It is not an unknown fact that Australian cricketers have at most of the times been given a special treatment be it on the field or off the same. The most recent one being the mongoose bat that the former Australian batsman and the present Chennai Superkings opener Mathew Hayden is found to use in the current edition of the IPL. One has to wonder as to how come Hayden is allowed to use a bat of his choice when the ICC has issued certain rules regarding the size and shape of the bat which involves its width, length and also the material used to manufacture the same?
Of course, there has been a situation in one of the earlier matches when Mathew Hayden was run out when obviously he failed to make it to the crease before the ball made it to the stumps. Had Hayden used the conventional bat that every other non - special cricketers use, he could have made his ground with the long handle aiding him make it to the crease. But, this is not so important here. The point is in what way is Hayden's actions justified regarding the bat what he uses? This is not a problem with Hayden alone but with the entire Australian cricketers.
No one needs to be specially cited regarding Ponting raising his fingers to declare Ganguly out in the famous Sydney test. More than questioning Ponting's ethics on the field, one has to think how come the ICC never intended in taking any sort of action on Ponting when players are fined for excessive appealing and maintaining a slow over rate. Ponting's deed was no way less when compared to these offenses. So has been the case with recently, Johnson being fined for his spat with Scott Styris with the latter having to bear 15% of the match fees as fine with no fault of his.
Is it because the IPL is not a part of the ICC that Mathew Hayden is allowed or is it because that Hayden has retired from international cricket that the issue is not blown up? If today, Hayden is allowed to use a mongoose bat with a short handle, what if Brett Lee comes out bowling with a rubber ball citing the extraordinary bounce that it has? Of course, every ball that makes contact with the bat would have to be replaced with every ball getting broken upon the same which is secondary. In case anyone else uses the mongoose bat, it would be termed as Hayden's bat from then onwards still giving due credit to Hayden for his cleverness.
It was the Aussies who blew the issue of Murali's bowling until Warne had an upperhand when the ICC had given Murali a clean chit. But, no one dares to give it a thought regarding the deeds of Aussie players. Reason?
Showing posts with label Scott Styris. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Scott Styris. Show all posts
Saturday, March 27, 2010
Sunday, March 14, 2010
Ponting's yet another immaturity
Well what would have Australia lost if not for the match against New Zealand in the finals ODI of the bilateral series when the series has been pocketed by them a couple of days ago? Aussies made the most of it when they seriously had to win though they lost the first encounter which would have seen them go 1 down in the series. However, that was the match where both the teams fought in a very tight manner and as the convention goes, there could be only one winner and that happened to be New Zealand. And, then onwards, it has been the Aussie show until they sealed the series against their name.
And, there should be absolutely no reason for New Zealand to rejoice their victory in the 5th one dayer played at Wellington despite winning the match be a rather decent margin of 51 runs. This can be considered as Australia's loss and not a win by New Zealand for it was not New Zealand who fought for it. The match was gifted by Australia to New Zealand for which New Zealand has to be thankful to their Tasmanian rivals. However, things didn't start as though New Zealand would win the match when they lost 4 wickets for a score less than 100 on the board.
The score was 25 by the time the 2nd wicket had fallen and scorecard suggests that the New Zealand openers - Brendon McCullum and Martin Guptill had scores of 1 and 7 respectively. New Zealand could score a total which was only somewhere near to the total that they could manage in their earlier games. In the 4th ODI at Auckland, they ended up scoring 238 runs and in the 3rd ODI at Hamilton, they were found to score just 245 runs compared to the 241 they put up in the last one dayer which they appeared to win convincingly.
One has to wonder as to how come New Zealand could manage to defend a similar total in the inconsequential match at Wellington when they could not even come close to doing the same in the previous one dayers at Hamilton and Auckland respectively. And, the way Australia played was just another instance of a captain's immaturity when Ponting went into the fifth ODI with a full strength Australian team when he could have rested some senior players like Watson & Johnson and instead played some lesser talent like Bailey. Neither did Ponting go in for a whitewash nor did he give some lesser talent a little bit of match practice.
