in a column in the Sunday Leader, a fearless newspaper whose fearless editor, also a friend, was assassinated.

Success attracted the charlatans as light attracts moths. A new guard realised there was money to be made in cricket. Thilanga Sumathipala appeared on the scene, looking not unlike Napoleon - an energetic man versed in the arts and crafts of manipulation, and with strong connections with the bookmaking fraternity (a custom that continues in the current administration). Inevitably the unscrupulous and opportunistic sided with him. He had the drive of new money, the ambition of the upstart. It was easy to see the attraction. He was ruthless too, and swiftly manoeuvred himself into power by persuading the majority of the 72 voting clubs to support him. That many of these clubs existed only in name did not deter him or his impatient backers.

Ever since, Sri Lankan cricket has been in turmoil. Indeed, it's been a shambles. In the last few months alone the board has been burdened with huge legal bills, allegations about malpractice in World Cup ticket allocations, allegations about cronyism in appointments, threats of bankruptcy as World Cup costs spiralled out of control, and posturing from a sports minister apparently intent on provoking the Indians and thereby supposedly scoring points with the masses. That the minister concerned was promptly removed from office was little consolation. His outburst lacked gravitas. Unsurprisingly the Indians, the IPL franchises and senior players ignored him.

If the ICC is serious about tackling corruption and stopping political interference in cricketing matters, it could start by sending a working party to Sri Lanka with the task of setting up sustainable democratic institutions.

Sanath Jayasuriya's selection for the limited-overs matches in England confirmed that politicians are involved in team operations. It had been a move long resisted by the team elders on the grounds that he was past his prime.

Sri Lanka took a bright young team to Australia in October 2010, and beat the hosts 2-1 in the ODIs. On the surface all seemed well. Behind the scenes, though, the team management was worried. Jayasuriya had long since been a liability and they feared he might be imposed upon them, thereby compromising the team and affecting its morale. It did not happen, because the incumbents kept winning and the think tank stood its ground.

But the Jayasuriya issue did not go way. He is a Member of Parliament, representing the governing party, a ruthless outfit intent on controlling all the levers of power, and to that end prepared to lock up the leader of the opposition, a popular soldier responsible for the final crushing of the LTTE. Arjuna Ranatunga, an opposition MP, took part in a protest about his leader's imprisonment, whereupon an arrest warrant was issued. Such are the joys of life in Sri Lanka.

By bringing its strengths and weaknesses to the attention of the wider public, Sangakkara has once again served Sri Lankan cricket with distinction. Only those with empires to protect will resent his words. Only those blighted with the curse of nationalism will deny him his voice. He spoke as a patriot, a higher calling altogether. Significantly he raised his concerns on behalf of his people, pointing out that "the administration needs to adopt the values enshrined by the team over the years: integrity, transparency, commitment and discipline. Unless it is capable of becoming more professional, progressive and transparent then we risk alienating the common man."

Happily, Sangakkara also spoke about cricket's ability to promote enlightenment, an opportunity so often wasted. Indeed, his criticisms were directed towards that end. After all he has seen civil war, strife, greed and selfishness, and wants no more of them. He pointed out that "cricket played a crucial role during the dark days of civil war… but the conduct and performance of the team will have even greater importance as we enter a period of reconciliation and recovery… Cricket can and should remain a guiding force for good within society, providing entertainment and fun, but also an example of how we should approach our lives."

That is the crux of the matter. When cricket falls into the hands of the narrow-minded it withers. To prevent that it's essential that men like Sangakkara speak out, and that governing bodies accept their responsibilities. So much has been accomplished. The Berlin Wall has fallen, apartheid is gone, the Arab uprising is underway, a Muslim has played for Australia, and a Tamil has taken 800 Test wickets for his beloved country. Just that there is a lot more to do. Cricket is connected with the world and ought not to pretend otherwise.

Peter Roebuck is a former captain of Somerset and the author, most recently, of In It to Win it.