Glamorgan`s slim hopes of promotion into Division One evaporated under sunny skies in mid-afternoonat Chester-le-Street as the Welsh county slipped from 222-4 to 270 all out on the opening day of their Championshipmatch against Durham at the Riverside ground.Needing to pick up a full compliment of bonus points to remain in the promotion hunt, Glamorgan`s collapse, withthe loss of 6 wickets for 48 runs, meant that they only picked up two batting points.However, the day had begun very promisingly for Glamorgan, and after taking first use of a slow wicket, openersJimmy Maher and Mark Wallace shared an opening stand of 127 before the Australian was dismissed shortly beforelunch for 63. Wallace continued in positive mode after lunch and duly reached his second centuryof the summer, and his second against Durham, having hit 117 against them in August at Cardiff.Wallace had struck 23 fours, when he was caught behind by Phil Mustard for a career-best 121, just 25 runs short ofthe highest ever first-class score by a Glamorgan wicket-keeper, made by Eifion Jones against Sussex at Hove in 1968.Wallace`s first-class aggregate in 2003 now stands at 852 runs – this is the highest number of runs by a Glamorganwicket-keeper since the Second World War, and the most since Tom Brierley aggregated 856 in 1937. In all, his tallythis summer is the third highest in first-class cricket, with James Stone`s 959 runs in 1923 remaining as the club record.Glamorgan`s innings quickly folded after Wallace`s departure, and apart from 36 by David Hemp and a pair of sixesby Matthew Maynard, none of Glamorgan`s other batsmen got to grips with the home attack, for whom spinner GraemeBridge took 3/26 in 9 overs.Wickets continued to fall when Durham started their reply after tea, as once again Michael Kasprowicz made inroadsagainst the Durham batsmen. The Queenslander took 9/36 against Durham six weeks ago at Cardiff, and on his lastvisit to the Riverside ground he picked up 11 wickets. It didn`t take him long to add further to his tally,as with his second delivery, Jon Lewis edged Kasprowicz to Maher in the slips.David Harrison then dismissed the dangerous Martin Love, as the Australian edged to Wallace without scoring,giving the young wicket-keeper his 200th catch in first-class cricket. Wallace soon claimed another victim asin the next over Nicky Peng edged a ball from Kasprowicz as Durham slumped to 11/3.A partnership of 102 for the third wicket between Paul Collingwood and Gary Pratt saw Durhamrecover, and when bad play stopped play, the home county were 142/4, just 128 runs behind with six wickets in hand.

Graham Halbish, formerly the chief executive of the Australian Cricket Board, has come out fighting in a book he has launched in Australia. Halbish, who was sacked in 1997 from the body now known as Cricket Australia, has lifted the lid on the Shane Warne-Mark Waugh gambling incident, a top-secret project designed to minimise the effect of a split in world cricket, and the Warne drug affair.His autobiography, Run Out, is due for release today, and among its disclosures are the plan known as Project Snow, which involved Australia, England, New Zealand and West Indies forming a coalition of their own had the Asian nations decided to break away from the International Cricket Council. The group was setting themselves up in preparation if India, Pakistan, Sri Lanka, South Africa and Zimbabwe decided to go it alone.The non-Asian group didn’t want to see a breakaway, and prepared Project Snow as a contingency plan for a worst-case scenario. However, the efforts of Sir John Anderson from New Zealand, in devising a rotation system for the World Cup and ICC chairmanship placated the Asian group.Halbish also said that after press enquiries started to be made about the fines that had been levelled against Warne and Waugh after their involvement in supplying match information to an Indian bookmaker, he was directed by Denis Rogers, the former board chairman, never to expose the details. The fines had been demanded under the leadership of the then-chairman Alan Crompton, and the decision not to make them public at the time was made by Crompton and Halbish.Halbish also claimed that it had been common practice for some casinos to offer some players “play money”, where they could keep any winnings but did not have to pay for any losses. He found it strange that the ACB tolerated the practice.Halbish said Warne should have been punished with the full term of two years for his use of a banned diuretic, and that if that had been applied it would probably have ended his career.

