sports

History of Ind Cricket Players

The Ashes 2009
COLUMNS
Where do the Aussies go after Ashes?
Partab Ramchand 2009-08-25 10:33:08

In a closely contested series the question is bound to be asked. Where did the Aussies go wrong when they looked well placed to retain the Ashes? The Aussies had wrested the initiative by gallantly drawing the third Test at Edgbaston and then winning the fourth at Headingley in a canter by an innings and plenty in 2-1/2 days. The momentum had shifted their way - seemingly decisively. How then did things go wrong at the Oval for them to surrender the Ashes they had won back with a 5-0 thumping of England a little over two years ago?

Actually while Australia lost the Ashes at the Oval there were disturbing signs right through the series. Major tactical errors were made, the batting despite the star studded line up was increasingly vulnerable and the bowling in the absence of a quality spinner lacked balance.

Worse, the one specialist spinner who did reasonably well in the first three Tests was cooling his heals in the pavilion at the Oval when he should have been the frontline bowler. While Nathan Hauritz's exclusion at Headingley was perfectly justifiable - in keeping with the horses for courses policy - his exclusion at the ground of Jim Laker and Tony Lock was shocking to say the least. After all the horses for courses policy should have been adopted here too. England after toying with the idea of playing two spinners finally played only Graeme Swann but he had done well throughout the series and as only to be expected at the Oval he put in a sterling performance exposing the folly of the Aussie think tank in not playing Hauritz.

Gallantly as Marcus North strove while sending down 44 overs he had his limitations. Skipper Ricky Ponting and coach Tim Nielsen have since admitted that omitting Hauritz was a mistake but what is the use of wisdom that dawns too late? Another blunder was not playing Stuart Clarke before the fourth Test as he underscored with a trademark performance at Headingley.

Future generations having a cursory glance at the overall figures could well assume that Australia must have won the series. There were eight centuries as compared to just two for England and there is not much to choose as far as the batting and bowling stats are concerned. The fact however remains that first innings collapses at Lord's, Edgbaston and The Oval, coupled with the failure to extract England's final wicket at Cardiff, contributed in no small measure to Australia's 2-1 defeat, the same margin by which they lost in 2005.

It may be difficult for the Aussies to come to terms that their long era of supremacy is finally over. The danger signals were hoisted during the 2008-09 season when Australia lost away to India and to South Africa at home. Australia in fact have won just six of their past 16 Tests, a far cry from the 16 successive victories which they registered twice in the first decade of the new millennium. Still they held on to the No 1 spot even though South Africa, Sri Lanka and India were edging closer. The defeat at the Oval however has ensured that their ranking will now plummet from first to fourth making it the first time since 2003 the Australians have not held the top spot.

"So where do the once all conquering Aussie squad go from here? "

The temptation will be there for the authorities to make wholesale changes starting even perhaps at the top and commence a rebuilding process in real earnest. Actually there is little wrong with the personnel of the team per se and as already pointed out the series was lost due to a few tactical errors. In any event the rebuilding process is already in place what with the simultaneous retirements of several greats not too long ago.

The wise course would be to persist with the present lot and just tutor them on how to have the killer instinct, the hunger for success, the trait of never being satisfied - qualities that were the hallmark of the great Aussie squads led by Mark Taylor and Steve Waugh during the long triumphant phase from the mid 90s when they dethroned the West Indians. While some may say that drastic defeats call for drastic measures it is imperative to reflect calmly on what happened and take corrective steps. Australian Cricket chief executive James Sutherland has already said that there would be no blame game. That is the positive approach.
SEARCH

