Collingwood’s decision

Quotehanger

"If they [England] keep losing series, and winning dead rubbers, then I think Australia will thrash them. They will wipe the floor with them."
Shane Warne issues the first Ashes salvo

Oct 7, 2008

The headlines

The news

TWC

Related pieces

Search

Eat your feeds

Posts

Comments

Who will win the series?
- India
- Australia
- Drawn (0-0)
- Drawn (2-2)
- Abandoned due to poor behaviour
View Results
Loading ...

Polls Archive

Sponsors ?

Cricinfo blogs

Cricinfo articles

Scorecards

No Match in progress..

By Will 4 months ago Leave a comment on this post

You’ll no doubt have heard of the rucus in south London by now. Ryan Sidebottom charged down the crease to collect the ball, trying to run out Grant Elliott. The pair collided, Elliott was flattened unceremoniously, and the batsman subsequently run out. The umpires asked Collingwood if he’d like to withdraw his appeal and, in a split second, he declined. Elliott was out.

It leaves a bitter taste doesn’t it? But as Daniel Vettori said, the whole mess would be considered far worse had New Zealand actually lost. That they overcame Collingwood’s clear error of judgement ought to reduce this to a storm in a tea cup.

I’ve never seen a New Zealand team so outraged, firstly, nor so pumped up when they won. Some of the language was decidedly fruity, and the scenes were pretty disgusting. Collingwood admitted he made the wrong decision - he’ll have to live with that forever now - but it was a pretty sad state of affairs to see Vettori and New Zealand close the door on him initially when he went to congratulate them.

Fortunately, cricket’s a bigger game than most, and 20 minutes later everyone had shaken hands.

Where do you stand on it all? I’m too knackered to pass judgement other than invite you to read a slightly broader piece.

Tags: collison, controversy, daniel-vettori, grant elliott, paul-collingwood, ryan-sidebottom |

Comments to “Collingwood’s decision” David Barry wrote:
June 26th, 2008 at 4.20 am

I think that Elliott should have watched where he was running, and that there was nothing wrong with Collingwood’s decision. I’m disappointed that he apologised for it.

Gonzo Cricket wrote:
June 26th, 2008 at 4.41 am

http://youtube.com/watch?v=pLDbfAFZSuQ

Did you look at it David?

Where on earth was Elliot meant to go ? Sidebottom charged into him.

Collingwood screwed up, and he should be bloody thankful England lost, as if they hadn’t, his reputation would be screwed completely.

godof86 wrote:
June 26th, 2008 at 5.14 am

Very nice article, William, and I cannot agree more about your dissertation of the Collingwood incident.

But here’s the question. The premise of the article, that the 50-over format is not dead yet, is questionable, in my humble opinion. I will tell you why.

a) This match was a great contest, and kept the viewers enthralled till the last ball was bowled. There was drama. But what, if any, made the excitement different from that in a well-played T20 match, I ask.

b) The controversies bolster the game, I agree. What would have happened had the same occurred between two T20 teams (say NewZealand’s T20 team and England’s)? The same, I presume.

c) I agree that T20 is a batsman’s game. But in all honesty, so is the ODI. How different is the drama between the bat and the ball in this match, that say for example, this one, where a canny old warlord ruffled a few feathers of another, and got his side a fascinating victory with his gentle dibbly-dobblies?

ODIs will go. ODIs will have to go. And it is good to see that, just like that aging warlord on that warm day in Eden Gardens Kolkata, ODIs too are not going out without a fight.

JII wrote:
June 26th, 2008 at 6.23 am

As you sow, so shall you reap!!! I can hear a certain Mutthiah Muralitharan & SL team chucking?. Collingwood might or might not have been wrong (I didn’t see it so doesn’t want to pass judgement), but NZ has no moral right to feel cheated. A team that runs out the opposition team’s No.11 while celebrating his partner’s milestone has no right whatsoever to complain.

profernity wrote:
June 26th, 2008 at 6.38 am

Moral equivalency arguments are not applicable. Each incident should be judged individually. Saying NZ has no right to complain lets Collingwood off the hook, simply because there comes a time when each team will cause some controversy regarding “spirit of the game”. The Murali run out that everyone loves to bring up has been widely condemned for a long time now, and besides NZ were thrashed soon afterwards by SL so for mine that’s the end of that and justice was served.

This particular run out should also be criticised, not because of who’s playing, but because it really should be a dead ball situation. Just because the two incidents involved NZ does not mean they cancel each other out.

Philip Oliver wrote:
June 26th, 2008 at 8.56 am

Maybe not profernity, but seeing Vettori and his team scramble for the moral high ground is a bit rich. All teams are as bad as each other when it comes to it, so they should stop with the holier than thou attitude.

Greg wrote:
June 26th, 2008 at 9.07 am

Good on the Kiwis! I have just read that Collingwood is to be punished for the slow English over rate. Not before time.

Q wrote:
June 26th, 2008 at 10.38 am

Its cricket it happens.

No reason for bad taste.

Nigel Molesworth wrote:
June 26th, 2008 at 10.52 am

It’s just not playing the game. It wasn’t a ’split-second decision’ as Collingwood was given the opportunity to withdraw the appeal, and he is right to regret it now. No point dwelling on it, though. Next time you nicked it to the keeper: walk, just do it, you’ll feel better for it, and so what if you lost your team a few million quid…

Adam wrote:
June 26th, 2008 at 11.29 am

I agree that it was wrong to claim the wicket. I also remember that New Zealand notoriously ran out that Sri Lankan batsman for walking out of his crease to congratulate his partner, which kind of ruins their right to claim the moral high-ground against England. Collingwood will feel guilty for the rest of his life for this, which is punishment enough. Cricket is a game with a very long memory - especially if you consider that Douglas Jardine used to run batsmen out backing up at school and I remember that shameful fact about the player almost a century later. Both sides were wrong, but the future’s in front of them and they should simply knock it off now rather than risk an escalation.

