Ricky Ponting's broken record

No, this isn't about Ponting's statistical feats. By his own admission, Ricky Ponting says he's flogging a dead horse when he brings up the topic of batsmen accepting the fielder's word.

To me it's like flogging the dead horse, to tell the truth. I go to every referee meeting before a series wanting to play the game like that, but almost every other captain in the world is not interested.

Ever wondered to think why that's happening, Ricky? Maybe because its a stupid idea, given the high stakes involved? Maybe because teams the world over aren't interested in trusting an opposition fielder, especially an Aussie?

At Sydney earlier this year, Michael Clarke nicked to first slip and stood waiting for the umpire's decision, and later claimed that he was too shocked to move. Later in the game, he claimed that he'd taken a catch cleanly, when there was no evidence to indicate it was actually as clean as he thought. You acted as the third on-field umpire and said Clarke had taken it cleanly, and then later claimed a catch (off Dhoni) when the ball, although under control, was touching the ground while resting in your palm, and then had the temerity to claim that a journalist (G Rajaraman) who pointed it out was questioning his integrity and thus had no place in the room.

I sincerely hope Anil Kumble doesn't get hoodwinked this time around as well. The reality is that there is a huge trust deficit.

Labels: aus v ind 2008, australia, india, ponting, sydney 2008

Thus spake Jagadish @ 10:58 pm | Sledge/Read 4 sledge(s)
Did you like the post? [ Subscribe to the blog feed - | | Tweet ]

What Graeme Smith should have said

After the events during the Sydney test earlier this year, a disgusted Kumble said "Only one team is playing in the spirit of the game", sending all of Australia into a tizzy, for it invoked parallels with Bill Woodfull telling Pelham Warner "There are two teams out there; one is trying to play cricket and the other is not".

After the events at Kanpur Ahmedabad, South Africa's skipper Graeme Smith should have said "There were two teams out there, and only one of them was anywhere close to playing cricket".

Labels: graeme smith, india, south africa, sydney 2008

Thus spake Jagadish @ 9:11 am | Sledge/Read 4 sledge(s)
Did you like the post? [ Subscribe to the blog feed - | | Tweet ]

Weekend news: Trescothick retires, Gavaskar to be retired?

Two significant events happened over the weekend.

Marcus Trescothick announced his retirement from international cricket a week after he withdrew from Somerset's pre-season tour of the UAE due to a recurrence of the stress-related illness that caused him to pull out of the 2006 Ashes tour and the tour of India earlier that year. Given his discomfort at touring, it may be assumed that he won't sign up for the IPL.

Sunil Gavaskar is in a soup this time for sure with the ICC bosses. He had written a scathing column last week in which he referred to England and Australia as dinosaurs and defended the BCCI's stand in Australia vis-a-vis the racial remark allegations against Harbhajan.

Gavaskar keeps getting into trouble. In January, after Mike Procter pronounced a 3-test ban on Harbhajan, he was accused of (and rightly so) alleging that Procter's decision was racially biased.

Last year, Gavaskar angered Ponting following his comments on the Australian team's behaviour. In that post, I wrote:

It may not be a bad idea for Gavaskar to realize that there're genuine conflicts of interest between his duties as the chairman of the ICC's Cricket Committee and his rights as a columnist. I don't remember who, but I'm sure I've read a comment piece some time ago by a columnist/editor in (possibly) 'The Times' which talked about Gavaskar's "inability to realize a conflict of interest even when it stared at him in the face". If Gavaskar had concerns about Australia's behaviour, I'm sure there are right 'channels' to get his concerns addressed, especially since his committee 'deals with any matters or issues relating to the game or the playing of the game.' (sic)

One year later, we run into the same problem. While I'm of the opinion that the committee that he heads hasn't really achieved anything of note (umpiring standards are pathetic, player behaviour is pathetic, over rates are pathetic, usage of technology is ambiguous, cricket schedules are pathetic & crazy), I really hope he opts to stay on the committee.

