Ensign Lestat's back (finally)!
Wow! What a day of cricket! I don't think I've seen Ian Bell play better than I have today. He was timing the ball sweetly and seemed on top of his game. I'm also glad to see Eoin Morgan back in the runs. It was a worry when he again got out for a duck in the first innings; but as my sister said, he's either a duck or a fifty man. He needs to make more than that; much more, if he's to make himself a mainstay in the team.
Of course, I'm not sure how much of these innings are going to be remembered. As Bumble said at the end, it's a memorable day for lots of reasons. And mostly because of the last ball before tea. The coverage we received was at that time following Praveen Kumar, who fielded the ball at fine leg. He did an admirably pathetic job at stopping the ball, before his knee was able to kick it to the left of him. I was rather disappointed it hadn't gone for four actually, would've been a positive way to end the session.
Then however, suddenly we were in the midst of chaos, with Michael Holding saying 'this is interesting' several times over. Bell and Morgan ran three, then they both tapped down and Bell made his way to Morgan, stopping halfway, before receiving some signal of okay from Morgan, to continue to the other end of the pitch. They were oblivious to what was happening behind them, which was that the ball was thrown back to the Indian fielder Mukund who consequently took the bails off. All this, to me at least, seemed to happen in a casual manner. No one was intent on getting anyone out. But there was an off-screen appeal. The batsmen were asked to return to the crease and the umpires began discussing the issue before asking for the third umpire referral. Of course, the referral proved that Bell was out of his crease and hence out. The result was a foregone conclusion when the camera turned to Bell furiously shouting at the third umpire about the over being called or something. It was evident that Bell had his heart in his mouth, and his stomach tied in knots. He had the air of a man who had just done the most embarrassing thing in the universe - he'd screwed up, majorly.
He was given out and the players walked off. Nothing was said, or at least I didn't see anything. Stuart Broad and Andrew Strauss were out on the balcony, Strauss shaking his head, and Broad with the deepest furrow between his brows. Again, nothing said by the players, but Shane Warne, in the commentary box began a tirade of 'it's not in the spirit of cricket'.
All right, I thought, this is the most pathetic situation ever. Bell was on 137 at the time. And my heart sunk at the thought that he would not be able to contribute any more. But what really worried me was that this is a series against India. There's been enough talk about the inability to use the DRS for lbws. Then, to stir up more controversy, Michael Vaughan mentioned Vaseline affects hotspot decisions. All this because VVS Laxman was given not out yesterday. I didn't see that decision so I can't comment. But it's really the height to accuse a player of essentially cheating, Vaughan should know better. And young Broad, who got a six-for which included a hattrick, (yeah, I missed that too) should not dwell on the negative. Morgan today got out caught in the slips to the faintest of faint edges. Hotspot picked it up all right, so it's ludicrous to complain that hotspot doesn't pick up the faint edges. Jeez, Broad! Don't kowtow to your ex-captain.
Right, back to the matter at hand. I had twenty minutes of the tea break to tear my hair out and explain the situation to my sister who had (thankfully) fallen asleep during the run out. I explained to her that this is all New Zealand's fault - they ran out Muralitharan when he was celebrating Kumar Sangakkara's hundred in 2006 (I read this on cricinfo's live scorecard). She insists that New Zealand had every right to run Murali out. This is said by a staunch Kiwi supporter (like me), so I don't really believe her. She also reminded me of the time that Shaun Pollock ran out Kevin Pietersen (not sure which year) after KP had collided with Polly. KP ended up injuring his arm, she reminded me, and was upset by the whole situation. But it was out! Polly said he and KP had kissed and made up, but I think that was only after the series.
This entire blog of mine originally began after I had watched the highlights of the England versus New Zealand match where Grant Elliot was run out after colliding with England's Ryan Sidebottom. Paul Collingwood was England captain at the time, and he was pilloried for his decision to uphold the appeal. He was unfairly banned for poor overrates, and couldn't even appeal the decision. He was widely derided and Kiwi captain Daniel Vettori and his team didn't even come out to shake England's hands at the end of the match. I sided with Colly there, and probably still do.
