Ponting's never stopping attitude

Well he might have failed to win the first test at Brisbane and neither is Ponting happy with the 1st Ashes test ending in a draw which actually Australia should have lost. Though no one is to be blamed for their missed earning opportunities in life, the Australian captain does have someone to point his fingers at after drawing the first test at Brisbane when he shows his lack of interest on the technology for not dancing to his tunes. I wish Ricky Ponting was expecting all umpires in the world to be a follower of Steve Bucknor and Mark Benson.

May be his lack of confidence in the onfield umpires might have provoked him to take the decision himself when he claimed Sourav Ganguly out caught in the famous Sydney test somewhere three years down the lane. Had Ganguly been adjudged "NOT OUT", may be Ricky Ponting's words would have made news on cricinfo three years earlier itself. With that apart, coming to the news, Ponting says that he isn't satisfied with the technology for the sole reason that he couldn't get Cook out when the batsman was on 209. Cook later on went on to win the man of the match award which is a different issue.

Added to that was the fact that Alistair Cook never got out whatsoever. And, the reasons for Ponting to get annoyed with the technology is justified when he could have had another wicket to his team's name on one hand while on the other, a catch extra under his personal name. The article suggests that Ricky Ponting as expected or even suspected if one is not wrong enough, tried to convince not only the onfield umpires but also the third umpire - Aleem Dar saying that the catch was taken. But, unfortunately fortunately, it was not the Border - Gavaskar trophy involving India but the Ashes involving England.

England's influence on world cricket is equally good as is Australia's influence. And, one has to no matter what accept the fact that the Sydney test episode has implanted a fear among the onfield as well as the third umpires before getting into such dirty games. No matter what the influence of Australia has got on world cricket, it would come as no surprise if the umpires do not give the decision in favor of Australia for the fear of having to face the music for the wrong reasons. And, with all these in front of us, Ponting's lack of satisfaction towards the technology can well be understood.

Punish the umpires instead

Well the news has its say that the decision review system is about to take a back seat for the reason that it involves a lot of cost that is considered as unnecessary by the ICC. It seems that the world's cricket governing body is not interested in giving the teams or the players a fair trial no matter what on earth happens. It is not the ICC who would be responsible in case a team crashes out of a major tournament when there is hardly any mistake on its side or there is least that it can do. Really?

If the ICC considers about cost cutting measures, one has to reason out why does the game has a provision in giving the umpires an option to refer a doubtful decision to the 3^rd umpire? Why doesn't one of the teams suffer in case there can be a lot of money that can be saved. Of course, there is not going to be a loss of anyone's life or property in this case. The ICC should have learnt a lesson after the Sydney test episode between India and Australia where 8 decisions were wrong and funny that one of them included the decision by the third umpire as well.

However, all these are allowed to happen by giving a lame excuse that these are human errors regarding which nothing can be done. One can agree with the former part of the sentence which says "human errors" but not with the latter part that says "nothing can be done". In case something needs to be done, there are lots that can happen. In case a batsman is found to be not out, he can be called by the umpires back to the crease to continue to bat. This can happen when the same umpires rule out a six to be a four after consulting the third umpire over wireless.

Similarly, in case the opposition captain calls back a batsman after learning that he was not out, the batsman can still come back and play like it happened in a match between Sri Lanka and Australia in 2004 after Symonds was given out which was not the case actually. And one other thing that can be done is to penalise the umpires in case they go wrong in deciding irrespective of whether it is a human error or not. When captains can be fined for slow over rate and bowlers for excessive appealing, why should the umpires go scot free for their decision can affect not only a player or a match but also a series?

A mini SCG affair

Well I hope all of the ones reading this post would have thoroughly enjoyed the last ball thriller between Pakistan and New Zealand yesterday which was finally won by New Zealand. It doesn't matter if New Zealand did it by hooks or by crooks. But, the eventual result says that New Zealand wins the match by 1 run and keeps its hopes of making it to the semi finals of the World T20 2010 alive. And this was more important that how it was done by either teams. If one goes through the highlights of the match, he'd be surprised to know that there were three decisions that went in favor of the Kiwis.