Time appears to be running out for Khaled Mahmud, Bangladesh’s increasingly isolated captain. One of the weakest links in the side as a player – and that is saying something in a far from accomplished squad – Mahmud is now under fire from Bangladesh supporters after two heavy defeats in the ODIs against England.”It’s really difficult to explain such a situation, but again that can not be an excuse for another poor show,” a weary Mahmud told reporters. “I’m upset. We need to sit again and discuss what’s wrong with us.”Mahmud was the target of the Dhaka crowd’s anger, ridiculed when he was dismissed for 4 – an innings described by one commentator as “utterly clueless” – and booed during the post-match awards ceremony. He cast a sorry and lonely figure, and it can only be a matter of time before the calls from the stands for him to be replaced are heeded. “There will always be pressure when you play at home,” he shrugged. “The crowd was shouting even when I was going out for the toss. That kind of reaction from the supporters is very painful. It hurts a lot.”This streak of bad form won’t last if we can perform to our potential,” he added. “That’s the main target. We’ve got to put some runs on the board.”Dav Whatmore was another bemused by Bangladesh’s capitulation, although his job is safe given the improvements to the side’s performances against Australia and Pakistan. But he looked a sorry figure as he watched Bangladesh’s top order disintegrate for the second time in four days, and admitted that he was at a loss to explain yet another abject batting performance.Whatmore smiled when asked what the difference was between the two matches. “In Chittagong we lost five wickets in between 10 to 20 overs,” he said. “In Dhaka, we lost the wickets in the first ten overs. May be it was the only difference.” But he emphasised that he had tried to instill the need for patience and thought about shot selection, a message seemingly lost on the batsmen. “Maybe some people didn’t really understand what I meant,” he shrugged.One controversial decision was the omission of Habibul Bashar, considered by many to be Bangladesh’s best batsman, from the second ODI. Mahmud tried to diffuse criticism, explaining that Bashar was “not performing in the one-day game. That’s why we thought of introducing Moniruzzaman while giving him a rest.” Like so many of Mahmud’s gambles, it didn’t pay off. Moniruzzaman made a duck and then put down Man of the Match Andrew Flintoff.Soon it could be Mahmud who is the one being dropped.

Andre Nel’s impressive Test comeback was marred after he was fined half his match fee for making offensive gestures at Chris Gayle, the West Indian batsman, during their second innings at the Wanderers.After Gayle edged Nel to Mark Boucher, Nel stuck his tongue out at Gayle and then sent him off with some crude language. The incident did not go unnoticed by Brian Jerling, the third umpire, who reported it to Ranjan Madugalle, the match referee.Nel, who pleaded guilty to the offence, was charged under section 1.4 ofthe ICC players’ code of conduct, which concerns “using language that isobscene, offensive or insulting, and/or the making of obscene gestures”.That wasn’t all. Both teams and their captains were fined for a slow over-rate, with South Africa losing 15% of their match fee, and West Indies being docked 5%. That figure was doubled for the captains – Graeme Smith was fined 30% of his match fee, while Brian Lara lost 10%.