He used to be a very good commentator but in the last half-decade or so, his commentary skills have dipped alarmingly. I'm fairly sure cricket production houses will also favour him remaining on the committee rather than stay on in the commentary box for the simple reason that they won't have to keep erecting a fence every time he goes on air, for that's where he is sitting all the time!

Sample this: At Perth, when Kumble announced that India would bat first, my first reaction was "Go for it, Jumbo! Great, bold decision in the context of the series!". Harsha Bhogle asked Gavaskar what he felt. Gavaskar said he'd have opted to bowl first factoring in the weather, India having 3 seamers and Australia having 2 inexperienced openers. He'd barely finished the sentence when he said that on the other hand, India had batted first and got over 600 at Leeds in 2002 on a green wicket that aided swing bowling, so batting first was a good idea too. This piece of expert commentary really sealed it for me and I've now lost respect in his abilities as a commentator.

So, for the sake of us cricket fans, Mr. Gavaskar, please stay on the committee and off the tube!

Labels: comments, conflict of interest, england, gavaskar, india, perth 2008, sydney 2008, television, trescothick

Thus spake Jagadish @ 3:19 pm | Sledge/Read 0 sledge(s)
Did you like the post? [ Subscribe to the blog feed - | | Tweet ]

Can we shut up and move on?

The verdict is out and Harbhajan Singh is not a racist, but still a lot of people believe that the verdict wasn't right and keep harping on it. I happened to read this piece by Prem Panicker and I had a few issues.

• It seems that the Australians are shocked that even Tendulkar lied. I find it absolutely ridiculous to trust an unnamed source and not Tendulkar in a quasi-judicial hearing.
  
• BCCI using its might and getting the verdict shouldn't be a topic of discussion at all. If anything, the BCCI has used its might a little too late. All the time, players from the sub-continent have been at the receiving end and most of the Australian players have been getting away (Jagadish's point: One damning indicator of this is the fact that on the ICC website, under 'Penalties imposed on players for breaches of ICC Code of Conduct', the entries for 2003 do not say anything about the 'immortalized' snarling game between Glenn McGrath and Ramnaresh Sarwan in May 2003) with their on-field behaviour (sample Ponting & Clarke in the Sydney test) and no one even bothers to write about it.
  
• Some writers say that such issues and verdicts don't augur well for the game. Simple - if teams and umpires can cheat blatantly on the field, a financial powerhouse can definitely show its power to help one of its players.
  
• Forgetting my stand on Murali's action, I loved Ranatunga when he walked off the field, just because he was brave enough to protest the Anglo-Australian off-the-field might. I would have been even more delighted if Kumble decided to do it as soon as umpire Ricky Ponting took charge in Sydney - but after all, he is Anil Kumble.

One thing that is striking to me is that most of the writers are shocked that it is team India that has challenged Australia in the game. When everyone expected Australia to finish 3-0, if not 4-0, they just managed a 2-1 scoreline, which could have easily been 1-2, if competence, honesty and efficiency had taken the front seat.

Yes, Australians have been the undisputed champions for long, but the pedestal has been shaken and if you think about it, it actually augurs very well for the game. We have seen a lot of controversies over the years, but the game has carried on, just because it is brilliant.

I am definitely sure that it will go on forever even if more Pontings & Clarkes cheated, more Gilchrists 'walked', more Harbhajans abused, more Symonds provoked opponents, more Bucknors faulted, more boards like the BCCI showed off their might and if more Australian teams lost.

Labels: australia, bcci, harbhajan, icc, ind v aus 2008, india, racism, sydney 2008, symonds

Thus spake Ganesh @ 1:48 pm | Sledge/Read 1 sledge(s)
Did you like the post? [ Subscribe to the blog feed - | | Tweet ]

Analyzing Judge Hansen's judgement

When I read the full text of Judge Hansen's decision that Harbhajan Singh did not racially abuse Andrew Symonds at Sydney, a few things were very interesting.

