Print

Please post once and this message will disappear! Introduce yourself, say hello, jump into a discussion...

[Cover Point]

or so should all those who called Ponting, Clarke and Symonds a cheat should be saying.

http://www.prempanicker.com/index.php?/site/ishants_promise/

The English editor and critic Cyril Connelly, in his semi-autobiographical work Enemies of Promise wrote something that deserves to be carved in stone and hung around the neck of our sports broadcasters and newspaper editors: “Whom the gods wish to destroy they first call promising.”

Those words kept drumming through my mind Sunday, while watching the Australia-India ODI and listening to the raves about Ishant Sharma.

The lad is good, indubitably, and more to the point he is improving with every game. He has, thanks to the Tests, gone from nervous tyro to confident performer; the pace is increasing, the control over line and length is increasingly admirable; he seems to have the knack of sussing out a batsman and hitting the line and length that is optimal (the serial dismissals of Ricky Ponting are a study in how to bowl to a batsman who comes forward by rote, with hard hands and predetermined mayhem on his mind).

All of that said, haven’t we had enough of “discovering” raw talent, hyping it to the skies and killing said talent with our kindness? Ishant is, a national newspaper announced on the front page this morning, the “next superstar”!

Good for him and hope he gets there soon—but in the interim, how about just giving the kid the space he needs, to grow, develop, become something approaching the finished article?

On another note, not so long ago, we were as a collective hugely indignant over perceived honesty, or its lack. How, we asked (and I include myself in that list) do we trust a putative captain who claims catches he couldn’t be sure of, or stands hoping for a reprieve after under-edging to the slips? How do we trust the word of a captain who clearly grasses a catch he then vociferously claims, and later the same evening suggests that his integrity is unimpeachable? How much faith do we put in the word of an all-rounder who wafts at a ball outside off stump, gets an edge so clear the sound is almost deafening, stands at the wicket in po-faced innocence, celebrates his reprieve with a match-turning century and then says he knew he was out all along?

Valid questions, all—but to that, here is one more: Will we now employ that same argument when judging the credibility of Sachin Tendulkar, whose edge yesterday was as audible as Symonds’, and whose expression of innocence equally worthy of high honors at the Oscars? Or do we turn the tap of our “righteous indignation” on and off, depending on whether the umpires rob us, or them? Is this like the wit’s definition of ‘irregular verbs’: My son is exuberant, hyperactive, full of life; yours is a noisy, destructive, insufferable brat who needs a clout on the side of the head?

Just asking, is all.
On a personal note, sorry I had to abandon you guys to your own devices all of last week—work swamped me totally. Hopefully this week will be better—but not this day; off in a few to the other end of town to do an interview that I then need to transcribe and write out, so that will take the rest of my day. Back in here tomorrow… till then, take care.

[kban1]

What a BS argument

The situation of  knowingly claiming a false or doubtful catch is not the same as walking as a batsman.

Nobody accused Symmonds of being a cheat for not walking.

And on a completely different but ultimately irrelevant (to the discussion) note, only a person with no cricketing nous or one motivated by the need to spin a story would equate the Symmonds edge (plapable to all) to SRT;s faint nick (so faint that it could only established be via snicko and not visual replays).

[caught and bowled]

What a BS argument

The situation of  knowingly claiming a false or doubtful catch is not the same as walking as a batsman.

Nobody accused Symmonds of being a cheat for not walking.

And on a completely different but ultimately irrelevant (to the discussion) note, only a person with no cricketing nous or one motivated by the need to spin a story would equate the Symmonds edge (plapable to all) to SRT;s faint nick (so faint that it could only established be via snicko and not visual replays).

Totally agree, especially with the highlighted part...

[WicketView]

Unfortunately, I believe I saw some articles which called Symonds a cheat for that. SMG had a slightly different POV. He questioned whether a person who does not walk when he knows he is out can be relied on to call correctly on catches.


I believe a person can practise that, but having such agreements is crap. Because it seems that there is no backup against breaking these agreements. Also, if anyone were to believe the Australians that theirs' was an honest mistake, I would question the wisdom of relying on a players words when the camera can deal with it so much better.

Anyway, getting back to the point. Yes, SRT did nick it, and benefitted from the umpires wrong decision. I have the impression that this is not the first time either.

[Cover Point]

why question cricketing nous in this case. Someone had an opinion and voiced it. Like many do.

Anyway ... just shows that we need technology in the game and right now!!! That gilly decision was horrible ... worse or as bad as the Dravid decision from the sydney test. If India had lost yesterday and those decisions had gone against us I can guarantee you that we would have had a lot of hulla in the press

[Cernunnos]

Unfortunately, I believe I saw some articles which called Symonds a cheat for that. SMG had a slightly different POV. He questioned whether a person who does not walk when he knows he is out can be relied on to call correctly on catches.

SMG as usual is correct. That's why when Lara (who was a walker) told Dhoni that he vouched
for the catch on the boundary, his word should have been taken then and there.
Ideally that is is the way cricket should be played. The spirit of the game is more important
than whether a particular dismissal is right or wrong.

[justforkix]

Anyway, getting back to the point. Yes, SRT did nick it, and benefitted from the umpires wrong decision. I have the impression that this is not the first time either.

Well, Sachin said after the game that he did not feel any nick and would have walked if he felt he had nicked it.....

[OldPal]

Anyway, getting back to the point. Yes, SRT did nick it, and benefitted from the umpires wrong decision. I have the impression that this is not the first time either.

Well, Sachin said after the game that he did not feel any nick and would have walked if he felt he had nicked it.....

Does he gets right to play while he feels not out and there is an umpiring error ?

[justforkix]

Anyway, getting back to the point. Yes, SRT did nick it, and benefitted from the umpires wrong decision. I have the impression that this is not the first time either.

Well, Sachin said after the game that he did not feel any nick and would have walked if he felt he had nicked it.....

Does he gets right to play while he feels not out for and there is an umpiring error ?

I think Fourth Umpire Ricky Ponting has exclusive right on that

[dlee1]

i believe everyone has the right to stay at the wicket and wait for the umpire's decision..its upto players whether they wan to walk or not!also reagrding him saying that he did not feel the nick and he would have walked if he had is just not true..fact is he is not stupid like symmonds to admit that he felt the nick but didnt walk..its just asking for another controversy so better to just say did not feel the nick!! which i beieve is the right thingto do