First of all was the caught behind of the Kiwi batsman Nathan McCullum which was turned down by the onfield main umpire Billy Doctrove despite the replays suggesting repeatedly that there was definitely an outside edge which went on to find the wicket keeper's hands. But, it has to be fascinating when both the on field umpires couldn't hear the noise which a million odd spectators could hear when seated in front of their television sets. Of course, that didn't matter much when one took the Kiwis' scoring rate in their first innings which was just above 6 an over.

And then in the second innings when Pakistan batted, there were two decisions which went undeservingly towards the New Zealand side when first Misbah Ul Haq was given out leg before when replays suggested that there was a clean inside edge and if that was not enough as though, the ball was found to go above the wicket rather than hit the wicket which forms the main criterion for a batsman to be given out leg before. One edge that would have got a Kiwi batsman out was termed as not out which the other edge which would have seen a Pakistani batsman continue with his batting was given out.

Can anyone of you just believe it! Weather New Zealand would have won the match or not had these decisions been given correctly is all the more a different issue but, can such negligence be forgiven in a tournament which terms someone as champions of the game? Oh! I forgot to mention about the other decision which went to the New Zealand side despite the Kiwis not deserving that as well. If one goes through the replays of the way the Pakistani batsman Shahid Afridi got out, it is clearly evident that the ball had touched the ground before landing into the hands of Ian Butler.

The Kiwis can defend themselves that these were purely umpiring errors irrespective of weather the Kiwis desperately appealed for these dismissals. But, if that is not the case in reality, then its all shame of the Kiwis and also on the umpires.

If Hauritz can do it at Melbourne, Why not Kaneria at Sydney?

Well after boring two days of play at the Sydney cricket ground, with both Australia and Pakistan losing and 9 wickets respectively on a single day, despite a result being possible, the flavor of a test match had still not been achieved. However, it was fantastic to see the Pakistani bowlers targeting the Aussie batsmen with the right weapon that is spin bowling. Compared to the teams from the sub-continent, Aussies are bad players of spin, which is an indisputable fact. Though late, the word never doesn't seem to go well with this test match for Pakistan. Pakistan might have been playing Australia after a long time but, what if the wait pays!

With just 80 runs lead on the board and just two wickets remaining, the result has already been guessed by everyone including the Australian captain Ricky Ponting. With 9 wickets down on day 2 if the test match for Pakistan, it took the Aussies just 2 more runs to get the final Pakistani wicket. However, the only ray of hope for Australia that is Mike Hussey, batting on 73 can prove something and that too if he is assisted by luck. For, with a bowler like Danish Kaneria on his toes, the result is quite clear cut from the day's play wherein Kaneria takes 4 out of the 8 Aussie wickets that have fallen.

A win in the ongoing second test match for Pakistan against Australia would keep its hopes alive so that Pakistan can atleast dream of a win against Australia and great that it could do so on Australian soil itself. Pakistan has been whitewashed 3-0 in the last three series' that has been played between the two countries. However, two of the three defeats mentioned were in Australia and the third one at UAE in 2002. And before that, in 1998-99, Australia had beaten Pakistan 1-0 in the 3 match test series played at Pakistan. The lone win for Australia coming by an innings and 99 runs.

Statistics suggest that Pakistan have last won a series against Australia (be it at home, away or elsewhere) way back in 1994-95 when Rashid Latif's men took a 1 wicket win against Australia led by Mark Taylor at Karachi. Despite a series loss in the return series, Pakistan were able to snatch a 74 run win at Sydney after losing the first two tests. Though they (Pakistan) have lost their last battle against Australia at Sydney by 9 wickets on their earlier tour, the 1995 history can be expected to repeat itself if the first three days of play are considered. Though, Pakistan don't win the third test, a win in this one can bring smiles back on the faces of a lot many Pakistani fans and cricketers. And likewise, a match win on Australian soil is worth a series win for most nations.