1. The inefficiency of the ICC: Justice Hansen was not informed about Harbhajan Singh having already been previously pulled up by match referees for various offenses. This information would have resulted in a far stricter penalty.
   
2. The statement of agreed facts signed by Harbhajan, Ponting, Symonds, Clarke, Gilchrist and Tedulkar (sic) and presented to Hansen clearly indicates that Symonds initiated the verbals, including using 'fuck'. As per #13 in the judgement, Symonds told Harbhajan that he had no friends amongst the Australians and used the 'fuck' word. Did he mean to tell Harbhajan "You have no fucking friends amongst the Australians" or was it meant to be "You have no friends amongst the fucking Australians"?
   
3. #7 in the judgement says 'It is apparent that while there was acceptance that the exchange between the appellant and Mr Symonds was initiated by Mr Symonds and was heated in that the word 'fuck' was used no other details of the language used was given. However it was accepted by all parties that it was and intended to be offensive to Mr Symonds.' Does this imply that Symonds using abusive language was not offensive to Harbhajan? It is obvious that Harbhajan was offended, for he wouldn't have reacted the way he did.
   
4. Like I wrote in a comment on my first post on the issue, Brett Lee's silence is baffling. Harbhajan patted/hit him. If he didn't have a problem, why on earth did Symonds have a problem? This is a clear indicator that he was itching for a fight. Were the Aussies ganging up on Harbhajan in a conspirational manner to provoke him, knowing fully well that he'd respond in kind, and then accuse him of a racist abuse (regardless of whether he actually said it or not)?
   
5. From #12 and #14 in the judgement, it is obvious that Symonds was the provocateur. I don't understand why he got away without any penalty. Again, if the BCCI is convinced that Symonds provoked Harbhajan, why shouldn't it file a defamation suit on Harbhajan's behalf since its contracted player suffered mental anguish on account of being accused of a racist comment?
   
6. If 'teri maa ki' is offensive to Symonds, 'bastard' was (meant to be) offensive to Dhoni and Kumble. It baffles me why the BCCI/Indian team withdrew charges against Hogg. The only explanation I have is that they didn't want a situation where he wouldn't bowl against them in the series.

Labels: australia, harbhajan, icc, ind v aus 2008, india, racism, sydney, sydney 2008, symonds

Thus spake Jagadish @ 7:35 pm | Sledge/Read 0 sledge(s)
Did you like the post? [ Subscribe to the blog feed - | | Tweet ]

Harbhajan is an abuser, not a racist

As was expected following the BCCI's belligerent threats to withdraw from the one-day series if Harbhajan was not cleared of racism charges, the racism charge was downgraded to a Level 2 offence ("Using language that is obscene, offensive or of a seriously insulting nature to another Player") during the appeal hearing by Justice John Hansen today.

A few questions are left unanswered at this point in time:

1. Why was Harbhajan fined 50% of his match fees from one test and two ODIs (as per Times Now TV)
   
2. Will the BCCI re-open the charges against Brad Hogg? After all, the original case was that he should also be charged for a racist abuse. Subsequently, the charges were dropped. Can the word 'bastard' be considered to be obscene, offensive or seriously insulting? Of course yes!
   
3. Since there is no evidence that Harbhajan did actually call Symonds a monkey (the transcripts from the stump microphones only had Symonds saying 'You just called me a monkey' or 'What monkey, big monkey, you don't know what you've said.'), is it fair to assume that Harbhajan can file a defamation suit against Symonds, Clarke, Ponting & Hayden? They insinuated that Harbhajan made a racist comment, and he was therefore seen as a racist by a lot of cricket followers, thereby resulting in extreme mental anguish for over three weeks?
   
4. Is the ICC going to do anything about Mike Procter now? He has botched up twice in the span of a little more than a year, the previous instance being at the Oval in August 2006 where he didn't do anything to prevent Pakistan from walking off.

