-
Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.
You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.
**Official** India v Pakistan
- Thread starter dudeurfriend
- Start date
Magrat Garlick
Rather Mad Witch
Good case for weirdest match ever...Neil Pickup said:
Neil Pickup
Request Your Custom Title Now!
I'm quite glad I only followed that one on Cricinfo in the school IT rooms... I was pretty confident after we managed 270 - but then India absolutely cruised it.Sehwag309 said:
I guess I should have realised when Blackwell made runs that the pitch wasn't the hardest to score on!
PAKMAN
State 12th Man
interesting stuff !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! The rules need to be changed by S Gavaskar
IT was a pleasant surprise to hear Sachin Tendulkar's disapproving comments on the negative tactics employed by Nasser Hussain, who asked Ashley Giles, the left-arm bowler, to bowl over the wicket at the Indian champion's leg stump or just outside it. These tactics, though legitimate according to the current laws and playing conditions, brought the game to a standstill as the best batsman in the world just padded up to those deliveries without offering a shot. Surely that was not what the crowd had come to see and if there were many who were turned off the game forever it would be a shock. That the little champion actually spoke about it was a bit of a mild shock too, for over the years he has hardly said anything of importance about certain aspects of the game, preferring to stay out of controversy rather than offer an opinion. But it is crucial for the development and growth of the game that players of his stature and following speak on aspects that are damaging to the game and harmful to its progress.
When he was captain of the team to Australia he had the media there looking for a comment or two about how to give the game a new direction. Owing to his phenomenal batting in the home series, the Australian media was waiting to lap up every word of his but he disappointed them by hardly saying anything of consequence. There were plenty of topics that were making news then, like the throwing issue, the sledging or mental disintegration subject, use of technology for TV, to name just a few, but he did not venture an opinion and as one India-loving Australian veteran mediaperson said, "It was as if 'no comment' was two words too many for him." Perhaps Tendulkar was taking shelter under the ICC Code of Conduct regarding comments, but there comes a time when the good of cricket counts before anything else and one has to stick one's neck out for the betterment of the game. For, when Tendulkar speaks the world will stop and listen.
It is not just the left-hander bowling over the wicket outside the right-hander's leg stump that was a disagreeable tactic, but also the one Hussain had tried earlier and discarded. This, was having eight fielders on the off side and only a mid-on. Both these need to be shut out of the game. There's not much a batsman can do if the bowler is accurate enough to consistently bowl outside the off stump with a field like that. The tactic failed because England did not have a bowler who could do that regularly and Tendulkar (against whom it was used) was able to work the ball to the vacant mid-wicket and square leg areas regularly and nullify the method. It did not hamper him as much as the left-arm over the wicket deliveries outside his leg stump did.
It is quite amazing how England's tactics or moaning seem to be the catalyst for changes in the laws of the game. It was the Bodyline tactics used primarily to stop Bradman, but also employed against all Australian batsmen, that brought in the laws to stop such type of bowling. It was mainly England's moaning when their batsmen could not face up to the thunderbolts of the West Indian quicks that the restriction on the number of bouncers per over was brought about. Imagine that a side that employed Bodyline tactics was complaining about the same stuff being dished out to them. This was because not only did they not have the batsmen to counter it but more importantly did not have the bowlers to retaliate.
Now this ploy of the lefthander bowling over the wicket outside the batsman's leg stump. One could understand the tactic being applied if England had failed to contain Tendulkar in the orthodox way. But when it is used from the first ball and that too against all the batsmen, not just the little champion, then it smacks of a cynical attitude which is detrimental to the game.
Though there is a provision in the Test match playing conditions for applying the one-day rule for wides down the legside, perhaps the wording which says 'pitching outside leg stump and going further away' may have dissuaded the umpires from calling wides. Giles was getting just a bit of turn which meant that though the ball was pitching outside leg stump it wasn't going further away but coming in ever so slightly towards the batsman. Only a bold umpire would have called it a wide and hopefully when the elite panel of umpires takes over from April 2002 they will tell the captains in no uncertain terms that they will clamp down on such deliveries and call them wides. Since that panel is still to be appointed, not too many umpires are going to run the risk of falling foul of the captains, for their reports will make a difference to the appointments to the panel.
