Cricket on its knees after being kicked in the balls...
Per request of my small, but apparently devoted, readership (Manu, Sandy, Neeraj) - the Pakistan ball tampering matter.
Cricket is a funny type of world sport mainly consisting of teams from England and former colonies of the British Empire: India, Pakistan, West Indies, Australia, New Zealand etc. As such, there has long been this undercurrent of ex-colonies vs former oppressor in games, especially where England plays India or Pakistan. When Viv Richards was in his prime and hit a magnificent hundred off about 56 balls again England, this was done in the context of the numerous race riots taking place in various inner cities in England. Much in the same way as Muhammed Ali provided a focal point (amongst others) for race riots and the civil rights movement in the US ("No vietcong never called me a ni**er") so Viv provided some sort of idol to British West Indians taking pride in beating the English at their own game.
There is a long history of certain umpires appearing to give biased decisions against South Asian teams and Darrel Hair has been at the centre of many of those decisions. He no-balled Murali 7 times in a match in Sri Lanka which has meant that he has found it hard getting a visa back into Sri Lanka thereafter. Murali, of course, has now shown the world, via a metal cast over his elbow, that he does not actually chuck the ball and hopefully the cricketing world will accept him for the absolute genius that he is. Hair gave Inzi out in Pakistan recently when he took evasive action after Harmison rifled a ball which had been blocked back to him straight at the stumps. For an instinctive reaction to avoid a ball hitting him in his stomach, Inzi was given out. Pakistan complained about Hair but still the ICC assigned him the past two tests between England and Pakistan. What he did this time appears to be unforgivable. There does not seem to have been any evidence that the ball was tampered with and the fact that only Inzi has been charged (in his capacity as Captain, therefore the whole Pakistan team) shows that they don't have any idea who did it, let alone whether it was done at all. Without any warning, he effectively gave England a five run penalty due to Pakistan cheating.
Personally I don't think that's on, given the serious allegation and the fact that Pakistan have been accused of this before. When Pakistan were reverse swinging their way to thrashing England in the early 90's, they were accused of cheating and it was said that you couldn't reverse swing without tampering with the ball. When England won the Ashes last year, due primarily to reverse swing, it was termed the art of a genius. Go figure.
Pakistan were entirely justified in staging a mini-protest and the fact that the game was called off by the umpires even though the players were already to start again beggars belief. Hopefully, Hair won't be umpiring a Pakistan game any time soon.
In other sports news, how much of a true genius is Tiger Woods? 12 out of 12 times when he has lead a major in the third round, he has won the whole thing. That is an absolutely incredible statistic.
Cricket is a funny type of world sport mainly consisting of teams from England and former colonies of the British Empire: India, Pakistan, West Indies, Australia, New Zealand etc. As such, there has long been this undercurrent of ex-colonies vs former oppressor in games, especially where England plays India or Pakistan. When Viv Richards was in his prime and hit a magnificent hundred off about 56 balls again England, this was done in the context of the numerous race riots taking place in various inner cities in England. Much in the same way as Muhammed Ali provided a focal point (amongst others) for race riots and the civil rights movement in the US ("No vietcong never called me a ni**er") so Viv provided some sort of idol to British West Indians taking pride in beating the English at their own game.
There is a long history of certain umpires appearing to give biased decisions against South Asian teams and Darrel Hair has been at the centre of many of those decisions. He no-balled Murali 7 times in a match in Sri Lanka which has meant that he has found it hard getting a visa back into Sri Lanka thereafter. Murali, of course, has now shown the world, via a metal cast over his elbow, that he does not actually chuck the ball and hopefully the cricketing world will accept him for the absolute genius that he is. Hair gave Inzi out in Pakistan recently when he took evasive action after Harmison rifled a ball which had been blocked back to him straight at the stumps. For an instinctive reaction to avoid a ball hitting him in his stomach, Inzi was given out. Pakistan complained about Hair but still the ICC assigned him the past two tests between England and Pakistan. What he did this time appears to be unforgivable. There does not seem to have been any evidence that the ball was tampered with and the fact that only Inzi has been charged (in his capacity as Captain, therefore the whole Pakistan team) shows that they don't have any idea who did it, let alone whether it was done at all. Without any warning, he effectively gave England a five run penalty due to Pakistan cheating.
