Richard
Cricket Web Staff Member
I would like to make a comparison between two recent(ish) situations of renown:
1, Rangiri Dambull Stadium, 17th November, 2003, about 0800AM GMT. Marvan Atapattu flips a coin. Michael Vaughan calls correctly. He chooses to bat first. All logic points to this being the right decision (in recent practice-sessions under the lights, the ball swung all over the place; practice balls, this is). His opposite-number agrees that he would like very much to have won the toss and done what his opposite-number has done. However, a few hours later Vaughan's team have got themselves out (with some help from superb Sri Lankan bowling and near faultless fielding) for 88. Atapattu's team knock-off the runs without Atapattu, down to come in at three, needing to bat. Vaughan's decision is barely mentioned, because it was the right decision.
2, Brisbane Cricket Ground (Woolloongabba?), 7th November, 2002, about 1200 AM GMT. Stephen Waugh flips a coin. Nasser Hussain calls correctly. He chooses to field first. All logic points to this being the right decision (there is grass on the pitch; Australia have The World's finest exponents of a green wicket to open their bowling; England have four seamers too, three of whom are proven as potentially devestating if not consistent by any means plus one fairly unknown quantity and a useless spinner). His opposite-number mentions that he would have done the same had he won the toss. A day later Hussain's bowlers have bowled a not-unusual load of tripe and conceded 186 to a batsman who has been dropped twice off absolute sitters and caught at fine-leg and given not-out, plus 120-something to a batsman in about as prime a nick as you will ever see. Four days later Hussain's batsmen have collapsed to a 384-run defeat. Hussain is villified by the Australian Press (totally to be expected; best thing to do is comfort yourself in the certain knowledge that you have better vision than them) and his own "supporters" especially someone who was a sensational player for 10 years and has huge following for his words. People say it was a stupid, negative decision. This opinion wins almost universal acclaim.
Notice any parallels? Or any inconsistencies?
For me the criticism of Hussain at The 'Gabba was the beginning of the end and it was one of the most glaring examples of nationosyncratic stupidity of cricket Press in England. People in this branch just don't seem to understand the fact that a good thing can last for as long as a piece of string. England's Test-side without Hussain's captaincy is much poorer than with it. And it's mostly the fault of the Press, like so many poor selections.
1, Rangiri Dambull Stadium, 17th November, 2003, about 0800AM GMT. Marvan Atapattu flips a coin. Michael Vaughan calls correctly. He chooses to bat first. All logic points to this being the right decision (in recent practice-sessions under the lights, the ball swung all over the place; practice balls, this is). His opposite-number agrees that he would like very much to have won the toss and done what his opposite-number has done. However, a few hours later Vaughan's team have got themselves out (with some help from superb Sri Lankan bowling and near faultless fielding) for 88. Atapattu's team knock-off the runs without Atapattu, down to come in at three, needing to bat. Vaughan's decision is barely mentioned, because it was the right decision.
2, Brisbane Cricket Ground (Woolloongabba?), 7th November, 2002, about 1200 AM GMT. Stephen Waugh flips a coin. Nasser Hussain calls correctly. He chooses to field first. All logic points to this being the right decision (there is grass on the pitch; Australia have The World's finest exponents of a green wicket to open their bowling; England have four seamers too, three of whom are proven as potentially devestating if not consistent by any means plus one fairly unknown quantity and a useless spinner). His opposite-number mentions that he would have done the same had he won the toss. A day later Hussain's bowlers have bowled a not-unusual load of tripe and conceded 186 to a batsman who has been dropped twice off absolute sitters and caught at fine-leg and given not-out, plus 120-something to a batsman in about as prime a nick as you will ever see. Four days later Hussain's batsmen have collapsed to a 384-run defeat. Hussain is villified by the Australian Press (totally to be expected; best thing to do is comfort yourself in the certain knowledge that you have better vision than them) and his own "supporters" especially someone who was a sensational player for 10 years and has huge following for his words. People say it was a stupid, negative decision. This opinion wins almost universal acclaim.
Notice any parallels? Or any inconsistencies?
For me the criticism of Hussain at The 'Gabba was the beginning of the end and it was one of the most glaring examples of nationosyncratic stupidity of cricket Press in England. People in this branch just don't seem to understand the fact that a good thing can last for as long as a piece of string. England's Test-side without Hussain's captaincy is much poorer than with it. And it's mostly the fault of the Press, like so many poor selections.
