Murali's run out and the spirit of the game.

[archie mac]

Good to see your not living in the past.

The game has changed fundamentally in the last 124 years, and IMO if the spirit of cricket isn't already dead its in its in last throws.

The past is what makes cricket great, history of the Ashes, legends of the game, maybe if you learned a bit about the history of this great game, you would understand why sportsmanship is so important.

I know things have changed believe it or not I was not around when WG ran Jones out.


I don't think the spirit of cricket is in the last throws or even close, but I will excuse your ignorance

 

[honestbharani]

I thought it was funny

I thought it was a low blow.

 

[marc71178]

There is no should and shouldn't. Stop acting like you are the be all and end all of cricket. Almost everyone, no matter who they support, praised Atapattu and SL as a whole for bringing Symonds back. The umpire asked Atapattu if he could call Symonds back because he just made a howler, knew it was a mistake and it was in the best interest of the SPORT to bring him back to the crease. If Atapattu said no, it wouldn't have been against the law, nor would it have necessarily been bad sportsmanship, it would have just been him doing what is in his team's best interest. No harm in that.

Out of interest, I didn't think the umpire had to ask the captain so long as play hadn't continued did he? (and if play had continued then he wouldn't have been able to ask him back anyway)

 

[marc71178]

Having seen the voting trend, I have to seriously ask questions as the genuineness of Chaminda's origin... Is he really Sri Lankan ?

Yes, but the difference is, he's not a one-eyed Sri Lankan.

 

[Jono]

Out of interest, I didn't think the umpire had to ask the captain so long as play hadn't continued did he? (and if play had continued then he wouldn't have been able to ask him back anyway)

Yeah he didn't have to ask (eg. Umpire Benson calling Tendulkar back in the Malaysian DLF Cup) but I think the umpire felt bad and wanted permission from Atapttu first. He didn't have to, but he didn't want to completely screw SL in the process as well I guess.

 

[Matt79]

Good to see your not living in the past.

The game has changed fundamentally in the last 124 years, and IMO if the spirit of cricket isn't already dead its in its in last throws.

Agree with Archie on this, and I'm pretty sure the word you're looking for is throes. As Dr Evil would say: "It's a homonym"

 

[silentstriker]

It doesnt and personally, anyone who'd talk to me that way would be wearing my bat for a helmet.
I am not in favour of sledging either.

Right, but you do acknowledge it does happen, right? And its been happening for quite a while, too. Thats why I don't buy into this sportsmanship thing. If you're going to insult the sister of the guy batting, its not really a big deal to whip the bails off when he leaves the crease.

 

[C_C]

Right, but you do acknowledge it does happen, right? And its been happening for quite a while, too. Thats why I don't buy into this sportsmanship thing. If you're going to insult the sister of the guy batting, its not really a big deal to whip the bails off when he leaves the crease.

Eh ???
Thats like saying 'oh since criminal activity is on the increase, i'll teach my son to not be polite but be a foulmouthed uncouth ******'.
I dont see why i cant say this was a distasteful act because other distasteful acts occur.

 

[silentstriker]

Eh ???
Thats like saying 'oh since criminal activity is on the increase, i'll teach my son to not be polite but be a foulmouthed uncouth ******'.
I dont see why i cant say this was a distasteful act because other distasteful acts occur.

Err, no I am fully realize that you can say it was distasteful. I was just making the claim that sportsmanship does not really exist in this era of cricket, not how you should view what goes on in the middle.

 

[C_C]

Err, no I am fully realize that you can say it was distasteful. I was just making the claim that sportsmanship does not really exist in this era of cricket, not how you should view what goes on in the middle.

Err so why are you engaging me again if you dont believe it was unsporting ? i already mentioned that sporting has nothing to do with legality and it was a legitimate legal move. But a move that has '**** you' written all over it- ie, distasteful.

 

[Poker Boy]

Yes -and Murali wasn't very clever was he? Someone of his experience should know better. The other point is I was anazed Sangakarrra took the run anyway. It was the first ball of the over so he would have left Murali with five to survive - and he'd been turning runs down in those circumstances before. Isn't it funny what a difference a hunderd makes?

 

[legglancer12]

CHRISTCHURCH, New Zealand (AFP) - The New Zealand cricket team has rallied behind wicketkeeper Brendon McCullum, defending him from ongoing criticism over the dismissal of Sri Lanka's Muttiah Muralitharan in the first Test.

McCullum has been pilloried in the media Test for running out Muralitharan when the careless tailender left his crease while the ball was in play to congratulate Kumar Sangakkara on scoring a century.

The dismissal sparked an ethical debate, with the Sri Lankans and several commentators saying it breached the spirit of the game.

The authoritative Cricinfo website called it "unsporting".

McCullum said he was shocked by the widespread adverse reaction to what was a legitimate dismissal that ended Sri Lanka's second innings and left New Zealand a 119-run target to win which they achieved for the loss of five wickets.

"I didn't expect the repercussions from it, it's been pretty hard to swallow," McCullum said.

"I never thought it the wrong thing to do, the rules are there and you can't reward stupidity," McCullum said.

New Zealand Cricket chief executive Martin Snedden said South African umpire Brian Jerling could have approached captain Stephen Fleming and asked if they wanted to proceed with the dismissal but he did not.

"The umpires take the same view as us," he told Radio Sport.

"It was a lapse of concentration on Murali's part, it wasn't a marginal situation and it was out."

New Zealand batsman Nathan Astle was also adamant McCullum was beyond reproach.

"We're fully behind Baz, he was definitely out. I've been surprised by the reaction -- it's totally unjustified."

A stunned Sangakkara was quick to point out that he had declined to run out Astle in similar circumstances when the two teams met in the recent Champions Trophy tournament.

"I could have broken the stumps but I knew there wasn't a run being attempted," Sangakkara said.

"I said jokingly 'you should know better than that'. It was all in fun, it would have been pretty absurd of me to break the stumps."

However, the Test here was no laughing matter and Sangakkara, while acknowledging Muralitharan was at fault, was still disappointed at the Black Caps reaction.

"Players take it for granted, once the ball's gone you're allowed a certain leeway when it comes to courtesies extended between sides," he said.

"Murali was out but it's a case of how you want to interpret the rules. A lot is said about match referees and umpires being the guardians of the game but the players have a lot of responsibility as well."

 

[archie mac]

Agree with Archie on this, and I'm pretty sure the word you're looking for is throes. As Dr Evil would say: "It's a homonym"

I knew there was something wrong but I did not spot it, maybe the word and Murali?

 

[shortpitched713]

The past is what makes cricket great, history of the Ashes, legends of the game, maybe if you learned a bit about the history of this great game, you would understand why sportsmanship is so important.

I know things have changed believe it or not I was not around when WG ran Jones out.


I don't think the spirit of cricket is in the last throws or even close, but I will excuse your ignorance

I do know a bit about the history of the game. Which is why I question the extent of the "spirit of the game" even back then.

"Spirit of the game" encompasses to me something greater than just general good sportsmanship, which is really expected in all sports. As C_C has earlier stated its more of a gentleman's code of conduct. Seeing as the level of general sportsmanship in cricket today is comparable with most other sports, I find it very hard to believe that some extra "code of conduct" exists in cricket today in any meaningful degree.

 

[shortpitched713]

Agree with Archie on this, and I'm pretty sure the word you're looking for is throes. As Dr Evil would say: "It's a homonym"

Knew there was something wrong with that when I typed it, but just couldn't pick up what exactly.

And to be fair, archie mac did repeat that same spelling of the word in his reply, so I can't be all that stupid, right?

 

[JF.]

"Players take it for granted, once the ball's gone you're allowed a certain leeway when it comes to courtesies extended between sides," he said.

"Murali was out but it's a case of how you want to interpret the rules. A lot is said about match referees and umpires being the guardians of the game but the players have a lot of responsibility as well."

What leeway is there when the ball is still on its way back to the keeper? c'mon... Murali was just plain stupid. Plenty of guys have made 100s without this happening. And as Fleming said, the game doesn't stop when someone makes 100.

These guys are highly paid professionals. If it were club cricket you could argue a different case but I would EXPECT a professional to run Murali out. If he didn't, then he's not doing what he's paid for.

As far as all this talk about sportsmanship and spirit of the game - Bodyline occurred over 70 years ago and it wasn't there then. That's how far back the winning at all costs attitude goes.

 

[JF.]

I do know a bit about the history of the game. Which is why I question the extent of the "spirit of the game" even back then.

"Spirit of the game" encompasses to me something greater than just general good sportsmanship, which is really expected in all sports. As C_C has earlier stated its more of a gentleman's code of conduct. Seeing as the level of general sportsmanship in cricket today is comparable with most other sports, I find it very hard to believe that some extra "code of conduct" exists in cricket today in any meaningful degree.