Business rules are means by which Strategic management is implemented. The rules tell an organization what it can do in detailed tactics, while the strategy tells it how to focus the business at a macro level to optimize results. Put differently, a strategy provides high-level direction about what an organization should do. Business rules can provide the tactical detail about exactly how a strategy will translate to actions.
Business rules exist for an organization whether or not they are ever written down, talked about or even part of the organization’s consciousness. However it is a fairly common practice for organizations to gather business rules in at least a very informal manner.
Organizations may choose to proactively describe their business practices in a database of rules. For example, they might hire a consultant to come through the organization to document and consolidate the various standards and methods currently in practice.
More commonly, business rules are discovered as part of a formal requirement gathering process during the initial stages of a project. In this case the collecting of the business rules are coincidental. Projects, such as the launching of a new product, might lead to a new body of business rules for an organization, i.e. this new product would require the employees to conceptualize about what the purpose of the organization is in a new way. This practice of coincidental business rule gathering is vulnerable to the creation of inconsistent or even conflicting business rules within different organizational units, or within the same organizational unit over time. Business Rules Methodology is the process of capturing business rules in natural language, in real-time while empowering users to manage rules with a few simple steps.
Gathering business rules is also called rules harvesting or business rule mining. The business analyst or consultant can extract the rules from Use cases, system code or by organizing SME workshops/Interviews etc. Software technologies designed to capture business rules through analysis of legacy source code or of actual user behavior, can accelerate the rule gathering process.

world business

A business (also called a company, firm and enterprise) is a legally recognized organization designed to provide goods and/or services to consumers.[1] Businesses are predominant in capitalist economies, most being privately owned and formed to earn profit that will increase the wealth of its owners and grow the business itself. The owners and operators of a business have as one of their main objectives the receipt or generation of a financial return in exchange for work and acceptance of risk. Notable exceptions include cooperative enterprises and state-owned enterprises. Socialist systems involve either government agencies, public ownership, state-ownership or direct worker ownership of enterprises and assets that would be run as businesses in a capitalist economy. The distinction between these institutions and a business is that socialist institutions often have alternative or additional goals aside from maximizing or turning a profit.
The etymology of "business" relates to the state of being busy either as an individual or society as a whole, doing commercially viable and profitable work. The term "business" has at least three usages, depending on the scope — the singular usage (above) to mean a particular company or corporation, the generalized usage to refer to a particular market sector, such as "the music business" and compound forms such as agribusiness, or the broadest meaning to include all activity by the community of suppliers of goods and services. However, the exact definition of business, like much else in the philosophy of business, is a matter of debate.
Business Studies, the study of the management of individuals to maintain collective productivity to accomplish particular creative and productive goals (usually to generate profit), is taught as an

nepalese business

There are lots of scope and opportunities to do business in Nepal. Don't let the changing political climate worry you. The Nepalese businessman, perhaps your future partner, will show you the right way.
Nepal will benefit from increasing exports, so if you have a market outside the country, go ahead with your venture. Please look on our site in future for complete details on doing business with Nepal. See VisitNepal.com Sponsors listed alphabetically. For more information, see

business

A business (also called a company, firm and enterprise) is a legally recognized organization designed to provide goods and/or services to consumers.[1] Businesses are predominant in capitalist economies, most being privately owned and formed to earn profit that will increase the wealth of its owners and grow the business itself. The owners and operators of a business have as one of their main objectives the receipt or generation of a financial return in exchange for work and acceptance of risk. Notable exceptions include cooperative enterprises and state-owned enterprises. Socialist systems involve either government agencies, public ownership, state-ownership or direct worker ownership of enterprises and assets that would be run as businesses in a capitalist economy. The distinction between these institutions and a business is that socialist institutions often have alternative or additional goals aside from maximizing or turning a profit.

Although forms of business ownership vary by jurisdiction, there are several common forms:
Sole proprietorship: A sole proprietorship is a business owned by one person. The owner may operate on his or her own or may employ others. The owner of the business has personal liability of the debts incurred by the business.
Partnership: A partnership is a form of business in which two or more people operate for the common goal of making profit. In most forms of partnerships, each partner has personal liability of the debts incurred by the business. There are three typical classifications of partnerships: general partnerships, limited partnerships, and limited liability partnerships.
Corporation: A corporation is a limited liability entity that has a separate legal personality from its members. A corporation can be organized for-profit or not-for-profit. A corporation is owned by multiple shareholders and is overseen by a board of directors, which hires the business's managerial staff. In addition to privately-owned corporate models, there are state-owned corporate models.
Cooperative: Often referred to as a "co-op", a cooperative is a limited liability entity that can organize for-profit or not-for-profit. A cooperative differs from a corporation in that it has members, as opposed to shareholders, who share decision-making authority. Cooperatives are typically classified as either consumer cooperatives or worker cooperatives. Cooperatives are fundamental to the ideology of economic democracy.