Wednesday, January 9, 2008

Sydney Test Match


I was discussing about this the other day, with some of my friends, so figured, why not put it up here too. Just my views. Doubt they would be anything different here (from what everyone has already heard), but still.

The ban on Bhajji is an issue, but the more important issue is the umpiring decisions. In my opinion, removing the umpires is not the solution to such incidents.

What could actually be proposed as a solution, is the ICC issuing a directive that the Third Umpire WILL (as a rule) review ALL DECISIONS made by the field umpires and the third umpire's decision will be final.

BOTH OUT or NOT OUT decisions (made by the field umpire) have to be referred to the Third Umpire. If that is too much (considering how the bowlers appeal at almost every other ball), then at least the OUT decisions.

It is possible that, Bhajji's ban issue was being highlighted and given more importance, in an effort to steer away the attention from the blunders of umpiring that were witnessed. By no means am I saying that the Bhajji ban issue should be ignored. All I am saying is that the umpiring issue is MORE IMPORTANT and THAT should be given more attention rather than this monkey business.

Sensitive-Symonds might find the term MONKEY extremely offensive (for whatever reasons), but no way does it warrant a ban for three test matches. Perhaps a warning or a sensible fine would be sufficient.

The spirit of the game was seriously lacking in the entire match. Even if the umpires made a mistake or intentionally gave the wrong decisions, the Aussies - should have - at least for one decision - expressed that the decision was wrong (at least for the catch) - Ganguly given out - "CAUGHT" by Clarke.

It can still be termed as they (Aussies) were exploiting an opportunity and it would be stupid of them to tell the umpire that the other decisions were wrong, but AT LEAST SPEAKING OUT FOR THE CATCH-OUT DECISION.. would kind of - give them SOME consideration/leverage, something.

It got worse with Ponting actually saying that YES it is out, so did the fielders and so did Pup (Clarke) who "TOOK" the catch.

My view - the Australian team had a very good chance of winning the match - even without resorting to all this crap - and/or without the aide of the umpiring decisions. I had that opinion, even before the first ball of the first innings was bowled.

Arrogant, Aggressive, Abusive -whatever. Regardless of all that Aussies do have a consistent team and definitely the talent, ability and coordination to win the match. In my view they are the best cricket-playing side - at present (speaking only in terms of performance and not the attitude of the players).

During the discussion, some interesting (and funny) points were put up by a friend of mine - KK. Just sharing those here: -


- I suggest the players go on the field with restraint on the faces leat they makes uncontrollable curses in the pressure of the game...

- New words added to English dictionary:

Bucknor: (n) (adj)
1. Temporary blindness leading to missing out on the obvious.
2. To be at the wrong place at the wrong time.
3. Situations leading to grave judgmental errors.
Usage: I feel bucknored by my boss; Life often throws a bucknor at you.

Benson: (n) (adj)
1. Something that legitimises a severe bucknor.
Usage: First they bucknored me and then they bensoned it! I am toast.

0 Opinions: