I write with regard to your last week’s column, Sunday Musings, regarding a deterioration of cricket values in Sri Lanka. I am deeply alarmed and extremely disappointed that the article directly questions the integrity of my decision-making.
While I applaud a news publication addressing the important issue of match-fixing, I strongly object to you tarnishing my name, integrity and reputation. If you had spoken to leading ICC officials or members of the Anti-Corruption Unit, you would have realised also that there has never been any question-mark raised over my integrity at any stage of my career. Indeed, if they had any suspicion whatsoever they would clearly not have allowed my continued position as the official representative for the world’s cricketers on the ICC Cricket Committee since 2006, they would not have renewed my contract as a Global ICC Ambassador for another two years in June 2010 having already been an ambassador for four years, and they would not have invited me as their keynote speaker for the recent ICC Annual General Meeting in Singapore.
Sri Lankan cricket captain Kumar Sangakkara watch the players during a practice session at Dambulla |
I would like to answer directly the specific events mentioned in your column:
(1) The choice of Welagedera
The decision to open the bowling with Suraj Randiv and Chanaka Welagedera was discussed extensively between myself and the team management the previous evening and in the morning. The final choice made took into account the fact that Lasith Malinga, our main strike bowler, was fatigued, Sachin Tendulkar has a technical weakness against left-arm pace and that Welagedera would create addition rough for Randiv, our main weapon that day, to use against the right-handers. The decision was taken in the best interests of the team as a whole with a view to winning the game.
(2) “Dubious” use of part-time bowlers
You mention that I have shown “dubious bowling preferences” specifically with regard to the use of TM Dilshan and Tharanga Paranavithana, part-time off spinners, with the new ball during the New Zealand Test series last year.
As a general comment I would like to state that the use of part-time bowlers is a tactic that can surprise batsmen and I believe that being unpredictable sometimes makes life harder for our opponents. It has also worked for us in the past. For example, in the first Test against New Zealand last year, we managed to dismiss Ross Taylor by using Mahela Jayawardena. During the recent final Test against India the use of Randiv with the new ball also worked as we grabbed the wicket of Virender Sehwag.
With specific regard to the use of TM Dilshan and Tharanga Paranavithana as opening bowlers in the first and second innings of second Test against New Zealand, this was a specific team plan designed for use against a left-hander called Tim McIntosh. We believed that his footwork might be suspect against a slow bowler armed with the new ball and the plan was to trap him lbw, hence the preference for a part-timer who spins the ball less than one of our frontline spinners. The plan was a surprise tactic and after one over I felt it would not work and I changed back to a traditional method of attack with a fast bowler.
(3) My dismissal in the third Test
In the article you argued that my dismissal, caught at long on, needed to be questioned as “some of the events [in that game] are still a huge query”. The insinuation made was that the shot was reckless for someone with “intelligence”. While I was more disappointed than anyone with getting out, the problem was not my shot selection. On the contrary, one of the key reasons I was successful in the series was that I was aggressive. My style of batting involves me playing attacking strokes and dominating the bowling. At the time I was on the look-out for runs and I knew I had two options for lofted boundaries with India having placed a wide long on: I could try to hit over mid-wicket or straight back over the bowler’s head. I preferred the second option, but my footwork was not precise enough, I got too close to the ball and I ended up dragging the ball to long on. There is nothing questionable about the dismissal or the thinking behind the stroke. Cricket is a game of balancing risks and you cannot hope to succeed without taking any risk. Far from being reckless, my approach at the time was the right approach for the team as we tried to build a big total.
I hope the above three clarifications fully answer your concerns. I would appreciate it that you first seek clarifications from me before making unfounded and slanderous allegations that question my integrity as a cricketer and captain. Such damaging accusations undermine the team at the time when we all need to be focusing hard on both the ongoing tri-series and the forthcoming World Cup.
Yours sincerely ,
Kumar Sangakkara
Sports Editor notes: We did not mention names because we wondered if they were collective team decisions or individual decisions. As you say if they were collective team decisions besides your indecisive shots that you executed we rest our case there. |
E-mail