And, there should be absolutely no reason for New Zealand to rejoice their victory in the 5th one dayer played at Wellington despite winning the match be a rather decent margin of 51 runs. This can be considered as Australia's loss and not a win by New Zealand for it was not New Zealand who fought for it. The match was gifted by Australia to New Zealand for which New Zealand has to be thankful to their Tasmanian rivals. However, things didn't start as though New Zealand would win the match when they lost 4 wickets for a score less than 100 on the board.
The score was 25 by the time the 2nd wicket had fallen and scorecard suggests that the New Zealand openers - Brendon McCullum and Martin Guptill had scores of 1 and 7 respectively. New Zealand could score a total which was only somewhere near to the total that they could manage in their earlier games. In the 4th ODI at Auckland, they ended up scoring 238 runs and in the 3rd ODI at Hamilton, they were found to score just 245 runs compared to the 241 they put up in the last one dayer which they appeared to win convincingly.
One has to wonder as to how come New Zealand could manage to defend a similar total in the inconsequential match at Wellington when they could not even come close to doing the same in the previous one dayers at Hamilton and Auckland respectively. And, the way Australia played was just another instance of a captain's immaturity when Ponting went into the fifth ODI with a full strength Australian team when he could have rested some senior players like Watson & Johnson and instead played some lesser talent like Bailey. Neither did Ponting go in for a whitewash nor did he give some lesser talent a little bit of match practice.
Wednesday, March 10, 2010
Australia do it effortlessly
Well after two matches that ended in tense moments, with both Australia and New Zealand fighting it until the last legal delivery was bowled and the last run scored or conceded, there was finally a game that proved one team to be stronger than the other. And as obvious it has been, that one team that had to be sideline from the other happened to be Australia. Though Australia won the second one dayer at Auckland by 12 runs, the victory couldn't guarantee Australia a convincing sleep, with reports suggesting that it was the D-L method that helped Australia achieve the task.
In the 3rd ODI which Australia won, the Australian bowlers did everything right if not for the toss which should have seen Ricky Ponting choose to bat rather than to bowl. Though Australia won the match convincingly, it would have been a better decision from Ponting had he chosen to bat first with the seamers not being able to extract anything from the surface. However, despite the ball being unable to swing, it was enough to trouble the New Zealand batsmen who kept on losing wickets at regular intervals. The final score of 245 was not at all an issue in chasing for the Australians who are gifted with atleast 7 specialist batsmen in their side.
The New Zealand team needed contribution from as many as 7 batsmen who departed after scoring double digit figures, with 5 of them scoring between 20 and 40 or above. But, when the same was considered from the Australians' side, they needed the efforts of just 2 batsmen in Ponting and Haddin, whose work was continued by White and Voges. No bowler from the New Zealand side could take a wicket until the 33rd over, after Watson was run out in the 7th over. Highlights suggests that there were two chance given to Haddin when the batsman was on 8 and on 83, both of which were tough ones but gettable as well.
And, this is the difference between a team that dominates and that which wins with a combined effort. A dominating team makes chances for itself and a strong team looks for chances while an ordinary team only welcomes chances. Finally, a weak team likeBangladesh West Indies lets go off a chance despite being forced to accept one. And NZ belongs to the third category that can only make it count when things favor them. One thing that was evident from the match was that, a 35 yer old mason, who should have retired by now was found making a comeback to the international after he was last found playing for NZ in July last year against Scotland.
In the 3rd ODI which Australia won, the Australian bowlers did everything right if not for the toss which should have seen Ricky Ponting choose to bat rather than to bowl. Though Australia won the match convincingly, it would have been a better decision from Ponting had he chosen to bat first with the seamers not being able to extract anything from the surface. However, despite the ball being unable to swing, it was enough to trouble the New Zealand batsmen who kept on losing wickets at regular intervals. The final score of 245 was not at all an issue in chasing for the Australians who are gifted with atleast 7 specialist batsmen in their side.