Around the end of the first millennium of the modern era, there was this place in the middle of the desert in Central Asia that was the hub of all land-based Old World trade from the Far East to the European West. Reaching it meant thousands of miles of travel by camel caravan, whether from Eastern Europe or North India, from Persia or Peking. Yet many intrepid traders would make the trip, lured by the appeal of exotic commodities which were in high demand at home. Glimpsing the “lamps of Samarqand” even once in one’s lifetime was the goal of many an adventurer as well – Marco Polo was only the best-known of this ilk, although it was his trip that that made the place famous.Fast forward to the end of the second millennium and to world cricket, and we have a new Samarqand. It is far away from the major cricketing centres of world population, and is an oasis in its own cultural desert– created out of the quixotic mind of a cricket-loving Arab sheikh, as a way to indulge his royal eccentricity. And yet, over the past few decades, it has grown into a place to which many of the best cricketers in the world have made their pilgrimages, and played each other far from the madding crowds and jingoistic cheers of “home”– a very pure kind of “cricket for cricket’s sake”, with little at stake except pride and prize money.Playing at Sharjah is the secret desire of many international cricketers, especially those who are trying to make an impression on the world cricket stage–to them, it is a sort of cricketing Mecca, without the religious connotations.It appears that the USA, through a combination of serendipitous circumstances, is to be allowed a fleeting glimpse of the “lamps of Samarqand” – and thus make its own kind of history.It started with ICC’s plans for holding the second Six Nations Challenge Tournament at Sharjah.The first Six Nations Challenge Tournament had been held in Namibia, and had included “A” teams from a few major countries to flesh out the field. The second Six Nations Challenge tournament to take place in Sharjah from February 29 to March 6, 2004, has meant a drastic change in format as well as location. This time, the focus was to be on the top six non-Test playing countries– Kenya, Holland, Namibia, Scotland, UAE and Canada. The winner of the Six Nations Challenge tournament was guaranteed a place in the Champions Trophy Tournament between the major countries in England in late 2004 – an incentive that did not exist the first time the Six Nations tournament had been held.However, a problem arose with Kenya. It appears that Kenya (which had won the inaugural Six Nations Tournament in 2002 in Namibia), had chosen not to participate– it was to be touring West Indies at the time, and had already been pencilled into the Champions Trophy along with the Test-playing nations. Since one of the avowed aims of the Six Nations Challenge was to identify a team to play in the Challenger Trophy, Kenya’s participation would have been superfluous – and redundant.It seems that the ICC had thought of USA or Ireland to plug the hole in the Six Nations Tournament. The USA had defeated Ireland in the 2001 ICC Trophy in Toronto in an unexpectedly exciting match, and would have to be given the nod if performance alone was to count. So, giving less than a month’s notice, the ICC invited USACA to send a US team to Sharjah, making it clear that Ireland was to be given the nod if USA could not participate. The USACA accepted promptly, and the USA found itself facing its stiffest international challenge in years, in Sharjah in 2004.How the news got out to the US public is a story in itself, and says a lot about US cricket politics.It all started with a rumour floated anonymously in the USCRICKET open forum, that the USA might be invited to play in Sharjah. The first reaction was scepticism; it was opined that there had been many such rumours in recent months, some even involving fraud and subterfuge, and this was more of the same. Then, a copy of a private e-mail from ICC to USACA extending the invitation to Sharjah showed up in (of all places) a Caribbean Web site, was copied to the USCRICKET Forum, and was greeted by a second crescendo of comment alleging that the letter was a hoax.I took the liberty of contacting ICC directly, and was assured that the letter was not a hoax. The word was duly passed on to the cognoscenti. It was only at this ultimate stage, faced with a barrage of inquiries, that the USACA acknowledged that, yes, it had received an invitation and yes, it had accepted. Why the USACA did not reveal the invitation sooner, and thereby avoided much of the fuss and paranoia, is a question for the ages – could it just be that the USACA enjoys Byzantine intrigue, or is it too afraid to let people know what it is doing? Who knows.And now, a controversy has developed over what kind of USA team to send to Sharjah.On one side are advocates of a promising team of youngsters who could be “blooded” by the Sharjah experience and gain the maturity and practice needed for the 2005 ICC Trophy. If the idea was to develop a team for the 2007 and the 2011 World Cups, it was argued, the players selected would need to be under 25 to last the course – anyone older would simply not be playing that long.On the other, it is argued that USA needs to go with the “veterans”, most in their late 30s or 40s, who have played first-class cricket and could better deal with the challenges and rigours of competitive international cricket. These are the people who have given the USA whatever credibilty it now enjoys after winning the Americas 2002 Championship and defeating its arch-rivals, the Cayman Islanders, and they are in the best position to add to those accomplishments.There are also centrists who argue for a blend of youth and experience, the proportions depending on which way they lean between the two extremes. One thing no one speaks of is of inviting mainstream Americans – the “true-blue all-American yokels”, as one person put it on the lively, sometimes scurrilous, USCRICKET “open” bulletin board – to play on a USA Sharjah team. It is recognized that the sport has to appeal to born-and-bred Americans to secure a long-term foothold in this country, but it is universally accepted that Sharjah 2003 is neither the place nor the time to try.Complicating the picture is a general distrust of the USACA Selection Committee, which has been accused in the past (fairly or unfairly) of bias, parochialism, and ineptitude – a lot will depend on how fairly and efficiently it performs this immediate task of selecting the sojourners for the pilgrimage for Sharjah.Deb K Das is cricket coordinator of Wisden Cricinfo’s USA site

England 281 for 7 (Edwards 102, Newton 65) beat South Africa 162 by 119 runs
ScorecardEngland’s women won the second ODI against South Africa at East London by a handsome 119 runs, to draw level in the five-Test series. After winning the toss and batting first, England breezed along to 281 for 7 in their 50 overs, a total that proved to be well out of the reach of South Africa. None of their batsmen made more than Daleen Terblanche’s 27, as they were bundled out for 162.Laura Newton and Charlotte Edwards gave England the perfect start by taking advantage of some ill-directed bowling from the South African pace attack. They both rattled along to their half-centuries, although on 108, Newton survived a run-out opportunity in the most bizarre fashion imaginable. She was beaten by a direct hit from mid-off and was all set to return to the pavilion, but the bails, which had leapt 5cm in the air, somehow settled back into their grooves, and the umpires had no option but to recall her.Newton eventually fell for 65 (142 for 1), but Edwards was in superb touch and had reached 102 before being clean-bowled by Sune van Zyl. South Africa’s fielding matched their bowlers for waywardness – 19 wides were bowled in the innings, several of which eluded the wicketkeeper Shafeeq Pillay and raced off to the boundary.Lucy Pearson grabbed an early victim in South Africa’s reply, but it was Helen Wardlaw who removed the key wicket of Johmari Logtenberg, who had singlehandedly won the opening game with a hard-hitting 67. But she made just 10 this time around, and South Africa’s momentum died away, as they were eventually bowled out with nearly seven overs to spare.