So my heart sank when the tables were turned this time around. Bell was going great guns and we all looked forward to seeing more of him. It didn't help that I had two opposing parties shouting their thoughts out. On one side, my India-supporting Dad, who has the rules down to pat, was rightfully blaming Bell for being an idiot. (He was also annoyed with Shane Warne's 'not in the spirit of the game' comment. As an Aussie, Warne should know that in these cases you should just SHUT UP! No one will ever believe Aussies play in the spirit of the game, even though they're probably fairer than most other teams out there. It's sad but true. And despite it all they remain my favourite team). On the other hand was my sister, England-supporter to the core, they can do no wrong in her eyes. She cited all the above examples, mostly as how they were different from what had just happened. To tell you the truth, it's no different (in my eyes) to the Kiwi/ Murali decision. He ran out of his crease, Brendon McCullum ran him out. I don't know what I think of that decision, actually. I mean, the guy is celebrating his (I think) captain's century, leave him alone! But no. So, as I've mentioned earlier, this was a precedent set for Bell. Anyway, with both parties vociferously arguing, out come the umps and India to loud boos. Followed by a shot of the England team, on the balcony, applauding. I couldn't figure out why they were applauding till I saw Bell come on to the field. During Tea, MS Dhoni, India captain, had revoked the appeal, and Bell was not out. India and umps were applauded for a long time after that and my sister was most happy. We agreed that had the decision been upheld it would have made this already tense series rather ugly. A series against India is always tense - you never know when something harmless, either said or done, will stir up controversy. Every team is the bad guy when it comes to the Indian media (okay, granted, probably all media feel the same way about their respective teams, but having been bombarded by Indian news all my life, I can comment on that).
A statement was released later explaining that the appeal was revoked in 'the spirit of the game' (yet again!), and it shows the great relationship between the ECB and the BCCI! That's a whole load of nonsense! The boards couldn't have had much to do with it. Surely not!
That is beside the point. Now MS Dhoni will not be maligned or vilified like Colly, New Zealand and Polly were. And Bell had a lucky escape. But, can one say that Bell was being stupid and Dhoni playing unfair? That was half-said in the Murali-NZ case. Sunil Gavaskar, the great cricket complainer, I mean, player, complained that NZ (being a Western country) had, as usual, played unfairly, and had the tables been turned it would not have happened at all. Commentators sitting in for an Australia series right after the Murali incident, blamed Murali's stupidity - what was he doing leaving the crease!
An interesting point made by Bumble during commentary was that had this been the other way around and Sachin Tendulkar was run out by England, what would the umpires have said then? Uh, nothing! Tendulkar wouldn't do anything to risk being out (unless it's playing a shot). But, say if it happened, what then? England would appeal like no tomorrow - that's the truth. Would the umps give it out? Hmmm... The laws are the laws. But that's not stopped umps from keeping that finger down before.
So where do I stand? Don't know. My heart would love to say it's all wrong, they shouldn't even have appealed, but what the hell! From what I could tell, Bell thought 'this is tea'. He now knows better than that. It isn't Tea till the umpire's drinking it!
(All this is written before statements and press conferences are given about the Bell run out).
Wow! What a day of cricket! I don't think I've seen Ian Bell play better than I have today. He was timing the ball sweetly and seemed on top of his game. I'm also glad to see Eoin Morgan back in the runs. It was a worry when he again got out for a duck in the first innings; but as my sister said, he's either a duck or a fifty man. He needs to make more than that; much more, if he's to make himself a mainstay in the team.
Of course, I'm not sure how much of these innings are going to be remembered. As Bumble said at the end, it's a memorable day for lots of reasons. And mostly because of the last ball before tea. The coverage we received was at that time following Praveen Kumar, who fielded the ball at fine leg. He did an admirably pathetic job at stopping the ball, before his knee was able to kick it to the left of him. I was rather disappointed it hadn't gone for four actually, would've been a positive way to end the session.
Then however, suddenly we were in the midst of chaos, with Michael Holding saying 'this is interesting' several times over. Bell and Morgan ran three, then they both tapped down and Bell made his way to Morgan, stopping halfway, before receiving some signal of okay from Morgan, to continue to the other end of the pitch. They were oblivious to what was happening behind them, which was that the ball was thrown back to the Indian fielder Mukund who consequently took the bails off. All this, to me at least, seemed to happen in a casual manner. No one was intent on getting anyone out. But there was an off-screen appeal. The batsmen were asked to return to the crease and the umpires began discussing the issue before asking for the third umpire referral. Of course, the referral proved that Bell was out of his crease and hence out. The result was a foregone conclusion when the camera turned to Bell furiously shouting at the third umpire about the over being called or something. It was evident that Bell had his heart in his mouth, and his stomach tied in knots. He had the air of a man who had just done the most embarrassing thing in the universe - he'd screwed up, majorly.
 |
| The umpire explains the situation to Ian Bell and Eoin Morgan. |
All right, I thought, this is the most pathetic situation ever. Bell was on 137 at the time. And my heart sunk at the thought that he would not be able to contribute any more. But what really worried me was that this is a series against India. There's been enough talk about the inability to use the DRS for lbws. Then, to stir up more controversy, Michael Vaughan mentioned Vaseline affects hotspot decisions. All this because VVS Laxman was given not out yesterday. I didn't see that decision so I can't comment. But it's really the height to accuse a player of essentially cheating, Vaughan should know better. And young Broad, who got a six-for which included a hattrick, (yeah, I missed that too) should not dwell on the negative. Morgan today got out caught in the slips to the faintest of faint edges. Hotspot picked it up all right, so it's ludicrous to complain that hotspot doesn't pick up the faint edges. Jeez, Broad! Don't kowtow to your ex-captain.