An umpire can officiate flawlessly for 29 hours and 50 minutes of a Test match but it is the 10 minutes or so when he makes the odd error that will make the captain of the team suffering from these errors to give him low marks. Perhaps a fairer assessment of the umpires will come if captains give a daily report. This will give an idea whether the umpire has had a bad match or just a bad day.
Also, a third report from a respected former cricketer or umpire will go a long way in giving a more balanced assessment of an umpire's capabilities. There is the match referee's report too apart from the captains' reports. But many times the match referee and the third country umpire tend to stick together as they are foreigners in the country they are officiating in. Without casting any aspersions on the match referee's integrity there is always the possibility of this friendship coming in the way of a totally unbiased assessment. That's why the suggestion of a third assessment by a former cricketer or umpire with impeccable integrity who has no axe to grind.
In the fiercely competitive world of sport, the spirit of the game is often forgotten by the players. So you need officials who will be firm and tell the leader of his responsibility to the game and the paying public. Such officials need the total support of the administrators so that they can boldly enforce the rules of the game. The sport is far too precious for some cynical, faint-hearted skippers to interpret the rules solely for their team's advantage and forgetting the greater good of the game.
It may no longer be a gentleman's game, the uncouth sledgers have seen to that, but it is still a contest between bat and ball and not ball and pads.
The year began superbly for India with a stupendous victory over the world champions Australia - that too coming back after a three-day drubbing in the first Test - and ended miserably in the rain and disagreeable tactics.
Hopefully, the New Year will be a memorable cricketing year. And A Happy New Year to you all!
http://www.sportstaronnet.com/tss2502/25020260.htm
IT was a pleasant surprise to hear Sachin Tendulkar's disapproving comments on the negative tactics employed by Nasser Hussain, who asked Ashley Giles, the left-arm bowler, to bowl over the wicket at the Indian champion's leg stump or just outside it. These tactics, though legitimate according to the current laws and playing conditions, brought the game to a standstill as the best batsman in the world just padded up to those deliveries without offering a shot. Surely that was not what the crowd had come to see and if there were many who were turned off the game forever it would be a shock. That the little champion actually spoke about it was a bit of a mild shock too, for over the years he has hardly said anything of importance about certain aspects of the game, preferring to stay out of controversy rather than offer an opinion. But it is crucial for the development and growth of the game that players of his stature and following speak on aspects that are damaging to the game and harmful to its progress.
When he was captain of the team to Australia he had the media there looking for a comment or two about how to give the game a new direction. Owing to his phenomenal batting in the home series, the Australian media was waiting to lap up every word of his but he disappointed them by hardly saying anything of consequence. There were plenty of topics that were making news then, like the throwing issue, the sledging or mental disintegration subject, use of technology for TV, to name just a few, but he did not venture an opinion and as one India-loving Australian veteran mediaperson said, "It was as if 'no comment' was two words too many for him." Perhaps Tendulkar was taking shelter under the ICC Code of Conduct regarding comments, but there comes a time when the good of cricket counts before anything else and one has to stick one's neck out for the betterment of the game. For, when Tendulkar speaks the world will stop and listen.
It is not just the left-hander bowling over the wicket outside the right-hander's leg stump that was a disagreeable tactic, but also the one Hussain had tried earlier and discarded. This, was having eight fielders on the off side and only a mid-on. Both these need to be shut out of the game. There's not much a batsman can do if the bowler is accurate enough to consistently bowl outside the off stump with a field like that. The tactic failed because England did not have a bowler who could do that regularly and Tendulkar (against whom it was used) was able to work the ball to the vacant mid-wicket and square leg areas regularly and nullify the method. It did not hamper him as much as the left-arm over the wicket deliveries outside his leg stump did.
