England made history beating Australia in the 2nd test in Lords breaking the long standing loosing streak.The England victory came at the right time of the series with 3 more tests the Ashes 2009 is wide open now. All credit to captain Strauss for keeping the team together and playing a wonderful captains knock in the 1st innings.Man of the Match Flintoff bowled his heart out on the last session of the 4th day and the first session of the 5th day which changed the course of the match. Having said that i would have given Strauss the Man of the Match for his splendid 150 in the 1st innings. I would say J.Anderson bowled truly well in the 1st innings to stop the Aussies from getting the upper hand.Finally England has pulled their socks and played as a team go 1 up in the series to make the already hyped Ashes interesting and absorbing.Collingwood and Peiterson played their part well to make sure that they have enough runs on the board and the final spell from Flintoff was so fierce fast bowling which proved too much for Clark and Haddin.
Very little went right for Ponting here. He was given out caught when he did not hit it, he remains 25 runs short of passing Allan Border's Australian Test record. He was forced to juggle an attack in which the spearhead went over 5 runs a over and the spinner dislocated a finger on his bowling hand.
Its very tough to make a come back in a test where you receive 4-5 dubious decisions and that too 3 in the 4th innings of the match.I am not sure why this so called media kept silent when it comes to a english cricketer when it comes to some controversy. If Strauss decision to claim for Hughes catch, ponting confirming a catch against India is no different. I don't understand why the umpires resist from using technology when it is available on doubtful decisions.
The biggest problem with the current Australian team is the self-belief that they can win the series. There has been lot of doubting themself on various aspects and which shows on the field. I don't think that it will improve dramatically once Brett is back. Over the years it has been proved time and again that the team should belief they have it with in them to win. I am sure Ponting & the senior pros like Hussey will not let go easily and try to pull back things in Aussies way. I feel one good win here will make the total out look of the team totally positive.
Hoping to see a fighting display from the Aussies in the 3rd test, with Peiterson ruled out for the rest of the series its not going to be easy for England.
4 comments:
As a cricketer i believe you know the difference. Well in case of Strauss he took it with his palms below the ball. So the fielder always has the sense that he caught it cleanly. I had felt this when i played cricket, when others would explain me how the ball touched the ground.
In case of ponting it was blatant cheating. He got up from the ground with the support of ball when he was not fully in control of the ball. This every cricketer will know cleanly that he has grounded the ball. So its plain cheating.
Regarding why technology was not used, well the main umpire went by the leg umpires decision who thought the catch was clean. I believe Rudi was right. When the leg umpire says its not clean he need not go to the third umpire. Please note that the umpires dont see the action replays to reverse the decision. Have a proper rule, instead of half baked rules will solve the problem. Allow the batsman to appeal. Dont treat it as abuse.
Sriram,
I believe that a cricketer will always know if he had taken a catch cleanly or not for sure all the time. I am 100% sure even if a little bit of the ball hits the ground you will fell that and in Strauss case it was very very clear that he just grabbed the ball from the floor.
In my view its the same while batting, the batsmen will always know if he has nicked a ball or not, its not natural to say i am not sure if i nicked the ball kind of statements. As human beings we will 100% feel the ball nicking.
The case i was pointing was the dismissal where Ponting was asked to confirm on a catch Clark took against India. In both the case it was the umpires fault but why do you curse one and leave the other free is my question.
On Rudi, i am not blaming him and he could not have done much when the leg-umpire confirms but my question is why not the 3rd umpire intervene and reverse the decision. Today the 3rd umpire is having a free holiday with few decisions to make and the on field umpires got to toil and handle pressure.
All i want to say is give the power for the 3rd umpire to reverse the on field umpires decision if it is proved wrong.
Yes Vasu, regarding the 3rd umpire, his role can improve its scope. Instead of just answering the questions asked to him, he can be a bit proactive and pass on his decisions to the on-field umpire when needed. Take the case of Hussey's catch that collingwood took. There was a reference whether the catch was clean or not. Which the third umpire ruled that it is clean. But, even though the replays clearly indicated that there was no edge, he cannot reverse the decision of the onfield umpire...
With more such controversies, these kinda rules will get streamlined, i guess
@Vasu Bringing the Referral system as early as possible will bring down these kind of controversies to certain extent. But what you have suggested is certainly a good option but I don't think that will be implemented any time soon. Anyways nice to see Aussie one down in the an Ashes series after a very long time. The series will be good to watch from here.
Post a Comment