Michael Clarke, as stand-in captain, has lost the unlosable one day international against Sri Lanka. The Boy turned the telly on when we got home from taekwondo training and Australia was clearly on top. Very soon the Sri Lankans were 8 for 107 chasing 240 for victory. Plenty of time but not many batsmen left and only one recognised batsman, Angelo Mathews, at that. Lasith Malinga came to the crease and started swinging. The Boy tried to make a $20 bet that Australia would win although I didn't take him up on in.
Unfortunately The Boy had to go to bed and missed out on seeing a world record partnership for the ninth wicket in ODIs, match 3065, of 132 runs to level the scores. Fantastic batting by Malinga and Mathews and they tore the Australian attack (yes, I said attack but you'd hardly call it that) apart and hit them to all parts of the ground. Only looked like being in trouble when running between the wickets but they didn't have to do too much of that with the boundaries that they were hitting. It was one of the most enthralling games of cricket I've had the pleasure of watching. Well done Sri Lanka for coming away with the win.
Michael Clarke appears to be the John Hewson of cricket. Dr John lost the unlosable election to Paul Keating in 1993 and Pup seems destined to go down the same path. There's no way as captain that he should have lost a match from the position that they worked themselves into. On their home ground too. What an embarrassment. But what great viewing from a Sri Lankan's, neutral observer's and cricket lover's position.
Showing posts with label Australia vs Sri Lanka. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Australia vs Sri Lanka. Show all posts
Wednesday, November 03, 2010
Friday, November 09, 2007
Australian Cricketers Are A Sporting Disgrace
I had Cricinfo's (Baggygreen.com) live scorecard from the first test match this summer between Australia and Sri Lanka going whilst at work today. Towards the end of the day Sanath Jayasuriya was given out, in a contentious decision, caught behind. Cricinfo reported that replays show no contact with the bat was made. "Desperately unlucky" was the phrase used on one television news report whilst another failed to mention that the guy hadn't hit the ball at all. I think that "desperately unlucky" doesn't do justice to the situation.
The Aussies saw the ball move away about the same time that it passed the bat but it was a deviation caused by swing rather than a nick. There was no sound indicating a nick either. What really upsets me about the Aussies in this situation is the appealing for a catch when there was quite obviously no contact made. The Aussies were very unsporting in this case, I feel. And what about the umpiring. I heard that the original umpires that were to be used had visa issues with getting into the country and had to be replaced at very short notice. Their replacements, or at least one of them, appears to be a very poor replacement. There is an overriding factor when an appeal is made and that is that the batsman is to receive "the benefit of the doubt". That is, when there is doubt that the batsman is out he is to be given not out. Any benefit is to the batsman's benefit. Now, for an experienced umpire to see a ball move but not hear a nick and give the decision in favour of the bowler is blatantly disgusting. Jayasuriya was unhappy about the decision but accepted it.
I feel that the batsman, quite obviously in this case, should be allowed to appeal the decision as he has been unfairly dealt with. The reason my woodwork teacher and junior cricket captain at Mundulla, Mr Ferris, preferred cricket to tennis was the fact that one mistake in cricket and your day was over. Tennis was a game where you could afford to make numerous mistakes and still triumph. When I played cricket and was bowling and there was a chance of a wicket with the whole team appealing and I didn't believe that it was out, I just turned to go back to the top of my mark for the next delivery. I didn't believe in appealing if I didn't think it was out. And I deplore the Aussies for appealing went someone is not in a situation where he should be deemed to be out. I don't think that the Aussies are alone in this regard but it is terrible to see a great advantage gained after such a poor decision. In fact, not just a poor decision, but poor cricket all around - umpiring included.
I had Cricinfo's (Baggygreen.com) live scorecard from the first test match this summer between Australia and Sri Lanka going whilst at work today. Towards the end of the day Sanath Jayasuriya was given out, in a contentious decision, caught behind. Cricinfo reported that replays show no contact with the bat was made. "Desperately unlucky" was the phrase used on one television news report whilst another failed to mention that the guy hadn't hit the ball at all. I think that "desperately unlucky" doesn't do justice to the situation.
The Aussies saw the ball move away about the same time that it passed the bat but it was a deviation caused by swing rather than a nick. There was no sound indicating a nick either. What really upsets me about the Aussies in this situation is the appealing for a catch when there was quite obviously no contact made. The Aussies were very unsporting in this case, I feel. And what about the umpiring. I heard that the original umpires that were to be used had visa issues with getting into the country and had to be replaced at very short notice. Their replacements, or at least one of them, appears to be a very poor replacement. There is an overriding factor when an appeal is made and that is that the batsman is to receive "the benefit of the doubt". That is, when there is doubt that the batsman is out he is to be given not out. Any benefit is to the batsman's benefit. Now, for an experienced umpire to see a ball move but not hear a nick and give the decision in favour of the bowler is blatantly disgusting. Jayasuriya was unhappy about the decision but accepted it.
I feel that the batsman, quite obviously in this case, should be allowed to appeal the decision as he has been unfairly dealt with. The reason my woodwork teacher and junior cricket captain at Mundulla, Mr Ferris, preferred cricket to tennis was the fact that one mistake in cricket and your day was over. Tennis was a game where you could afford to make numerous mistakes and still triumph. When I played cricket and was bowling and there was a chance of a wicket with the whole team appealing and I didn't believe that it was out, I just turned to go back to the top of my mark for the next delivery. I didn't believe in appealing if I didn't think it was out. And I deplore the Aussies for appealing went someone is not in a situation where he should be deemed to be out. I don't think that the Aussies are alone in this regard but it is terrible to see a great advantage gained after such a poor decision. In fact, not just a poor decision, but poor cricket all around - umpiring included.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)