Labels: australia, harbhajan, icc, india, racism, sydney, sydney 2008, symonds

Thus spake Jagadish @ 1:24 pm | Sledge/Read 3 sledge(s)
Did you like the post? [ Subscribe to the blog feed - | | Tweet ]

A scared draw

Australia have just played a Test match which has ended in a draw without any interference from the weather. It is so hard even to imagine this, but it has happened, more so when the team which wanted the draw badly and played to it was Australia and not the opponent!

This was clearly evident on day three when Australia batted 90 overs, scored 260 runs and lost 3 wickets. I certainly don't remember the last time when the Aussies batted an entire day and scored at less than 3 runs per over. Irrespective of the state of the match, no Aussie batsman would even dream of scoring at such a pace. The display of 'batting' on day three almost ensured that a draw was the most probable result unless the Indians decided to gift the match.

India have pushed Australia so much that they even won at Perth and hence 'The Great B*st@#ds' decided to opt for a draw to save some face and ensure that they would win the series 2-1, thanks to Steve & Mark, not the Waughs, but Bucknor & Benson respectively.

If a lot of things had happened efficiently & honestly in the first 2 Tests, the series could have been 1-1 or even 2-1 in favour of India, coming into Adelaide. With such a scoreline, the Australians would have definitely batted differently and would have tried to score at a much better pace and may or may not have lost more wickets in the bargain and most probably would have won this Test match.

It would have still been the Aussie-brand of cricket we all know. Any other team batting out in such a manner isn't any news, but even Australia was pushed to bat for the draw. I am tempted to say that the Indians have pushed them so, but deep inside I know its Bucknor & Benson who gave them the liberty to do the unthinkable to win the series. It does seem to me that Virender Sehwag wasn't wrong at all when he said that Australia were scared of losing.

It seems like the curator had prepared a pitch that'd yield a result on day six. Someone needed to have told him that the rules on test cricket were the same for Australia and other teams. Just because Australia lost the Perth test in four days, it doesn't translate into an extra day in the Adelaide test. Then again, perhaps the curator was just doing what he was told to!

Labels: australia, benson, bucknor, ind v aus 2008, india, perth, perth 2008, pitch, sydney 2008, umpires

Thus spake Ganesh @ 4:12 pm | Sledge/Read 1 sledge(s)
Did you like the post? [ Subscribe to the blog feed - | | Tweet ]

The outcome of Sydney 2008

The outcome of the events at Sydney last week, where pathetic umpiring and a charge of racial abuse marred a superb game, will hopefully make international cricket better, for administrators, players, match officials and fans/spectators.

After the game, a chat with Ganesh, went like this:

14:24 me: i see a few benefits coming out of this entire test:
14:25 1. icc could do something about umpiring standards

2. icc could clearly define what constitutes a racial abuse and what doesn't - is bastard racial, for e.g?

3. teams will swear to not agree to ponting's gentleman agreement on catches

14:26 4. players will stop walking [esp. if #1 isn't handled]

Among these, if the ICC can ensure #1 and #2, then a lot of the problems could be solved. Good umpires will refer to the third umpire at the right time and take decisions on the field at the right time. They will get a higher %age of decisions right. Continuing with my tirade against the ICC's repeated claims to umpires getting 94% of their decisions right, the Sydney game was a classic example of what happens when umpires get 100% of all irrelevant decisions right and 0% of all critical decisions wrong.

It is fairly obvious that Symonds and Hussey benefitted significantly from umpiring errors [Symonds went from 30 to 162 while Hussey went from 45 to 145], Ponting had the best worst of both worlds while Dravid and Ganguly suffered significantly.

To my mind Hussey not being given out in the second innings when he edged RP Singh down legside having scored 45 perhaps had as significant an impact on the outcome as the other umpiring cock-ups. It is strange that his let-off is not discussed as widely as Symonds' or Ponting's.

