Today's ODI between England & Australia, and specifically, Mike Hussey's decision not to walk when glancing Anderson to the keeper, has re-ignited debate on two important points in the cricketing world.
Firstly, walking - should batsman do it? Seems that we are split between two camps; Adam Gilchrist is the most notable person in the 'walker' camp & he generally does 'walk' when he's knicked something - upholding the honest side of the game. The other side are those who wait for the umpire. Partly this comes from a genuine belief that the Umpire should be the only person making the decisions, but I'm sure that there is also the hope that the Umpire can (and they do) miss something. This is what happened this evening.
In fact, there was one notable incident when W.G. Grace was, fairly, given out by the umpire. His response was "This crowd have come here to see me, and not you my fellow"... he didn't walk & the game continued!
I guess when it comes down to it 'walking' is a question of morals, and Hussey this evening showed which side he stood on (don't for one minute think I'm trying to say English batsmen don't do the same - they do).
At the time of the incident, Hussey was on 19 & Australia were in a bit of trouble on 108, still 48 short of victory. After the reprieve Hussey compiled 46 & led the Aussies to what was, in the end, a comfortable victory. However, the snickometer & super slo-mo both suggested he should have been given out (Hussey's face after the appeal told the same story) so why was he allowed to continue & change the game?
This brings me on to the 2nd debate, the use of technology in cricket. Now, I'm a big fan of Umpires & I believe that they do a fantastic job. However, if the technology is there then why not use it? To combat the constant appealing for technology, maybe introduce a 'challenge' system similar to that in trial in tennis...where each team can challenge 2 decisions per innings? With the amount of money involved in the game & a reliance on the men in the middle I think it wise to investigate the issue further..... imagine losing the World Cup as a result of a dubious decision (has happened in football, why not cricket!). Moving on.....
Well, England lost again but at least there where a few more positives to come from the game this time. Loye looked good on debut (although at 34 hardly one for the future) but couldn't stop yet another England batting collapse (from 52-0 to 155 all out) - a real reminder of the bad old days. On the plus side our bowlers performed admirably & came within a decision or two of stealing the game. In particular, Anderson looked good & got a bit of swing - he was unlucky not to take more wickets. Let's see how we go against the Kiwis in the next game....and one thing is certain, England still look a LONG way short of challenging for the World Cup (Australia for me are strong favourites).
One final point.... I think it's becoming evident that there is an advantage of sorts in bowling 2nd in the day/night ODI games. Whether it's the change in atmospheric pressure or what I'm not sure, but the extra swing in the ball definitely suggests an increased humidity lending a helping hand.
No comments:
Post a Comment