The New Zealand team needed contribution from as many as 7 batsmen who departed after scoring double digit figures, with 5 of them scoring between 20 and 40 or above. But, when the same was considered from the Australians' side, they needed the efforts of just 2 batsmen in Ponting and Haddin, whose work was continued by White and Voges. No bowler from the New Zealand side could take a wicket until the 33rd over, after Watson was run out in the 7th over. Highlights suggests that there were two chance given to Haddin when the batsman was on 8 and on 83, both of which were tough ones but gettable as well.
And, this is the difference between a team that dominates and that which wins with a combined effort. A dominating team makes chances for itself and a strong team looks for chances while an ordinary team only welcomes chances. Finally, a weak team like
Sunday, March 7, 2010
Luck shifts from NZ to OZ
Finally, yesterday in the 2nd one dayer between Australia and New Zealand, it was Australia who was finally declared winners after the last New Zealand wicket fell and not until the last legal Aussie delivery bowled. This is quite obvious when all the odds namely the weather, the opposition and the team itself favors only one team and aides its victory. Fortunately, for Australia it was also the toss that they won which helped them level the series 1-1 at present. Added to that was Ponting chose to bat first on a pitch where chasing a decent total would not have been that difficult.
The pitch to a greater extent suited the batsmen which saw all Aussie batsmen but Ponting and Michael Clarke contribute with the willow. The Aussie batting progressed in a slow and steady manner with even the pinch hitter Mitchell Johnson providing his share by scoring at a rate of more than run a ball during his unbeaten score of 16 runs from 13 balls. On the otherside, even the bowlers from the New Zealand side did not lag far behind in showing some sort of discipline in their bowling by making use of the Australians' fear for spin bowling when Vettori bowled 10 overs.
Bad luck struck the New Zealand side when play was suspended for a small duration owing to rain delays on two occasions and as it always happens, the side batting second always has to pay a heavier price for no mistake of theirs. The number of balls was reduced by 30 and the number of runs required to win the match was reduced by just 9. And, the time has not yet come for anybody to dispute the Duckworth Lewis method which has seen so many deserving teams lose out to non deserving ones. However, this time luck had to favor the Australian side no matter what.
The situation was the same like the one in the first one dayer where a slog shot from Styris saw the ball clear the fence and ensure a win for the Kiwis. The same slog shot could have even been a miscue and landed safe in one of the eleven Aussie fielders' hands. Or, Styris could have been beaten and in the process the stumps rattled. But, it was luck that batted for New Zealand in the form of Scott Styris. And this time, it should have been the top order batsmen to have made things easier for New Zealand and not the late middle order in Vettori trying to settle down issues.
Finally, there was a reason for the Kiwis to smile when Daniel Vettori was awarded the man of the match for his contribution with both the bat as well as the ball. Otherwise, New Zealand never deserved anything much.
The pitch to a greater extent suited the batsmen which saw all Aussie batsmen but Ponting and Michael Clarke contribute with the willow. The Aussie batting progressed in a slow and steady manner with even the pinch hitter Mitchell Johnson providing his share by scoring at a rate of more than run a ball during his unbeaten score of 16 runs from 13 balls. On the otherside, even the bowlers from the New Zealand side did not lag far behind in showing some sort of discipline in their bowling by making use of the Australians' fear for spin bowling when Vettori bowled 10 overs.
Bad luck struck the New Zealand side when play was suspended for a small duration owing to rain delays on two occasions and as it always happens, the side batting second always has to pay a heavier price for no mistake of theirs. The number of balls was reduced by 30 and the number of runs required to win the match was reduced by just 9. And, the time has not yet come for anybody to dispute the Duckworth Lewis method which has seen so many deserving teams lose out to non deserving ones. However, this time luck had to favor the Australian side no matter what.