53.4 Singh to Hussey, no run, a big noise, huge appeals for a strangle down the legs, India think they have their man and replays suggest that he did press the face of the bat on to it

It is high time the ICC clamped down on:

1. Umpiring standards: The ridiculously poor umpiring can & should be fixed by expanding the panel and ensuring that the workload is distributed evenly across four qualified umpires rather than the situation currently where two umpires slog it out in the sun and are under tremendous pressure, with the other two enjoying the comforts of an air-conditioned box and called upon only every now and then [especially the fourth umpire!] to do some work. In addition, there must be something done to increase the accountability of umpires. They can't just say sorry to players for bad decisions and get away with it. Players are dropped for poor performance. Why should umpires be handled with kid gloves?
   
   
2. Walking: The act of a batsman walking insults the collective intelligence of umpires, teammates and spectators. It is a great tool to be (ab)used [and there are several instances where it has been] either by players walking selectively (after they have scored a lot of runs, but not if they're on a pair, for e.g.) or by players appealing to the umpire's conscience for the umpire could assume that the 'walker' player's appeal for a catch/lbw was valid since he was inherently honest.
   
   
3. Pre-series agreements on taking the fielder's word for catches: This sort of agreement is total rubbish and I have no idea why Kumble agreed to it when several other captains (Vaughan & Fleming, to name two) have disagreed with Ponting's suggestion. Ricky Ponting got enraged at the post-match press conference when it was suggested that he had actually grounded the ball after 'catching' Dhoni in India's second innings at Sydney. He was affronted enough to take the query as an question about his integrity and advised that the journalist should not even be in the room [I take it that no-one who has any questions about Ponting's conduct should be in the press conference henceforth]. In fact, he held up his conduct in the first innings [where he didn't claim a catch that Dravid had edged since it had bounced] as an example of how he plays the game. It sort of reminds me of the 'walking' business where a player's conduct could be used by umpires to influence their decisions in his favour. That is exactly what seemed to happen with Ganguly dismissal. Clarke caught the ball and rolled over. Ponting asked Clarke (he who edged to first slip and didn't walk) if he caught it. The umpire asked Ponting if Clarke caught it. The umpire took Ponting's word for it. Mr. Ponting is an honourable man. Didn't you see the way he did not appeal after Dravid's edge fell short in the first innings? Thank us for small mercies. Ponting's argument perhaps goes like this: "I didn't appeal for that catch. This shows how I play the game. Hence if I appeal for a catch, it is always a valid appeal and the umpires are duty-bound to adjudicate in my favour."
   
   
4. Sledging/Abuse: There should be a total ban on any sort of sledging, including banter. There's no saying when a comment becomes offensive, and there is a huge difference in the way people see barbs aimed at them. Sad as it might seem, it means that witty & creative comments obviously also become a victim of the tough measures to prevent situations from boiling over.

PS: Steve Waugh, in his column, wrote about the things that Australian cricketers hate.

On the other hand, Australian teams can't stomach time-wasting and perceived manipulation of the rules, including calling for runners, over-appealing and the alleged altering of the condition of the ball.

So let's see how Australia's players fared at Sydney.

• Time wasting: Wasn't Clarke wasting everyone's time by staying at the crease after edging to slip?
  
• Manipulation of the rules through using runners: Let's see what Hayden did. After he'd reached 71 [off 132 balls], Hayden got himself a runner (Ponting), since he had started limping a couple of overs later. When he got out on 123, he had faced 192 balls. In the 60 balls that he played after apparently getting injured, going by Cricinfo's commentary and based on what I saw on TV, he played at least 10 booming drives and 10 sweep shots. Add in a couple of pulls and a couple of reverse sweeps. I don't know too much about sportsmen's bodies, but it seems highly unlikely that a batsman with a serious-enough injury to warrant a runner, would be able to play such shots by placing so much stress on his leg.
  
• Over-appealing: When Ricky Ponting 'catches' the ball, falls down and his appeal is turned down, he mentions at a press conference that he caught the ball. Isn't that carrying on with the appeal a little too long?