Pakistan 143 for 1 (Khalid 84*) beat Zimbabwe 141 (Tariq 4-33) by nine wickets
Scorecard

Pakistan’s captain Khalid Latif made 84 not out, and added an unbeaten 142 for the second wicket with Abid Ali, as Zimbabwe were over-run in their Super League fixture at Savar. Pakistan needed just 30 overs to complete a nine-wicket victory, and are already looking strong bets for a place in the semi-finals.Zimbabwe earned their place at the U19 high table by routing Australia in the Group stages, but they never looked likely to cause another upset today. They lost the toss and were asked to bat first, whereupon Ali Imran trapped Brendan Taylor lbw with his first ball of the match (1 for 1). He was one of nine batsmen who failed to reach double figures, and the only man to look at all comfortable was the opener James Cameron, who top-scored with a fluent 68.Cameron added 68 for the third wicket with his captain Tinotenda Mawoyo, but both men fell in quick succession and the innings subsided. Tariq Mahmood and Mansoor Amjad shared seven wickets between them as Zimbabwe were bowled out for 141 with 14 balls to spare. Still, it was almost twice as many as Australia (73) had managed last week.Tinashe Panyangara, the man who did the damage on that occasion, grabbed an early wicket to lift Zimbabwe’s prospects. But Pakistan were too strong and eased to victory with 20 overs to spare.

Adam Gilchrist and Andrew Symonds face ICC level-one Code of Conduct charges for dissent following an incident during the second one-day international against Sri Lanka on Sunday.Mike Procter, the ICC match referee, viewed videotapes on Monday morning of an incident in which Symonds was first adjudged to have been trapped lbw but later recalled after discussions between Peter Manuel, the umpire, and Marvan Atapattu, Sri Lanka’s one-day captain.A disciplinary inquiry will be held on Tuesday in Colombo during which the pair will have to answer charges that they showed dissent towards the initial decision. Gilchrist threw down his gloves, apparently in disgust, while Symonds is alleged to have shown his bat to the umpire before walking off.After the match, Procter had praised the actions of Manuel, describing his decision as “courageous”, and the sportsmanship of Atapattu, who had accepted that a mistake had been made and accepted Manuel’s decision to recall Symonds. “You have to take your hat off to Marvan [Atapattu],” he said.If found guilty, Gilchrist and Symonds could be either officiallyreprimanded and/or fined up to 50% of their match fee. The third one-day will be played under lights on Wednesday.

The deadline for submission of the 2007 World Cup bids passed yesterday evening with two surprises. Firstly, the Trinidad and Tobago government announced that although it had complied with the requirements of the Bid Book, it was submitting itself only as being able and willing to host matches, and would not compete with territorial neighbours.Patrick Manning, the Prime Minister, said he did not want Trinidad to seem to be grabbing for everything, given its better economic standing in the region. "What T&T did not want to do was to compete against those very countries that support us, as the benefits that could accrue from these matches would be more needed in those countries than in T&T."Manning added that the government would be willing to host whatever matches were left over after the bids were sorted. The understanding is that the most costly affair, the opening, will be outside the reach of most territories, and will more likely than not end up on Trinidad’s door.Meanwhile, Barbados and St Lucia have submitted a joint bid proposal. Stephen Alleyne, head of Barbados’s World Cup programme, said that their joint effort will have "the resources of half a million people" behind them. The driving force behind the St. Lucia committee, Desmond Skeete, died while preparing for the weekend of one-dayers against England at Beausejour Stadium. In all, 12 countries have indicated their intention to bid for matches. The allocations are to be announced on July 12.

Ed Giddins, the former England fast bowler, has been fined £5000, plus £1000 costs, and banned from playing in any match under the jurisdiction of the ECB for five years.Giddins, 32, was found guilty by an ECB disciplinary panel of breaching a directive while a contracted county player, by placing a bet of around £7000 on Surrey (his county at the time) to lose to Northamptonshire in a National League game in August 2002. Giddins pleaded not guilty to the charge, but did not dispute any of the facts brought before the panel, which was chaired by His Honour Judge Slinger, and also included David Gabbitass and Richard Bevan.The five-year suspension was the maximum available to the panel, and, according to the ECB, “reflects the seriousness with which the discipline committee views any attempt by a registered cricketer to bet on the result of any match under ECB jurisdiction”.The ban won’t affect Giddins unduly, since he retired at the end of last season after a subdued year with Hampshire, his fourth county. He parted company with Sussex, his first club, after a drug offence in 1996. He also played for Warwickshire and Surrey, and won four Test caps, taking 12 wickets at 20.00, including 5 for 15 against Zimbabwe at Lord’s in 2000.