| 
Posts and words
Loading ...
Steve Waugh would never have picked up the ball for his opponents. ‘Nuff said. Silly act by Murali - given they lost by 5 wickets, another 50 runs could have made the difference - just ask any member of the England XI.
It is all very curious
By Scott 3 years ago, mid-December Add your comment below
New Zealand wrapped up the First Test against New Zealand, winning by five wickets. The final day was not without controversy, after Muttiah Muralitharan was run out in strange circumstances.
Kumar Sangakkara had brought up his century with a neat flick down to third man. Murali finished the run, and without waiting for the ball to become dead, he motioned up the pitch to congratulate his team-mate. He had only advanced a few paces when the ball was returned from the deep and wicket-keeper Brendon McCullum promptly removed the bails, running him out.
It was a harsh act and Sri Lankan captain Mahela Jayawardene protested it was against the spirit of the game, but New Zealand captain Stephen Fleming pointed out that had the ball gone for overthrows, Sri Lanka would have gladly accepted them.
I can understand Sri Lankan fans being disappointed but it is the responsibility of the batsman to protect his wicket. Watching the Ashes, I have noticed that batsmen on both sides now refuse to pick up the ball in situations where they might do so in a club game, precisely to avoid the possibility of a controversial situation arising. To me, the bottom line is that Murali didn’t value his wicket highly enough, and he paid the price.
Your views?
Tags: brendon-mccullum, controversy, kumar-sangakkara, muttiah-muralitharan, new-zealand, run-out, sportsmanship, sri-lanka, sri-lanka-in-new-zealand, stephen-fleming |
13 Responses to “It is all very curious”
December 9th, 2006 at 12.11 pm
December 10th, 2006 at 1.31 am
Harsh, but fair.
Murali more than “motioned” up the pitch, he ground his bat then back he went. Immediately. Out of the corner of his eye McCullum would have assumed Murali was starting off for a second run as the ball came in and was well within his rights to clip the bails. Murali won’t do it again, and neither will other cricketers. A timely heads-up, and all that. Lucky it wasn’t one of our boys.
I’ve only seen it once, but wasn’t it a flick to fine leg?
December 10th, 2006 at 4.57 am
He was well and truly out.soul-destroying way to be out, but legitimate.
Anyway, a Sri Lankan complaining about a breach of the Spirit of Cricket? Give it a rest. I remember Fat-Bastard Ranatunga’s captaincy. If you quizzed him about the Spirit of Cricket, he’d draw a blank.
December 11th, 2006 at 2.38 am
about time the kiwis quit complaining about the under arm delivery which was legal at the time..
why did they complain so much about that then..
within the laws.. so it is a-ok…
same thing with this incident.. murali didn’t follow the rules..so he’s out..
he just took off..
December 11th, 2006 at 2.42 am
in regard to picking the ball up..
that pisses me off to no end because all pak players just can’t help doing it..
once laughing cow.. aka younis khan got hit by a throw while taking a run and the ball went down to third man.. he kept running and picked up the ball and brought it back to the keeper.. i was like what the hell dude…. by touching the ball you’re putting yourself at the mercy of the other team not appealing..
picking a ball that falls right at your feet is one thing.. but running all the way to nearly the third man boundary is just insane..
December 11th, 2006 at 10.48 am
You’ve said it:
“… the bottom line is that Murali didn’t value his wicket highly enough, and he paid the price.”
Well… what else is new about the guy? He has never valued his wicket.
All of the lessons from this sorry episode are to be drawn by Murali and Murali only. No use flogging the kiwis (although this is not to condone what they did… which stinks).
Murali needs to learn responsibility with a bat in his hand… he falls way too short too many times.
With a match at stake, and with his partner being the difference between victory for Sri Lanka and victory for New Zealand, Murali should have been more circumspect.
He acts too much like a kid in the park with a bat in his hand. Will he ever learn from this? Or will he continue to act with stupidity at no. 11.
We’ll have to wait and see. Pity… considering what a great bowler he is.
December 11th, 2006 at 1.44 pm
Muralitharan is not a batsman and he made a mistake.
However, New Zealanders certainly showed that are chicken-hearted after all.
December 11th, 2006 at 7.51 pm
I wonder how Kiwis won the spirit of the game award last year. This is the second time they have done this to a 11th man. Unsporty and disgraceful. Shame on you Mcallum and Fleming.
December 11th, 2006 at 8.11 pm
So what does the umpire say? His word is final.
My comment, using the spirit of the game, the umpire could have declined to rule out.
Of course, it is silly to assume that Sl would have taken overthrows.
December 12th, 2006 at 1.47 am
Ranatunga is retired and we’d never know what he would do but Astle and everybody who followed the Champion’s Trophy would know what the current Sri Lankan team would do. All the hypothetical “what would Ranatunga do” hot air doesn’t hide when we know about what the Kiwis do, consistently!
December 14th, 2006 at 2.05 pm
It was a schoolboy error. One of the first things you ever learnt was to stay in your crease until the ball is dead. The ball was quite clearly not dead and he was legitimately run out. It’s his own fault and someone with as much experience as Murali ought to know better. What’s worse is to have Jayawardene actually protest it - THAT is not in the spirit of the game!
January 17th, 2007 at 4.47 am
Mahela never protested it, he just raised the issue, it was his personal point of view. just like Flemmings. So was Kumar Sangkakaras when he had a similar chane to run out Astle and didnt do it. So was when Chapple brothers did the under arm bolwing, they were all personal choices and it only showed the character of each player. as the supporters it is up to us to interpret who played with in the rules of the game and with in the spirit of the game.
March 6th, 2007 at 5.37 pm
This is an age old story but I want to give a version
that is generally missed.
It was not stupidity on Murali’s part these things are obvious in the game - even if Mc Cullum instinctively ran him out - once they figured what had happend Flemming shud
hv called him back…
All other argument is useless……….
Comments
« Blimey Marto, we didn’t mean it! | Main | Warne’s little jab »
