.comment-link {margin-left:.6em;}

Sight Screen

Wednesday, November 23, 2005

So..what'll it be?(-worma)

Once again its a similar story of misfortune(Afridi antics notwithstanding) and missed chances for the Pakistan team. Salman Butt was the center of attention this time. Having been denied a run on the last ball of an Udal over by the umpire (for running on the pitch) he was out on the re-bowled delivery. And usually, atleast from what I've seen, the umpires caution such a player(atleast once) before giving an offical warning.
"I haven't got much to say. It was the umpire's decision. He was just trying to tell me to stay away from patches of the wicket in my running. He didn't have a word with me before the first warning."

Also Osman's take on the day's events, mainly focusing on Pakistan's safety first approach. And the tone of his comments is pretty much in tune with the balance on this exciting match, going into the last day.
The indecision within Pakistan can be defended with some conviction. It can be argued, after all, that a Test series win - with any scoreline - is vital for a side that hasn't won any series in nearly two years. But equally forcefully, it can also be argued that, with another Test match to play, Pakistan should've pressed harder today and sealed the series here.


  • Is Ruchir OFF today ??..
    Sorry Worma , nothing against you.
    It is just I wait for him to do round up before getting active with blogging for the day :)

    By Blogger Pankaj Tripathi, at 10:10  

  • dunno Pankaj.

    By Blogger worma, at 10:11  

  • worma,
    Salman Butt was given an official warning. It was upon his second offence that the run was denied. The fact of the matter is that he did run on the danger area both times. It's not like he was given out for running on the pitch, he got out lbw to Udal-- that's not the umpires fault. I wonder if all the attention Hair is paying to infringement of the danger area (Kaneria while bowling and Butt while batting) is due to his perception, based on Afridi's antics, that the Pakistanis are trying to rough up the wicket? Would he be scrutinixing the matter so much if Afridi had not deliberately tried to deteriorate the condition of the pitch? I suspect not.

    P.S. Funny thing is that Inzamam was actually a bigger culprit of running on the pitch following the Butt dismissal, but was not called for it. He ran right down the middle of the pitch all the way to the other end and back.

    By Blogger Sahir, at 10:15  

  • so Butt is saying that he wasn't warned before the official warning?

    By Blogger worma, at 10:18  

  • sahir: and I think you're right about Hair being suspiscious...gave two warnings to Kaneria...and then this. Pakistan probably paying the price of Afridi tactics

    By Blogger worma, at 10:21  

  • it appears that the umpires are being very critical of pak players actions. given this and considering that the match is gonna have a tight finish tomorrow i think there will be a few decisions that wont be given in favor of pak when they bowl

    By Blogger JD, at 10:26  

  • Worma,
    I like your presentations and comments.

    As far as this match is concerned,I think that the match will end in a draw since it is tough to have full 90 overs. I think we'll end up with 80-82 overs for the day, and even if england manages to wrap Pak in 20 overs, it'll be tough for them to get 200 odd runs in 60 overs or so.

    By Blogger santa_from_NJ, at 10:29  

  • santa
    hope. there is always hope. i hope england pull off the impossible

    By Blogger GK, at 10:30  

  • santa: yeah if Pak use up 20 overs then tough. 10 overs is what Eng can afford. I would think 230-250 in 70-80 overs (yeah even with fading light) is what Eng would dare to go after (well..they'll start going after *any* target, but this is what they would harbor serious hopes of pulling off) and then decide by the time Freddie arrives as to what next to do, whether to drop anchor. Also chances of a KP promotion in batting order?

    and thx.

    By Blogger worma, at 10:36  

  • Dada got 5 wkts in Ranji game today.. Guess he is more of a bowling all rounder now :)

    By Blogger Ridham, at 11:23  

  • Itna sannata Kyo hain Bhai....?

    Is everybody busy catching a turkey?

    By Blogger santa_from_NJ, at 11:23  

  • Worma:
    From a different post -
    And indeed, the English team proves again that it cannot win or lose or even draw a match in a straightforward manner.

    I didn't get it - what was done by England which was not straight forward...?

    By Blogger ravi2206, at 11:27  

  • worma,
    Osman, your favorite writer..did he have a take on Afridi digging the pitch? I know he had a take on Inzi runout!

    By Blogger CrickTip, at 11:29  

  • This match can go either way. If we survive the first hour though without losing Inzi or another wicket or at least without getting all out, then I would breath a massive sigh of relief.

    The positive for Pakistan though, is that no matter how many runs we get, 220, 230, or 250, England will go for the win, because they have no other choice. Consequentially they will play their shots, and they will gave us a chance of taking the 10 wickets we would need to win the game.

    After Multan, I wouldn't rule out this Pakistan attack bowling out this England side in about 2 and a bit sessions. Shoaib is in excellent touch, and he's due a magical five for nothing type of spell. I'm just as hopeful as GK of us pulling off the improbable (GK: I tend to think nothing is impossible in such matches)

    On Darrell Hair, his interpretation of the law regarding players running on the danger (protected) area is seemingly more hardline and zero-tolerant then any other umpire in the world.