Labels: australia, benson, bucknor, icc, ind v aus 2008, india, ponting, racism, sydney, sydney 2008, umpires, walking

Thus spake Jagadish @ 6:10 pm | Sledge/Read 6 sledge(s)
Did you like the post? [ Subscribe to the blog feed - | | Tweet ]

Time for the BCCI to ban Harbhajan?

Assuming that Mike Procter was right (and he has got it wrong earlier, miserably fluffing his lines at The Oval in 2006), in announcing a three-test ban on Harbhajan for calling Symonds a 'monkey' during the Sydney test, I think it is now the right time to read the riot act out to Harbhajan.

Even if he uttered the word as a response to provocation, it is unacceptable. There was an enormous amount of coverage in the Indian and Australian media about the behaviour of Indian spectators, in the form of racist chants & gestures, during Australia's seven one-dayers in India late last year.

Harbhajan's act is indefensible. He has to cop the punishment from the ICC, just as Darren Lehmann (5 ODIs) & Herschelle Gibbs (2 tests) did. In addition, the BCCI ought to advise the selectors that he should not picked for the next 5 tests and 10 one-day internationals.

There has to be a strong deterrent on this issue, otherwise players will continue to act like juveniles.

Labels: harbhajan, ind v aus 2008, racism, sydney 2008, symonds

Thus spake Jagadish @ 2:36 am | Sledge/Read 7 sledge(s)
Did you like the post? [ Subscribe to the blog feed - | | Tweet ]

Why India lost at Sydney

There were quite a few reasons actually, not all of them were related to the umpiring.

1. Letting 'The Great B*st@#ds' go from 134/6 to 463. Even if Symonds had been given out on 30 or 48, let's not forget that Hogg, Lee & Johnson made 166 runs between themselves at 4 runs an over.
   
2. Losing Dravid and Laxman an hour before stumps in the first innings. They were batting really well, had just gone past personal milestones. But they played horrible shots (ok, let's give some credit to the bowling!). Both ought to have continued on. 180/1 became 185/3! A 600+ total became 532.
   
3. Ganguly not going on. He has now played 4 innings in the series for scores of 43, 40, 67 & 51 (at a strike rate of ~ 70). The most balls he has faced in an innings so far is 79. Dravid has probably faced that many before he decides to display the on-drive! It's all nice scoring 1000 runs in 2007, including a splendid last few tests. But to beat Australia, like Geoff wrote before last year's Ashes, you need to score big hundreds. You can bat like a millionaire and still get big scores. Ganguly needs to convert those 40s & 50s into 150s. Otherwise the runs are a waste. They help India get some momentum, but he gets out at the wrong time (as if there was ever a right time for a batsman to get out!)
   
4. Yuvraj and Dhoni spectacularly failing. I've never been in favour of Yuvraj's inclusion in the test team, especially when he was going to force Dravid to open. I mentioned to Ganesh after his 169 that I still thought Yuvraj was not ready for test cricket. I reckoned he was probably the best replacement batsman around. But on the evidence he had presented in the past few test series where he'd played 2-3 tests on the trot, he has a long way to go before being considered in the first XI. All his dismissals are boiling down to lack of footwork. Sadly, I'm being proved right about his ability. I could still be proved wrong, with two tests to go. Dhoni's dismissals, barring today's, are all nicks to Gilchrist outside off-stump off short-of-length balls. He can be a very destructive batsman after he has batted around half-an-hour. But you need to guts it out before you get to the half-hour mark. He has not done that at all!
   
5. Letting Australia score at 4 an over this morning. When Kumble threw the ball to Ishant late last evening, I thought it was a superb move. Australia weren't scoring quickly at that time. The fact that they went off for light yesterday meant that they were undecided about what rate to score at and when to declare (for if that were not the case, they'd have opted to stay on). But this morning, after an hour of play, all hell broke loose. Symonds & Hussey scored at will, giving Australia enough overs to bowl in the remaining part of the day.
   