Personally I don't think that's on, given the serious allegation and the fact that Pakistan have been accused of this before. When Pakistan were reverse swinging their way to thrashing England in the early 90's, they were accused of cheating and it was said that you couldn't reverse swing without tampering with the ball. When England won the Ashes last year, due primarily to reverse swing, it was termed the art of a genius. Go figure.
Pakistan were entirely justified in staging a mini-protest and the fact that the game was called off by the umpires even though the players were already to start again beggars belief. Hopefully, Hair won't be umpiring a Pakistan game any time soon.
In other sports news, how much of a true genius is Tiger Woods? 12 out of 12 times when he has lead a major in the third round, he has won the whole thing. That is an absolutely incredible statistic.
posted by Akash at 8:35 AM
15 Comments:
Did you watch the final round of the golf? Saturday was fantastic, as easy conditions allowed everyine to attack.. Tiger shot an easy 65 as low scores were being posted everywhere, and the levelled the entire field in the first 20 mins on Sunday. Amazing, and quite breathless.
The abiding memory for me was certainly his reception up the 18th fairway. Letting his trademark guard down, the crowd were literally roaring by the time he reached the green. It just conjured uo so much imagery.
I scoured the sports pages online from around the world the next day, with one thing becoming increasingly clear. Since winning the Open with a a display of thrilling abstinence, more and more journos are putting the case for Woods being Americas greatest ever athlete.
James Lawton wrote in the Independent after the Open in July that there has never been a competitor as dominant as Tiger, and when you think just how mesmerized or paralysed his seeming peers are when it comes to the crunch, its hard to argue. He also reiterated just how Woods has lacerated his golfs record books, begging the question 'does this man not even feel the slightest pressure?"
The post match interviews of other top players this week was concerning to me, and probably all the more to their sports psychologists. One after another Ernie Els, Chris DiMarco gushed a little too freely over Tigers' superiorty, which doesnt bode well for a challenge any time soon.
This week, journos of ESPN and The Scotsman repeated the same theme. That Woods is now the equal of Jordan, Gretzky (both close friends of his) as an American sporting legend, and in time will be held in equal regard as Babe Ruth and Muhammed Ali.
Personally i find Woods quite insprational. While i keep a watching brief on a few sports, following Woods ( and Federers) careers is great fun. I've never seen anything like this in 25yrs of watching sports, and as they say, there's just so much more of Woods left to come.
There is no quesion now. Woods' pursuit of Nickalus 18 majors is well and truly on. And we should savour every moment of it, in my humble...
The difference between Tiger and Jordan and Gretsky is that Tiger competes in an individual sport. There is simply no option for him to drop his supremacy and hope his team mates fill in the gaps. Although I wouldn't call golf an athletic sport, I have no problem calling Woods one of the greatest athletes around today. Certainly, he is by far the most mentally dominant. I don't think there can be any argument about whether he is greater than Niklaus. The 18 majors are simply a formality, on the basis that he keeps healthy. If Tiger were to be permanently injured tomorrow, I think you would still have people saying he was better than Niklaus.
Sand, on another note - do you remember saying to me a few years ago that Tiger would never win another major again?
i do remember of course, but do you recall my response?
One thing strikes me about Woods. Take him at his word. When he was changing his swing through 03 and 04, fewer and fewer people believed his protestations. His swing is so different now, swicthing to more rounded swing, he wanted better and more consitent distance control, so he could compete every week, not just when he felt good. And lo, results in the majors through 05 and 06....1st, 2nd, 1st, 4th, 3rd, MC, 1st and 1st...all the result of consistent distance. Always being pin high means you can only go so far wrong, hence 3 bogeys on 72 holes last week.
He is a more complete player now, with a greater variety of shot, and tactically the restraint he has shown has suited him well. Not using the driver, he is effectively spotting the field one club, and still winning.
I think the point with Woods is that golf is now an athletic sport, him being its first. US colleges are now seeing alot of big athletes opt for golf rather than basketball or pro football. This is how he has has changed the sport, and will become apparent over the next 10 years or so.
As for him and Nicklaus, yes the record will likely go. But it will need to though, as Jack also finished second in 19 majors, yes 19!! By all accounts he was mentally as tough, sank the same clutch putts, was longer than the rest, and was more consistent with his irons, though this was all done away from the glare of todays media.