The situation was the same like the one in the first one dayer where a slog shot from Styris saw the ball clear the fence and ensure a win for the Kiwis. The same slog shot could have even been a miscue and landed safe in one of the eleven Aussie fielders' hands. Or, Styris could have been beaten and in the process the stumps rattled. But, it was luck that batted for New Zealand in the form of Scott Styris. And this time, it should have been the top order batsmen to have made things easier for New Zealand and not the late middle order in Vettori trying to settle down issues.
Finally, there was a reason for the Kiwis to smile when Daniel Vettori was awarded the man of the match for his contribution with both the bat as well as the ball. Otherwise, New Zealand never deserved anything much.
Thursday, March 4, 2010
Australia redefines homesickness
Well, after losing the first one day international to New Zealand yesterday, Australia reminded the word homesickness which has a different meaning in the world of cricket. Australia lost a match to New Zealand which was after a series of victories against Pakistan and West Indies in all formats of the game of cricket. All that Australia could lose in the gap was the first test to the West Indies in December which ended in a draw and the 3rd one dayer which was abandoned. If not for these, Australia won all the tests, one dayers and T20 games that it played.
However, all the aforementioned victories that Australia enjoyed until now was at home. Nevermind that at times, Australia popped up from a never again position and went on to win the game. This was in the Sydney test against Pakistan and in the only T20 game against the same. In both cases where Australia were bundled out for 127 runs on board. And also not to mention the T20 win against New Zealand in the 1st followed by a tie in the 2nd (though the match was handed over to NZ after the super over) . Now, Australia is found to be facing the heat with a loss in the 1st ODI to the Kiwis.
Had the same match been played at home, Australia would no doubt been victorious. The lat match before the one under discussion that Australia lost was against India on its tour at Delhi in the 3rd one dayer. Since then, Australia had not lost even a single match irrespective of the format of the game that it was playing. Whatever, this loss need not termed as the end of the road for Australia. Not only regarding the fact that there are 4 more ODIs to go but also that Australia lost the match by a close margin which it can make up in the next meeting at Auckland.
However, more than the loss that Australia suffered, the main thing that is bound to haunt them is the timing of the loss. As cited above, Australia had won all of its encounters against Windies and Pakistan at home and a loss in the very first encounter to New Zealand down under will surely make fingers point towards Australia regarding their victory restricted only to home conditions and nowhere when it comes outside it. There is more of a probablity that Australia will win the series but, it is the margin of victory that matters. Will it be a 4-1 or a 3-2 win for Aussies which makes the difference!
However, all the aforementioned victories that Australia enjoyed until now was at home. Nevermind that at times, Australia popped up from a never again position and went on to win the game. This was in the Sydney test against Pakistan and in the only T20 game against the same. In both cases where Australia were bundled out for 127 runs on board. And also not to mention the T20 win against New Zealand in the 1st followed by a tie in the 2nd (though the match was handed over to NZ after the super over) . Now, Australia is found to be facing the heat with a loss in the 1st ODI to the Kiwis.
Had the same match been played at home, Australia would no doubt been victorious. The lat match before the one under discussion that Australia lost was against India on its tour at Delhi in the 3rd one dayer. Since then, Australia had not lost even a single match irrespective of the format of the game that it was playing. Whatever, this loss need not termed as the end of the road for Australia. Not only regarding the fact that there are 4 more ODIs to go but also that Australia lost the match by a close margin which it can make up in the next meeting at Auckland.
However, more than the loss that Australia suffered, the main thing that is bound to haunt them is the timing of the loss. As cited above, Australia had won all of its encounters against Windies and Pakistan at home and a loss in the very first encounter to New Zealand down under will surely make fingers point towards Australia regarding their victory restricted only to home conditions and nowhere when it comes outside it. There is more of a probablity that Australia will win the series but, it is the margin of victory that matters. Will it be a 4-1 or a 3-2 win for Aussies which makes the difference!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)