In my brief interaction with Head, ACSU/ICC the other day, I felt amused to know that ACSU were happy that there was no proof available for session betting, rather than trying to find and establish that proof. They would never do it since existence of session betting in no time will establish existence of continuous staged cricket It was like and not so like a police station knowing that there was prostitution going all around, but rather than acting to curb it feeling happy that there was nothing on record. While the world has come to understand that IPL is no different from WWF, the ACSU is enjoying its blissful ignorance.
The manipulation of session scoring was again well depicted in the first 0-10 overs session. With Gayle on crease, there was a (must have been) session score on offer. With Gayle hitting boundaries for RCB to be 39/0 in 3 overs, session score on offer must have been tempting for the punters to bet for the runs to be scored. Gayle got out in the 4th over and the dreaded RCB batting went into a shell till the 10th over, scoring only 36 runs in the last 7 overs of the session. And boundaries flew again as soon as the 11th over started (16 runs were scored in the 11th over).
Before the match started, the experts (especially Sidhu ji) explained to the viewers how difficult the pitch was, there was going to be uneven bounce and lateral movement. While discussing the merits of Dravid's decision to put opposition in, it was said that even if RCB were restricted to 140, it won't be useful. Against this analysis, more than 170 were scored by RCB and that score was successfully chased by the team batting second.
Was it genius of Dravid to include and promote Sanju Samson in batting, or the gift of the script-writers to him (Dravid)? Hope a follower of my blog would know by now.