There Are Two Teams Out There, One Of Them Is Trying To Play Cricket

[Jono]

Usually I just feel like giving him a light slap. But that time, he really needed a good fisting.

LOL!

 

[BoyBrumby]

I think you'll find a couple of slight errors in your recollections;

1) The shoulder-charge at Darren Gough was probably a little more blatant than you describe. Mahanama didn't just get in the way, he deliberately dropped the shoulder and pushed Gough out of the way. The slow-mo replays were really quite damning.

2) Gough's retaliation was to walk past Mahanama and pretend to head-butt him. He didn't touch him at all.

3) Alec Stewart, on the other hand, walked past Mahanama at the end of the over and essentially nudged him in the shoulder as he walked past. It 'looked' quite deliberate but, as someone who's obviously far more adept at doing this sort of thing and making it look at accident, there was a slight element of doubt with Stewart. It was pretty funny to watch Mahanama then protest at the umpire. After the earlier incident, if I was Stewart, I would have been tempted to lay him out personally.

But yeah that was one of the nastiest games I've seen. It overshadowed an awesome knock earlier in the day by Graeme Hick and an even better one chasing 300+ by Jayawardene. After that, notwithstanding Jayawardene's great innings, I thought that SL didn't deserve to win the match.

And as always, You Tube provides;

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=20Msqs-iQt4

Watch and be appalled!

(now let's see one person try to defend Mahanama's actions which, in light of his pontificating about fair play and sportsmanship post-retirement, are somewhat indefensible)

Funny to see Greig talking thru his poop chute as ever "One has to feel some sympathy for the Sri Lankans", no, one definitely doesn't. One might feel some sympathy for Murali, but their captain's actions were an absolute disgrace.

&, admittedly this really isn't really the point for this thread, but Vince Wells bowling the final over?! Our captains' handling of their bowling looks be be about as bad then as it is now!

 

[Craig]

What about Michael Holding and the rest of the West Indies attitude in New Zealand during the early 80's after some helpfull decision making aimed towards New Zealand?

I guess Bodyline is the grand-daddy of them all.

 

[_TiGeR-ToWn_]

1) Bodyline - pitiful and disgusting act of a cricket team that had no answer to 'The Invincibles'
2) That Underarm - such a strange decision by Chappell
3) Gavaskar walking off - immature dummyspit, was funny to see though.

They are my three favourites. But agree with what has been said already.

 

[steds]

Akhtar's beamer to Dhoni that followed no apology.

Tbf, It'd be bloody strange if Akhtar had said "I'm dreadfully sorry for this beamer I'm about to bowl at you, old chap. It'll be a complete accident. Or that will be my excuse anyway..."

 

[Goughy]

1) Bodyline - pitiful and disgusting act of a cricket team that had no answer to 'The Invincibles'

Without wanting to sound pedantic.
You are right that England had no answer to 'The Invincibles'. However, 'The Invincibles' were 1948 and Bodyline was 1932/33.

As for "pitiful and disgusting", I guess its a matter of which side of the fence you are on. There was a long history of fast leg theory before bodyline and fast short pitched bowling since. I think your description could be on the harsh side, especially given that you describe Chappells underarm ball as merely "strange"

 

[Burgey]

Without wanting to sound pedantic.
You are right that England had no answer to 'The Invincibles'. However, 'The Invincibles' were 1948 and Bodyline was 1932/33.

As for "pitiful and disgusting", I guess its a matter of which side of the fence you are on. There was a long history of fast leg theory before bodyline and fast short pitched bowling since. I think your description could be on the harsh side, especially given that you describe Chappells underarm ball as merely "strange"

The thing about both bodyline and the underarm incident is that both were within the rules of the game at the time. The fact that there was such an outcry against both says a lot about cricket and is one of the reasons why it is such a great game - it's about more than the letter of the law, it's about the spirit in which things are done.

Just thought of another controversial one - the use of substitute fielders so bowlers can just go off and have a rest, not when they are injured. I recall there being controversy in 81 in England when Lillee used to go off to change his shirt after a spell because he'd had pleuresy in the lead up to the tour and didn't want to risk further sickness. Interesting contrast to last year with the use of subs.

Personally, barring injury you should have to stay on, imo. That's why it's called a test - to test your physical endurance over 5 days, not to be able to go and put your feet up for 20 minutes after bowling 6 or 8 overs.

Sadly, the game is going the way of other professional psorts where the players seem to push the limits of umpires and the rules without thinking about the good of the game.