Love sport? Try betting on your favourite team and win!

 


Twitter

 

Recent Posts

Cricket news




Over and out

By Ian 3 years ago, at the end of April Add your comment below

The final live was every bit as loony as it must have appeared on telly, but it was still a cracking day out. Indeed, given we were staring at rain covers for the first couple of hours, any action was good action. Gilchrist’s innings was worth the entry fee alone. I also loved the partnership between Jayasuriya and Sangakkara. But no team, however plucky, could have maintained 8 an over against those bowlers in that light.

The ICC has yet again proved itself to be an ass, but it may have dodged a bullet on Saturday. It was lucky that Ponting won the toss and batted first. Had Sri Lanka posted, say, 230 runs for the Aussies to chase in the half-light, it would have been a tall order, even for them. If it had been the Lankans dragging their heels between deliveries to waste time and Malinga bowling 85 mph in the gloomy drizzle, it could have kicked off some ugly scenes in the crowd. Would Australia have accepted being dealt such a poor hand as graciously as Sri Lanka?

OK, so I’m stirring. The right team won and it would have been a travesty if Ponting’s men had been robbed by weather conditions. As my cabbie said the night before, “if you’re the best team, you’re the best team, and you deserve to win”. I’ll admit too that the Aussie supporters were excellent in our stand. Save, of course, for the shouts of ‘no-ball’ whenever Murali bowled – can you not just let it go?!

There is the temptation to dismiss the Aussie players as charmless automatons who grind out results, but that is a disservice. They have flair, instinct, guile and panache by the bucket load. The players’ celebrations at Gilchrist’s hundred and the ultimate victory (both times) were genuinely endearing. There is no arrogance, just well-earned confidence. It matters more to these Australians and so they deserve the glory. Thank goodness they can’t play forever.

Ian Valetine is a freelance journalist blogging who has blogged the World Cup for The Corridor

Tags: , , , |

11 Responses to “Over and out”

  • Michael wrote:
    April 30th, 2007 at 8.49 pm

    Who’s reading “Speed could face no-confidence motion” on CricInfo?

    From the BCCI:

    “We are not that satisfied,” Shah told the newspaper. “It is becoming more and more bureaucratic. My board is of the belief that cricket is a simple, enjoyable game, but that is not how it appears at present.

    I think I nearly choked. Cast the first stone why don’t you.

  • Rusty wrote:
    April 30th, 2007 at 9.51 pm

    Ian, you just can’t let it go, can you?

  • Ian wrote:
    May 1st, 2007 at 11.07 am

    Fair call, Rusty. I sat down to write a piece entirely in praise of Australian cricket and somehow the odd snide remark crept in. I probably need therapy.

  • glamorous_organ wrote:
    May 1st, 2007 at 3.40 pm

    Well stirred Ian.

  • Reverse Swing wrote:
    May 3rd, 2007 at 9.58 pm

    No, they can’t ‘just let it go’ Ian – and they are quite right not to, bearing in mind the authorities have totally washed their hands in such a cowardly manner.

    I was amazed to find, during the Sri Lanka/New Zealand semi just how easy it was to pick Murali’s doosra… because the arm is SO bent at the point of delivery swhen he ‘bowls’ it that it’s impossible to miss it.

    In my book, that’s a throw. It’s a scandal that he’s been able to get away with it.

  • Ian wrote:
    May 4th, 2007 at 1.52 pm

    Is that not the crux of the Murali question? It looks like a throw, but it has been proved it isn’t. There were matches in the WC, when a few of us agreed that Shaun Tait ‘looked’ like he was chucking it. He wasn’t, but he looked like he was. Freddy sometimes ‘looks’ like he’s throwing it. He isn’t.

    My point is that until Murali is no-balled in the match by the umpire or sanctioned by the ICC, then he isn’t a chucker and should be left alone. Shouting ‘no-ball’ whenever he runs in is unfair and a bit football…

    Or am I being soft? Personally, I think the guy’s a genius and one of the great cricketing characters.

  • Reverse Swing wrote:
    May 4th, 2007 at 6.40 pm

    There’s a world of difference between the ‘bend’ in Shaun Taits arm (or Freddies arm) and the bend in Murali’s arm when he bowls his doosra.

    The ICC granted a ‘degree of difficulty’ of 15% – but take a look at some photos of Murali bowling and you can see an angle of nearer 45 degrees.

    Yes, he’s a wonderful character and human being – friends of mine at Lancashire say he was fantastic when he played there a few years ago… but he’s still a cheat.

  • Coalster wrote:
    May 8th, 2007 at 9.46 am

    I never thought I’d be sticking up for Murali, but the point is not whether the arm is bent, but by how much it straightens – that is the 15 degree (not percent) allowance.

    If the arm is bent at a right angle, and it stays bent at a right angle (or up to 15 degrees straighter) throughout, then it is a legal delivery

  • Reverse Swing wrote:
    May 9th, 2007 at 10.15 pm

    Yes, but Murali’s arm patently doesn’t ’stay’ at 15 degrees throughout delivery.

    When he bowls the doosra it starts at around 50 degrees, and ends up pretty straight.

    That’s a throw.

  • Michael wrote:
    May 10th, 2007 at 1.34 am

    Just go download a few photo’s of Murali bowling. Quite conclusive – massive bending but massive straightening.

  • Coalster wrote:
    May 10th, 2007 at 9.42 am

    I repeat, it doesn’t have to “stay” at 15 degrees. In the laws as they stand, the arm can straighten by up to 15 degrees and it is not a throw.

    So to labour the point, if the arm is bent at 35 degrees to start with, and at no point is straighter than 20 degrees, then that would be a valid delivery.

    If photo evidence is so conclusive, why has it not been collated and presented in one place before now?
    Photos, like TV pictures foreshorten the image so are not necessarily conclusive anyway (look up foreshortening on wikipedia), but the biomechanical tests undertaken at the University of Western Australia are more accurate.

    Also in Murali’s defence is the footage shot of him bowling wearing a brace on his elbow which physically prevented the elbow from moving more than allowed.

    The law is an ass in that having a degree of tolerance in the straightening means that its not clear cut what is a throw, however, all bowlers straighten their arm to some degree (reference: http://sport.independent.co.uk/cricket/article320493.ece) so its a necessary evil.

    However, some people are so one-eyed that they choose to simply dismiss the available scientific evidence and claim things that have been shown to be untrue

    • Comments


    Receive email updates on new comments


    « Mark Shields and Peter Moores: separated at birth? | Main | The Woolmer case on Panorama tonight »