You'd have to feel he would compete with Woods and probably beat him some. I doubt he was as good a shotmaker though, which is where the athleticism comes in.
As for comparisons with MJ et al, well there's plenty of time for this debate to mature and gain perspective. But the hype is notching up, and come the 18th major, you can only imagine what will be said. Now I'd like to watch when he and MJ play basketball one on one in the backyard, as they frequently do.
I hope someone pushes him close, only Mickelson and Els still have it in them of the established players, though only for another 2,3yrs. If they do he will just get better.
hang on, i've just reread the end of your response. It was you, dufus, that said to me that he would never win another major again back in 2001, not the other way around.
I reminded you of this when he won again in 2002.
My memory must have crashed - I could have sworn that it was you who said it to me, although thinking back on it, it does sound like the sort of thing I would have said...
Hello boys - I still check in from time to time.
Here's a question - Salil and I are building a house in a golf neighborhood. We do not golf. Should we join the course and pick up the sport or is it just an enormous drain of time? I know a lot of golf widows, but the picture of Salil, Akash, Sachin and myself forming a foursome is irresistable.
A
Golf can take up a lot of time, but thats largely a matter of choice. It doesnt have to, its just a question of how good one wants to be.
Bear in mind its a deal harder to 'play the game' than it is to play tennis or most other games. So it may take a little instruction at the start, and from then its just a question of devoting a little practice time if you want to get better.
They say its a good game for kids to play, as it encompasses discipline, respect and self-control, but i'm not in a position to validate this. Playing a full round of golf is much more exercise than people think, so another potential benefit to ponder.
Sandeep - thanks for your input.
Regarding getting exercise on the course - I'm surprised to hear this. Is this with or without golf carts?
When we travel to resorts, or even in our new neighborhood, I am always disappointed that non-golfing pedestrians aren't allowed to stroll the paths. The beautiful views are for golfers only.
Anju,
That is a shame. If you do 18 holes and carry your own bags, believe me, that is fairly good exercise. I don't understand golf clubs that do not allow non-golfers to walk along the paths but I suspect that if you go with a golfer you can walk where you like.
Hope things are going well with you guys. When do you move into your new house? Hopefully we can make it out to visit sometime soon.
Love B
Oh very much so, in the Uk carts are relatively rare, and i generally carry my clubs around with me. Its alot of exercise, wallking 7000yrds with a bag on your back.
A friend who is not a golfer came and waled teh course with me a couple of months back, all very lovely.
And on a different noye, go and see Volver......
Bobby - we'll move in March or April. Come visit!!! We'd love to see you.
We'll probably come to London next spring or summer. Another of Salil's cousins is getting married. Say hi to Shadi.
Love, A
Yes, I can see how walking a course and carrying clubs would be great exercise. I think that this is often prohibited in America. Perhaps some American golfers can comment?
A few years ago we went to Half Moon Bay just south of San Francisco on the California coast. No walking allowed.
Anju and Salil,
As doctors in the US, don't you have an ethical obligation to play golf? I had understood that the hippocratic (spell?) oath had been amended in the US to include "I will solemnly and sincerely learn golf, wear checked/plaid trousers on my day off and buy a golf cart"?
Yes Bobby - the AMA (Amer. Med Assn) is after us!!
OK, so last nights US Open deserves another thread no?
2 points of note.
You-know-who in the players box cheering Roger...guessing some elemnts of the the us media are not ok with Woods supporting an overseas player.
Secondly, Federer hit 69 clean winners in 4 sets....thats just not right, or maybe just not tennis....
More seriously, do we now have, post-michael jordan, a new breed of sportsman, the uber-competitor....jordan remains revered as the perfect combination of mind and body, and it would seem that Woods is cut from exactluy the same cloth, and perhaps Federer too...how they use each other as reference points will be iunteresting ove the next 3 -4 years, in both cases their legacy years....
I still have residual doubt about Federers mental strength, although thats just about all thats left really. It stems not from Nadal's superiority on clay, more his record against him on hard courts, and the impression that Federer couldnt do a great deal about the spaniard. Plus Safin has shown that when he is on his game, he can beat Federer. Against both, Roger couild not claim a bad day at the office.
You cant say these things about Woods, especially as he done the Grand Slam and career slam (twice)........hmnnn....
Post a Comment
<< Home