Right, back to the matter at hand. I had twenty minutes of the tea break to tear my hair out and explain the situation to my sister who had (thankfully) fallen asleep during the run out. I explained to her that this is all New Zealand's fault - they ran out Muralitharan when he was celebrating Kumar Sangakkara's hundred in 2006 (I read this on cricinfo's live scorecard). She insists that New Zealand had every right to run Murali out. This is said by a staunch Kiwi supporter (like me), so I don't really believe her. She also reminded me of the time that Shaun Pollock ran out Kevin Pietersen (not sure which year) after KP had collided with Polly. KP ended up injuring his arm, she reminded me, and was upset by the whole situation. But it was out! Polly said he and KP had kissed and made up, but I think that was only after the series.
This entire blog of mine originally began after I had watched the highlights of the England versus New Zealand match where Grant Elliot was run out after colliding with England's Ryan Sidebottom. Paul Collingwood was England captain at the time, and he was pilloried for his decision to uphold the appeal. He was unfairly banned for poor overrates, and couldn't even appeal the decision. He was widely derided and Kiwi captain Daniel Vettori and his team didn't even come out to shake England's hands at the end of the match. I sided with Colly there, and probably still do.
So my heart sank when the tables were turned this time around. Bell was going great guns and we all looked forward to seeing more of him. It didn't help that I had two opposing parties shouting their thoughts out. On one side, my India-supporting Dad, who has the rules down to pat, was rightfully blaming Bell for being an idiot. (He was also annoyed with Shane Warne's 'not in the spirit of the game' comment. As an Aussie, Warne should know that in these cases you should just SHUT UP! No one will ever believe Aussies play in the spirit of the game, even though they're probably fairer than most other teams out there. It's sad but true. And despite it all they remain my favourite team). On the other hand was my sister, England-supporter to the core, they can do no wrong in her eyes. She cited all the above examples, mostly as how they were different from what had just happened. To tell you the truth, it's no different (in my eyes) to the Kiwi/ Murali decision. He ran out of his crease, Brendon McCullum ran him out. I don't know what I think of that decision, actually. I mean, the guy is celebrating his (I think) captain's century, leave him alone! But no. So, as I've mentioned earlier, this was a precedent set for Bell. Anyway, with both parties vociferously arguing, out come the umps and India to loud boos. Followed by a shot of the England team, on the balcony, applauding. I couldn't figure out why they were applauding till I saw Bell come on to the field. During Tea, MS Dhoni, India captain, had revoked the appeal, and Bell was not out. India and umps were applauded for a long time after that and my sister was most happy. We agreed that had the decision been upheld it would have made this already tense series rather ugly. A series against India is always tense - you never know when something harmless, either said or done, will stir up controversy. Every team is the bad guy when it comes to the Indian media (okay, granted, probably all media feel the same way about their respective teams, but having been bombarded by Indian news all my life, I can comment on that).
A statement was released later explaining that the appeal was revoked in 'the spirit of the game' (yet again!), and it shows the great relationship between the ECB and the BCCI! That's a whole load of nonsense! The boards couldn't have had much to do with it. Surely not!
That is beside the point. Now MS Dhoni will not be maligned or vilified like Colly, New Zealand and Polly were. And Bell had a lucky escape. But, can one say that Bell was being stupid and Dhoni playing unfair? That was half-said in the Murali-NZ case. Sunil Gavaskar, the great cricket complainer, I mean, player, complained that NZ (being a Western country) had, as usual, played unfairly, and had the tables been turned it would not have happened at all. Commentators sitting in for an Australia series right after the Murali incident, blamed Murali's stupidity - what was he doing leaving the crease!
An interesting point made by Bumble during commentary was that had this been the other way around and Sachin Tendulkar was run out by England, what would the umpires have said then? Uh, nothing! Tendulkar wouldn't do anything to risk being out (unless it's playing a shot). But, say if it happened, what then? England would appeal like no tomorrow - that's the truth. Would the umps give it out? Hmmm... The laws are the laws. But that's not stopped umps from keeping that finger down before.
So where do I stand? Don't know. My heart would love to say it's all wrong, they shouldn't even have appealed, but what the hell! From what I could tell, Bell thought 'this is tea'. He now knows better than that. It isn't Tea till the umpire's drinking it!
(All this is written before statements and press conferences are given about the Bell run out).
Comments