6. Edging to second slip. Like King Cricket brilliantly wrote late last year when Pietersen was given out after a catch was taken very close to the ground at second slip. He wrote: "However, from England’s point of view, as regards this Test match, the main problem was that Kevin Pietersen edged a ball to second slip. As a batsman, if you edge the ball to second slip, there’s a fair chance you’re going to be out." That is exactly what Ganguly did. He edged to second slip. The previous ball had been at his body, and I was waiting for Lee to give him the full ball.
   
7. Dhoni not offering a shot. Steve Bucknor was the umpire. Was it a stupid idea or what, to offer pad with no intention of playing a shot? You have a bat in your hand. It isn't meant to be used as a periscope.

Like the Bard wrote, 'The fault, dear Brutus, is not in our stars, but in ourselves, that we are underlings'.

Labels: australia, ind v aus 2008, india, sydney, sydney 2008, umpires

Thus spake Jagadish @ 11:06 pm | Sledge/Read 3 sledge(s)
Did you like the post? [ Subscribe to the blog feed - | | Tweet ]

"I know he's bowled, but is he out?"

There's this apocryphal story of BS Chandrasekhar getting frustrated with the umpiring on a tour (there're many accounts of this tale, with the umpire nationality varying from Australian to English to Kiwi). He had 4-5 plumb lbws turned down. Then he clean bowled the batsman and appealed "Howzzaaaat?" The umpire was surprised and told him the batsman was bowled. Chandra apparently replied "I know he's bowled, but is he out?"

Seeing the umpiring standards at the Sydney test, I'm fairly sure bowlers will start asking similar questions. Ricky Ponting was first wrongly given not out (caught down the legside). Then he was wrongly given out lbw (inside edge). Andrew Symonds was wrongly given not out (caught behind off a thick outside edge). Some time later, he again benefitted by the third umpire getting a stumping decision wrong. After he was well past 100, Steve Bucknor didn't even refer a stumping appeal to the third umpire, despite there being considerable doubt on if he did have his foot grounded behind the line.

I don't recall any shocker during India's first innings, but today, Hussey was not given out caught when he'd obviously edged the ball down legside. But what took the biscuit was Michael Clarke's reaction after he'd so obviously edged Kumble to Dravid at slip. Clarke was, in Hayden's words, waiting for the umpire's finger to go up.

To me, this is as damning an indictment of the quality of umpiring in this test as it can get. A batsman lingers around at the crease after edging to first slip, because he hopes that the umpire will get another decision wrong. Chances are he'd hope for a favourable decision even if he'd hit one to mid-wicket or got bowled.

I won't blame Clarke for it at all. He is well within his rights to stand his ground since it is the bowling team's right/duty to appeal and the umpire's duty to give the decision.

More technology is possibly one solution. Better umpires is usually a better solution. The third umpire, with the TV replays at his disposal, got Symonds' stumping wrong. So technology clearly wouldn't have helped.

Umpiring standards has been a pet theme in this blog. As pointed out earlier here, Steve Bucknor has been poor for a while now and Mark Benson didn't even know that a ball which hit the fielding team helmet placed on the ground was not a dead ball!

Bucknor isn't quite done with this series though! He's scheduled to follow both teams to Perth.

I can think of two extreme ways to register a protest against poor umpiring:

• Don't even appeal: For anything. Not for bloody obvious bowleds, catches, stumpings, run outs etc.
  
• Appeal for everything: For bowleds, skied catches, stumpings/run outs with the batsman half-way down the pitch, etc.

Labels: australia, benson, bucknor, chandra, clarke, ind v aus 2008, india, sydney 2008, umpires, walking

Thus spake Jagadish @ 1:56 am | Sledge/Read 6 sledge(s)
Did you like the post? [ Subscribe to the blog feed - | | Tweet ]