It is quite amazing how England's tactics or moaning seem to be the catalyst for changes in the laws of the game. It was the Bodyline tactics used primarily to stop Bradman, but also employed against all Australian batsmen, that brought in the laws to stop such type of bowling. It was mainly England's moaning when their batsmen could not face up to the thunderbolts of the West Indian quicks that the restriction on the number of bouncers per over was brought about. Imagine that a side that employed Bodyline tactics was complaining about the same stuff being dished out to them. This was because not only did they not have the batsmen to counter it but more importantly did not have the bowlers to retaliate.
Now this ploy of the lefthander bowling over the wicket outside the batsman's leg stump. One could understand the tactic being applied if England had failed to contain Tendulkar in the orthodox way. But when it is used from the first ball and that too against all the batsmen, not just the little champion, then it smacks of a cynical attitude which is detrimental to the game.
Though there is a provision in the Test match playing conditions for applying the one-day rule for wides down the legside, perhaps the wording which says 'pitching outside leg stump and going further away' may have dissuaded the umpires from calling wides. Giles was getting just a bit of turn which meant that though the ball was pitching outside leg stump it wasn't going further away but coming in ever so slightly towards the batsman. Only a bold umpire would have called it a wide and hopefully when the elite panel of umpires takes over from April 2002 they will tell the captains in no uncertain terms that they will clamp down on such deliveries and call them wides. Since that panel is still to be appointed, not too many umpires are going to run the risk of falling foul of the captains, for their reports will make a difference to the appointments to the panel.
An umpire can officiate flawlessly for 29 hours and 50 minutes of a Test match but it is the 10 minutes or so when he makes the odd error that will make the captain of the team suffering from these errors to give him low marks. Perhaps a fairer assessment of the umpires will come if captains give a daily report. This will give an idea whether the umpire has had a bad match or just a bad day.
Also, a third report from a respected former cricketer or umpire will go a long way in giving a more balanced assessment of an umpire's capabilities. There is the match referee's report too apart from the captains' reports. But many times the match referee and the third country umpire tend to stick together as they are foreigners in the country they are officiating in. Without casting any aspersions on the match referee's integrity there is always the possibility of this friendship coming in the way of a totally unbiased assessment. That's why the suggestion of a third assessment by a former cricketer or umpire with impeccable integrity who has no axe to grind.
In the fiercely competitive world of sport, the spirit of the game is often forgotten by the players. So you need officials who will be firm and tell the leader of his responsibility to the game and the paying public. Such officials need the total support of the administrators so that they can boldly enforce the rules of the game. The sport is far too precious for some cynical, faint-hearted skippers to interpret the rules solely for their team's advantage and forgetting the greater good of the game.
It may no longer be a gentleman's game, the uncouth sledgers have seen to that, but it is still a contest between bat and ball and not ball and pads.
The year began superbly for India with a stupendous victory over the world champions Australia - that too coming back after a three-day drubbing in the first Test - and ended miserably in the rain and disagreeable tactics.
Hopefully, the New Year will be a memorable cricketing year. And A Happy New Year to you all!
http://www.sportstaronnet.com/tss2502/25020260.htm
Unattainableguy
State 12th Man
I'm sure that will add more excitement to the series, so let's hope that happens.Anil said:
Lakshmipathy Balaji has injured his rib during the 2nd one-day and Ajith Agarkar is now included in the 15-member squad as his cover. According to some websites, board officials say he'll still be in the squad but is unlikely to play. http://thatscricket.indiainfo.com/2005/odi_series/ind-pak/0504agarkar.html
Last edited:
deeps
International 12th Man
afridi proved he shouldn't be opening in the one day matches. he shouldn't come in the first 12 or 13 overs, but anytime after that is fine.
Why do they persist with hafeez at 6 when he is a genunine opener is beyond me. If he is to be in the side, he should be opening. simple as that. i think it's time shahid nazir is unleashed
Why do they persist with hafeez at 6 when he is a genunine opener is beyond me. If he is to be in the side, he should be opening. simple as that. i think it's time shahid nazir is unleashed