The Sydney Fiasco (BollyLine)
Ok. Here's my $0.02 about the whole Sydney fiasco.
Firstly, there is the umpiring. Bad decisions are part of umpiring. The human element makes that inevitable. Having been at the receiving end of some shockers throughout the match, I give India credit for the way they not only stayed in, but strangled the Aussie run machine in spite of a weak bowling attack. They also kept their calm thorough the umpiring throughout the match and got on with the game.
I do not believe Andrew Symonds or Ricky Ponting did anything wrong by not walking. Never in cricket history has anyone walked consistently, and asking them to do so is being naive and irrational. A batsman is perfectly entitled to stay until the umpire gives him marching orders. Yes, even if he is clean bowled, there is nothing that prevents him from staying, aside from looking extremely foolish. Symonds had 4 lives today, tomorrow, he could get 4 bad decisions. None of this reflects in any way on the integrity of the player in question.
I did not personally have any problem with the Dravid decision - it was lousy, but it happens. The Ganguly matter is not so straightforward. Since the captains had agreed before the Test series that they would take the opposing captains word on the catches, Ponting signaling "out" is perfectly justified. I do not believe Ponting or Clarke are cheats, and I believe Clarke was genuinely certain that he had taken it cleanly, and Ponting knows Clarke well enough to take his word on it.
The problem I have with that decision, is what Mark Benson (the umpire) did. Now, according to the rules, he is supposed to consult with the square leg umpire first (a ridiculous notion, given that Bucknor was standing miles away, and would have been no use), and, if still unsure, go to the third umpire. This is procedure. By not following it, he has shown what can only be termed incompetence. Even allowing for the fact that he may have been aware of the agreement between the captains prior to the series, making such a call on the fifth day of a close Test match, given what had transpired on the first four days, was - stupid.
I believe India is to blame for the loss. If your tailenders cannot survive 2 overs to draw a Test match, against the bowling of a part timer, you don't deserve to win. That's pretty plain.
The most controversial issue - the alleged comments by Harbhajan towards Symonds. Personally, I'm pretty sure Bhajji must have probably said the M-word, after being provoked by Symonds. Bhajji isn't the most calm character on the field, and has a rather limited vocabulary at heated moments. What I find ridiculous is Ponting's decision to report it to the match referee. I think he's acting a little precious. Being called a "b****rd" may be a term of endearment in Australia, but it is not so in the subcontinent or England. The Aussies are very clearly aware of this fact. Yet, I am sure that term is used fairly liberally. You don't see the Indians complaining to the match referee every time they play the Aussies now, do you?
The only real absurd thing in the match was Proctor's decision against Bhajji, based on hearsay. Whether Bhajji actually used it is irrelevant, you need to prove it, and you cannot take one man's word over another's.
I felt the Indians overreacted to the whole thing a tad. All they had to do was file an official complaint against Bucknor & Bensen with regards to the umpiring. They could also just have appealed Bhajji's ban within 24 hours (a procedure allowed by the rules), which would have ensured the ban would be suspended till the hearing. Creating a ruckus only makes you look like a bully - never a good idea. Muscling Bucknor out was unnecessary. Even if he did umpire and give bad decisions in Perth, he would have only hastened his own end.
Instead, the Indian team is now in a position where they have lost focus slightly - not a good idea. Based on their performance in the last test, I believe this team is good enough to square the series. However, given the drama that has ensued, I now have my doubts regarding their focus.
Lastly, I found Kumble's conduct as a captain fantastic. Staying around to shake hands with the umpires and the Aussies after a heartbreaking last over, and a rough Test match, shows a man who genuinely believes in the spirit of the game. He does not just talk the talk, he walks the walk. (FYI - The Indians have no "signed" personal code of conduct) No one can ever argue with that!
Firstly, there is the umpiring. Bad decisions are part of umpiring. The human element makes that inevitable. Having been at the receiving end of some shockers throughout the match, I give India credit for the way they not only stayed in, but strangled the Aussie run machine in spite of a weak bowling attack. They also kept their calm thorough the umpiring throughout the match and got on with the game.
I do not believe Andrew Symonds or Ricky Ponting did anything wrong by not walking. Never in cricket history has anyone walked consistently, and asking them to do so is being naive and irrational. A batsman is perfectly entitled to stay until the umpire gives him marching orders. Yes, even if he is clean bowled, there is nothing that prevents him from staying, aside from looking extremely foolish. Symonds had 4 lives today, tomorrow, he could get 4 bad decisions. None of this reflects in any way on the integrity of the player in question.
I did not personally have any problem with the Dravid decision - it was lousy, but it happens. The Ganguly matter is not so straightforward. Since the captains had agreed before the Test series that they would take the opposing captains word on the catches, Ponting signaling "out" is perfectly justified. I do not believe Ponting or Clarke are cheats, and I believe Clarke was genuinely certain that he had taken it cleanly, and Ponting knows Clarke well enough to take his word on it.
The problem I have with that decision, is what Mark Benson (the umpire) did. Now, according to the rules, he is supposed to consult with the square leg umpire first (a ridiculous notion, given that Bucknor was standing miles away, and would have been no use), and, if still unsure, go to the third umpire. This is procedure. By not following it, he has shown what can only be termed incompetence. Even allowing for the fact that he may have been aware of the agreement between the captains prior to the series, making such a call on the fifth day of a close Test match, given what had transpired on the first four days, was - stupid.
I believe India is to blame for the loss. If your tailenders cannot survive 2 overs to draw a Test match, against the bowling of a part timer, you don't deserve to win. That's pretty plain.
The most controversial issue - the alleged comments by Harbhajan towards Symonds. Personally, I'm pretty sure Bhajji must have probably said the M-word, after being provoked by Symonds. Bhajji isn't the most calm character on the field, and has a rather limited vocabulary at heated moments. What I find ridiculous is Ponting's decision to report it to the match referee. I think he's acting a little precious. Being called a "b****rd" may be a term of endearment in Australia, but it is not so in the subcontinent or England. The Aussies are very clearly aware of this fact. Yet, I am sure that term is used fairly liberally. You don't see the Indians complaining to the match referee every time they play the Aussies now, do you?
The only real absurd thing in the match was Proctor's decision against Bhajji, based on hearsay. Whether Bhajji actually used it is irrelevant, you need to prove it, and you cannot take one man's word over another's.
I felt the Indians overreacted to the whole thing a tad. All they had to do was file an official complaint against Bucknor & Bensen with regards to the umpiring. They could also just have appealed Bhajji's ban within 24 hours (a procedure allowed by the rules), which would have ensured the ban would be suspended till the hearing. Creating a ruckus only makes you look like a bully - never a good idea. Muscling Bucknor out was unnecessary. Even if he did umpire and give bad decisions in Perth, he would have only hastened his own end.
Instead, the Indian team is now in a position where they have lost focus slightly - not a good idea. Based on their performance in the last test, I believe this team is good enough to square the series. However, given the drama that has ensued, I now have my doubts regarding their focus.
Lastly, I found Kumble's conduct as a captain fantastic. Staying around to shake hands with the umpires and the Aussies after a heartbreaking last over, and a rough Test match, shows a man who genuinely believes in the spirit of the game. He does not just talk the talk, he walks the walk. (FYI - The Indians have no "signed" personal code of conduct) No one can ever argue with that!
2 Comments:
the whole notion of 'walking' is a ridiculous one. let the umpires do the job of deciding who's out and who's in
added a little post about this on my blog too - sartistic.blogspot.com
Post a Comment
<< Home