Tote Cricket King wrote:
June 26th, 2008 at 11.47 am

Pretty much identical to Pollock/KP in the Twenty20 for me. And I was really angry then, so I guess NZ have every right to be now!

Disgraceful behaviour, shame that cricket is more like that nowadays I’d love more honesty and sportsmanship in the game.

That said, Vetorri Shouting “f*ck off, f*ck off” at the end was far more anti-cricket than anything England did in my opinion.

JT wrote:
June 26th, 2008 at 12.47 pm

Our Kiwi brothers seemed to conveniently forget about the actions of Brendon McCullum against Sri Lanka last winter. Seems that one-way-streets exist on both sides of the Tasman.

Elliott wrote:
June 26th, 2008 at 1.38 pm

Will, you say…
“I’ve never seen a New Zealand team so outraged”

Remember this:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=iKNQ-crIr50

JII wrote:
June 26th, 2008 at 1.45 pm

BTW, I want to point out that there was no pun intended whatsoever in my previous comment.
‘I can hear a certain Mutthiah Muralitharan & SL team chucking?’ It was a typo & should be read as chuckling:-)

godof86 wrote:
June 26th, 2008 at 2.28 pm

Oh, and may I add, two wrongs do not make a right.

And as for “Collingwood will feel guilty for the rest of his life for this, which is punishment enough.”, I am not much of a believer in this divine justice theory.
Really, the players forget. The scoreboard remembers.

AgainsTTheWall wrote:
June 26th, 2008 at 2.48 pm

Im with David Barry on this. It was an accident. Elliot chose to run towards the ball knowing that fielders would be closing in. A split-second decision by him and a wrong one. Tough luck.

The NZers reaction was shameful.

youhavetobekidding wrote:
June 26th, 2008 at 10.16 pm

Well David and Against the wall. Sorry what game were you watching? Sidebottom charged into Elliot!! .

However lets forget that even if it was a collision the other way in the interests of the game and sportsmanship he should never have turned down the opportunity to call him back.

England has now been punished for a slow over rate which has already cost New Zealand the series as they would have won the rain affected match.

This should have happened last year with Collingwood getting suspended for slow over rates.

No excuses for the New Zealand behaviour but would have been interesting to see the press and English player reaction if the boot was on the other foot.

At the end of the day England do not play the one day game well and haven’t for several years so it would probably suit them to have 20/20 take over form ODI

Regards
Interested Aussie

Marcus wrote:
June 27th, 2008 at 1.06 am

“Sorry what game were you watching? Sidebottom charged into Elliot!”

Accidentally. He had every right to go for the ball. I don’t agree with Collingwood’s decision, but if this incident hadn’t occured I’m certain that he wouldn’t have beened banned so harshly. Four ODIs? Over rates are a problem, yes, but Collingwood wasn’t entirely responsible in this instance- how many interminable meetings did Mills and Gillespie have within the last couple of overs?

youhavetobekidding wrote:
June 27th, 2008 at 1.45 am

Well Marcus I dont know about whether he would have been charged with less if this hadnt happened.

My understanding is this was done by the ICC not the England/ Wales management so shouldnt have made a difference.

The problem for England is that their over rate has been poor for at least three series now so was going to happen sooner or later.

krusty wrote:
June 27th, 2008 at 1.47 am

I hadn’t seen the clip, so I followed Gonzo Cricket’s link and was quite amused to find that the ECB has claimed the video so it can no longer be watched. Anyone got another link?

David Barry wrote:
June 27th, 2008 at 2.28 am

Where should Elliott have run? Not to where fielders would be running. He should have run down the leg side of the pitch.

Steve wrote:
June 27th, 2008 at 6.32 am

what a lot of fuss about not a lot! So both sides got a bit uptight? Its not like either Colly or Vettori are usually unpleasant.

Of greater importance, I see India is still sticking to Zimbabwe like chewing gum.

Birds of a feather…

pod wrote:
June 27th, 2008 at 12.26 pm

agree steve.. the indian board’s actions are sick..

but it’ll be rather nice if you bring about a subtle change in the language used… “india” encompasses the country, fans, everyone.. the “indian board” is something else altogether..

trust me.. the whole world has gotten around to criticising the indian board only since the last 3-4 years maybe.. indian fans have been doing it for much longer.. most indian fans don’ like them either.. but we didn’t choose them, we didn’t elect them.. sadly enough, we don;t know of a way to get rid of them…

legally, it’s almost impossible!

AgainsTTheWall wrote:
June 27th, 2008 at 1.46 pm

Everyone is assuming that Elliot would have made his ground if the collision had nt occurred? But he was late setting off and he might not have beaten a pick up and throw by Sidebottom.

Perhaps he barged Sidebottom because he knew he was nt going to make it? No I dont really believe that any more than I believe Sidebottom deliberately barged Elliott. But maybe justice was done in this instance?

Comments

Name (required)

Mail (will not be published) (required)

Website

« The Wisden Cricketer magazine’s website | Main | Middlesex meet Lancashire in Twenty20 quarter-finals »

The Corridor (a cricket blog)

"Peering down the corridor of uncertainty. It’s about cricket, sport and journalism"