Hear hear!!! Cricket USED to be a gentleman's game. It hasn't been since Bodyline.

 

[Jono]

Yes -and Murali wasn't very clever was he? Someone of his experience should know better. The other point is I was anazed Sangakarrra took the run anyway. It was the first ball of the over so he would have left Murali with five to survive - and he'd been turning runs down in those circumstances before. Isn't it funny what a difference a hunderd makes?

Haha fair call, I too was surprised, but you can't necessarily call Sanga selfish at all because with on the 4th ball of the previous over Sanga was on 98 and took a single to get to 99, leaving Murali to keep out 2 balls from Martin I believe. If Sanga really cared that much about his century I reckon he'd have gone for it himself instead of leaving it in the hands of Murali

But still, good spot indeed. Turning down a single for a century would take a lot of willpower and selflessness I imagine.

 

[Jono]

"Players take it for granted, once the ball's gone you're allowed a certain leeway when it comes to courtesies extended between sides," he said.

"Murali was out but it's a case of how you want to interpret the rules. A lot is said about match referees and umpires being the guardians of the game but the players have a lot of responsibility as well."

What leeway is there when the ball is still on its way back to the keeper? c'mon... Murali was just plain stupid. Plenty of guys have made 100s without this happening. And as Fleming said, the game doesn't stop when someone makes 100.

These guys are highly paid professionals. If it were club cricket you could argue a different case but I would EXPECT a professional to run Murali out. If he didn't, then he's not doing what he's paid for.

As far as all this talk about sportsmanship and spirit of the game - Bodyline occurred over 70 years ago and it wasn't there then. That's how far back the winning at all costs attitude goes.

You can't ignore the fact though that Sanga himself had an opportunity to run Astle out in a similar fashion at the recent CT Trophy.

Then you have to take into account the fact they brought Symonds back as well. Maybe they follow this code more than other teams?

A similar occurrence could have occurred during the 2nd test between Australia and India at Adelaide in 2003. Dravid and Laxman were just in the middle of their awesome partnership, and Dravid, who had already scored his century, tapped down at the crease and turned around to go congratulate Laxman who had just scored his. Dravid however realised that the ball wasn't dead and turned back around, put his bat down and actually asked Gilly if he could go congratulate Laxman. Obviously Gilly obliged, and I know its speculation, and its not a slight on McCullum in any way, but I very much doubt Gilly would have run out Dravid in any case.

I'm not sure if people remember this situation, but I watch it on tape heaps so its always stuck out in my head and Ian Chappell mentioned it during commentary back then and showed replays of it, that had Dravid not gone back Gilly could have ended the partnership in such a fashion, and probably won Australia the game.

 

[JF.]

You can't ignore the fact though that Sanga himself had an opportunity to run Astle out in a similar fashion at the recent CT Trophy.

Then you have to take into account the fact they brought Symonds back as well. Maybe they follow this code more than other teams?

A similar occurrence could have occurred during the 2nd test between Australia and India at Adelaide in 2003. Dravid and Laxman were just in the middle of their awesome partnership, and Dravid, who had already scored his century, tapped down at the crease and turned around to go congratulate Laxman who had just scored his. Dravid however realised that the ball wasn't dead and turned back around, put his bat down and actually asked Gilly if he could go congratulate Laxman. Obviously Gilly obliged, and I know its speculation, and its not a slight on McCullum in any way, but I very much doubt Gilly would have run out Dravid in any case.

I'm not sure if people remember this situation, but I watch it on tape heaps so its always stuck out in my head and Ian Chappell mentioned it during commentary back then and showed replays of it, that had Dravid not gone back Gilly could have ended the partnership in such a fashion, and probably won Australia the game.

Sri Lanka do it more often? Maybe of late- but this is the country who threatened to sue the ICC on the basis of racism if Murali was banned. And Ranatunga refused to shake hands with Mark Taylor after an ODI at the MCG during which there were a number of incidents. Pot calling the kettle black I'd say.

As far as Gilly and Dravid. I like that... Dravid had the presence of mind to ask. And Gilly duly obliged. Now THAT was sensible. It's using the grey matter. Murali didn't. He just wandered out of his crease while the ball was in mid air on its way BACK.

The game does not stop when someone gets to 100.