sri lankas bowling attack the best?

[shortpitched713]

Originally Posted by jot1

Re the last ball bowled in the England match where Fernando ran up and then did not release the ball, laughed, turned around and only then bowled the ball.
Fernando did that deliberately, it has even been suggested, (in a newspaper claiming to have interviewed him, though I haven't read the article myself, if there is one), that his captain told him to do so to distract Bopara and break his concentration and so unsettle him.
What I want to know is whether people think it was legal gamesmanship or cheating?

It would definitely be under the category of gamesmanship, but how do you even know he did it deliberately in the first place?

[jot1]

Originally Posted by shortpitched713

It would definitely be under the category of gamesmanship, but how do you even know he did it deliberately in the first place?

I don't know that he did. I watched the game and to me it was just part of the game. The England supporters watching with us got very excited and upset and shouted "cheat", etc. Today, while discussing the game some of them said the SL captain said in an interview that he had told Fernando to do that and they maintain it was not in the spirit of the game. I just wondered if other England supporters thought so too.

[Richard]

I'd be interested in what you'd have thought were it a game against South Africa... And I mean that in complete sincerity.

[jot1]

Originally Posted by Richard

I'd be interested in what you'd have thought were it a game against South Africa... And I mean that in complete sincerity.

It didn't occur to me as cheating at the time because it happens often enough during matches. After our discussion and the "alledged" statement to the newspaper, I did think it was a form of cheating, even if a "legitimate" one. But I believe I wouldn't have been too upset as worse things go on to disconcert batsmen. It shows the quality of the batsman if he doesn't let it. As in the case when Graeme Smith went off with cramp. The whole side collapsed. Commentators were saying that it upset the side and precipitated a collapse. I believe it shouldn't have. He could've been bowled, would that also of excused a collapse?

[Ash_A55]

Originally Posted by shortpitched713

It would definitely be under the category of gamesmanship, but how do you even know he did it deliberately in the first place?

I would put it in the category of genius!

[Prince EWS]

Originally Posted by Ash_A55

I would put it in the category of genius!

Why? I can't see any real benefits of doing it, nor do I see it as something that hasn't been thought of before...

[Ash_A55]

He could see what shot Bopara was going to play

[dinu23]

Originally Posted by Ash_A55

He could see what shot Bopara was going to play

yeah, that was definitely the reason dilhara didnt bowl that ball.

[Bracken]

Originally Posted by Prince EWS

Why? I can't see any real benefits of doing it, nor do I see it as something that hasn't been thought of before...

I remember hearing Warne talking about doing this against the West Indies in the Caribbean while bowling to Hooper.

Hooper was coming down the track to him consistently, and Warne couldn't work out how to pick when Hooper would charge, and when he would play from the crease. He decided to come in to bowl, with no intention of letting the ball go, and just watch Hooper. He worked out that Hooper would glance down at his boots as Warne was coming in to bowl when he intended playing from the crease, but would just look straight at Warne when he was going to charge.

He got his information, and then was more successful against him.

As long as its not done constantly, I don't see an issue with it. Frankly, if a batsman is premeditating his shots so much that it makes the bowler's tactic effective, then that his the risk he takes.

[Ash_A55]

how inciteful

[Richard]

Originally Posted by Bracken

I remember hearing Warne talking about doing this against the West Indies in the Caribbean while bowling to Hooper.

Hooper was coming down the track to him consistently, and Warne couldn't work out how to pick when Hooper would charge, and when he would play from the crease. He decided to come in to bowl, with no intention of letting the ball go, and just watch Hooper. He worked out that Hooper would glance down at his boots as Warne was coming in to bowl when he intended playing from the crease, but would just look straight at Warne when he was going to charge.

He got his information, and then was more successful against him.

As long as its not done constantly, I don't see an issue with it. Frankly, if a batsman is premeditating his shots so much that it makes the bowler's tactic effective, then that his the risk he takes.

Yep, agree 100%. It's a legit tactic to counter premeditated strokes from batsmen IMO.

[Perm]

Originally Posted by Ash_A55

He could see what shot Bopara was going to play

My Dad said exactly the same thing, since Bopara didn't come down the wicket or move to the off/leg side at all then Dilhara could assume he was going to play the ball from the crease. Bit of a risk, but it turns out thats the way it eventuated.