    Butt can not blame Hair for going back to a delivery he should have come forward to, but we can ask, as fans, why (YET AGAIN) Hair only seems to apply his hardline policies on one of the sides playing. The way in which Butt ran during the 1st official warning (and the 2nd even for that matter)is a way in which I have seen numerous batsmen, including English ones in this game, run. I just ask for consistency that's all. And as some one else said, the only occasion when Pakistan deserved a warning was when Inzi run straight down the middle to a ball from Fred. So his consistency certainly does carry a question mark, unless he plans to claim he didn't warn Inzi because he reminds him of how he looked when he was younger :p (an unlikely possibility!).

    By Blogger Zainub, at 11:39  

  • worma,
    Sorry for the late reply, but yes, Butt did mean there was no unofficial warning, so to speak, before the initial warning.

    I agree with you on Hair's inconsitency. However, I am not referring as much to his inconsistency within the game, but his inconsistency compared to the rest of the umpires in the world. Hair is the only one that follows the strict letter of the laws. If all umpires did this around the world, then I would not have as much of a problem with it, after all rules are rules, but when one chooses to be so righteous and smug, players new to the international scene, like Salman Butt, are caught unawares. The ICC needs to consistently have umpiring conferences with all the elite umpires and discuss, using video analysis of decisions and events, how umpires are expected to interpret the laws. There has to be some sort of uniformity. Similar to the challenge of any legal system, written laws can be interpreted in a number of ways by different readers. It is the responsibility of the Supreme Court of the land, or the ICC in the instant case, to provide the guidance necessary to ensure as uniform interpretation of the laws as possible.

    By Blogger Sahir, at 12:12  

  • I just wish so much time had not been lost to bad light. Already 41 overs have been lost. If it was not for that, we would be assured a result and thrilling final day run chase. Of course, the match is still very interestingly poised.

    By Blogger Sahir, at 12:31  

  • ravi2206: what I meant there was that Eng make interesting match out of dead situations (sometimes when they are in their favour, they mess up...sometimes when against they play a superb charged up small spell to make it interesting)...and sometimes...as of today....when it was almost looking like a draw....with honours even....they again make it interesting.

    zainub: as I said...probably Hair's more cautious with Pakistani players because of the Afridi incident?

    cricktip: Osman is my favourite writer for when he writes its insightful, balanced and yet without lack of opinion and for his good hold knowledge of Pakistani cricket. That does not mean that he (or any other good writer) needs to write about everything, for me to like the writing. But anyway, this is what he had to say about the Afridi incident:

    As well as the decisions and the blast that briefly disrupted play on an incident-filled day, umpires also spoke to Inzamam about some players running onto the pitch during the disruption in an effort, allegedly, to scuff up the pitch. From television replays, Shahid Afridi appeared to have been the culprit but Inzamam refused to elaborate. "The umpires told me about it but I didn't see who had done it. I don't know much about it so I can't comment on that further."

    The identity was seemingly confirmed at the end of the day when it was announced that Afridi is to appear at a hearing with the match referee this evening.

    By Blogger worma, at 12:33  

  • Eng will go for a win but I think Pak is second only to Aus in bowling out a team in the 4th innings. Somehow they get their game together (not that they haven't been playing well this series) but more so than others. Its going to be an exciting final day for sure.

    By Blogger ClannZĂș, at 12:50  

  • If he is being more harsh purposely to the rest of the team because of that one 'moment of madness' from Afridi, then I have to ask why? Afridi is an individual that is part of the team, his actions in this case did not by any means reflect the intentions of the team. If that incident is having a bearing on his umpiring regarding the implementation of this law then it is very unfair I must say on the rest of the team. The 2 warnings can cost Pakistans runs now. Why should the (stupid) acts of an individual bring into question the integrity of the rest of the team?

    By Blogger Zainub, at 14:02  

  • ps: light was always going to be a factor if you play matches at this time of the year in Punjab.

    By Blogger Zainub, at 14:09  

  • zainub: how can the umpire know that Afridi's action do not reflect on the team? Cricket is a team sport..and the umpire is not wrong to thing that it could be a team strategy...no? I dont think his being harsh on the team is unfair as long as what he does is within the law and done for Eng players also if they committ same mistake. But you have to take into account the fact that cricket is a team sport. Did you read the post which I made..if Pakistan player(s) are further found to be involved in pitch transgression (even if unintentionally) there is going to be 5 runs added to Eng total!....doesnt that mean its a team punishment? And often, for not completing overs on time....its the entire team who is fined. There are many such examples

    By Blogger worma, at 14:32  

  • This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    By Blogger Zainub, at 14:38  

  • Afridi cheated. None of the rest of the team did. To be purposely harsh on Salman Butt or xyz member of the team suspecting them of the same sort of cheating, is harsh. It might be fair a/c to the rules but it is unfair in the moral context. I can't help but feel sorry for the rest of the team

    By Blogger Zainub, at 14:40  

  • This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    By Blogger Zainub, at 14:40  

Post a Comment

<< Home