Alastair Cook seems as though he is never satisfied. Even when making his first ever test 250 (and the becoming the first Englishman to make a test 250 for 21 years) he barely raised the bat to the crowd, thinking more about how he was going to score the next 250.
Alastair Cook loves batting, and he loves scoring runs. Everything he does appears to be on some sort of personal vendetta to score as many runs as he possibly can. He can never have enough runs. You can picture him in a future James Bond film as some sort of evil meglomaniac, constantly batting and refusing to get out, taking over the world by boring opponents to death whilst scoring millions of runs.
Some critics of Cook say that he can't pick up the rate and accelerate, which is sometimes needed when a declaration is in sight. But quite simply Cook sees no need to pick up the scoring rate - he's just happy scoring runs, and lots of them, and he'll try and score as many as he can. He knows that if he keeps making mountains of runs, England will keep winning test matches, and that what keeps pushing Cook on to keep going.
I don't like using the term run machine, but it's hard to give Cook any other title. He almost seems emotionless while at the crease, effortlessly switching between a heavy concentration and an automaton state of unawareness. The man doesn't even sweat, which just confirms the fact that he is clearly not human. In the film where Cook is the villain, he'd just keep coming at James Bond, no matter how many bullets are fired at him. Cook would just swat them away, with dabs into the on-side for singles to keep scoring runs. The film would only end after about 12 hours when Strauss has enough and decides to declare, but even then Cook would be unaware to what's happening around him; still focussing on scoring more runs.
Alastair Cook is an immense batsman, and will no doubt go down in history as one of England's greats - if not the best. Every successful team needs a player who is so set on scoring runs that failure is not an option; a cold hard ruthless killer who drills the opposition into the ground and demoralises them so completely that it doesn't seem to be a fair fight. Fortunately for England, they have Alastair Cook, who will continue to do that for quite a few years to come. Unfortunately for the rest of the world, they also have Jonathan Trott, who if anything, is even more relentless. Good luck, rest of the world. You're going to need it.
Friday, 12 August 2011
Monday, 8 August 2011
Podcast - Stuart Broad's Vaseline
Subscribe to the Short Midwicket Podcast on iTunes!
Or, download this via Podbean
England's win at Trent Bridge was a victory for tenacity, and Will dissected just why England are so damn good. The various controversies are looked at, from Bell's run-out to the DRS, and even to Vase-gate, as Will looks at whether the spirit of cricket is indeed alive and well. India are all injured, so will looks at why, as well as working out whether Tim Bresnan really is the greatest all-rounder in the world and if England should go in to Edgbaston with only six batsmen.
Or, download this via Podbean
England's win at Trent Bridge was a victory for tenacity, and Will dissected just why England are so damn good. The various controversies are looked at, from Bell's run-out to the DRS, and even to Vase-gate, as Will looks at whether the spirit of cricket is indeed alive and well. India are all injured, so will looks at why, as well as working out whether Tim Bresnan really is the greatest all-rounder in the world and if England should go in to Edgbaston with only six batsmen.
Friday, 5 August 2011
Flower's Selection Headache
England's selectors name their squad for the third test against India tomorrow, and they're faced with a dilemma, and his name is Tim Bresnan. After sticking with a tried and tested formula of seven batsmen and four bowlers over the past couple of years, the selectors will have to decide on whether to drastically change policy and shuffle things around, or to stick with traditional and keep the status quo.
Ever since being gubbed at Headingley by the rampant Australians in 2009, Andy Flower has had an obvious reticence to only playing six specialist batsmen. With a long tail starting at seven, England were rolled within 34 overs, and ultimately lost within three days by an innings. Despite containing 'handy' players down the order (with Swann and Broad both sharing slightly face-saving half-centuries), England lacked the safety-net of an extra batsman, and paid the price handsomely. Since then, Flower and Strauss have steadfastly refused to change their preferred shape, which as rigidly defensive as it may be, has clearly wielded great results.
Jonathan Trott is injured, and unlikely to play at Edgbaston. And normally we would just see the "next cab off the rank" in operation, with (probably) James Taylor coming in to the side to maintain the natural order of things. However. Tim Bresnan has just had an excellent game at Trent Bridge, with a five-wicket haul and a 90 certainly adding weight to the argument that he is a true test all-rounder. It would almost appear illogical to drop him after the game he's just had, if not downright cruel. So with Trott out should England move Bresnan up to seven and go with only the six out-and-out batsmen?
Things certainly seem to be in Bresnan's favour. Even though he may arguably be a touch too high at number seven, with Swann and Broad below him, there's certainly a tail that can wag viciously. Having Matt Prior at number six isn't an issue, as he's proven in the past that he's plenty good enough to bat there, and England have enough batsmen in top form to afford to add an extra bowler. The shape could still work if Chris Tremlett doesn't pass fit, with Steven Finn ready and waiting to step into the breach, and either way England would have a very strong batting and bowling line-up.
Headingley 2009 still haunts Andy Flower, and the scars of that performance have been evident in the team selections ever since. However, it's surely impossible to omit Bresnan, and the return of Tremlett would give them a very big headache. However, the injury to Trott gives England the opportunity to have their cake and eat it, and to rearrange the shape of the side. With India on the ropes, England must go out and finish them off, and the best way to do so is with an aggressive line-up. It just remains to be seen whether Andy Flower makes the brave call in changing the policy, or the safe one in sticking with the usual.
Ever since being gubbed at Headingley by the rampant Australians in 2009, Andy Flower has had an obvious reticence to only playing six specialist batsmen. With a long tail starting at seven, England were rolled within 34 overs, and ultimately lost within three days by an innings. Despite containing 'handy' players down the order (with Swann and Broad both sharing slightly face-saving half-centuries), England lacked the safety-net of an extra batsman, and paid the price handsomely. Since then, Flower and Strauss have steadfastly refused to change their preferred shape, which as rigidly defensive as it may be, has clearly wielded great results.
Jonathan Trott is injured, and unlikely to play at Edgbaston. And normally we would just see the "next cab off the rank" in operation, with (probably) James Taylor coming in to the side to maintain the natural order of things. However. Tim Bresnan has just had an excellent game at Trent Bridge, with a five-wicket haul and a 90 certainly adding weight to the argument that he is a true test all-rounder. It would almost appear illogical to drop him after the game he's just had, if not downright cruel. So with Trott out should England move Bresnan up to seven and go with only the six out-and-out batsmen?
Things certainly seem to be in Bresnan's favour. Even though he may arguably be a touch too high at number seven, with Swann and Broad below him, there's certainly a tail that can wag viciously. Having Matt Prior at number six isn't an issue, as he's proven in the past that he's plenty good enough to bat there, and England have enough batsmen in top form to afford to add an extra bowler. The shape could still work if Chris Tremlett doesn't pass fit, with Steven Finn ready and waiting to step into the breach, and either way England would have a very strong batting and bowling line-up.
Headingley 2009 still haunts Andy Flower, and the scars of that performance have been evident in the team selections ever since. However, it's surely impossible to omit Bresnan, and the return of Tremlett would give them a very big headache. However, the injury to Trott gives England the opportunity to have their cake and eat it, and to rearrange the shape of the side. With India on the ropes, England must go out and finish them off, and the best way to do so is with an aggressive line-up. It just remains to be seen whether Andy Flower makes the brave call in changing the policy, or the safe one in sticking with the usual.
Wednesday, 3 August 2011
2005 v 2011 - Ultimate Team
Last night I had a look at this current England side, and whether they're better than their 2005 counterparts. Seeing as quite a few people have been getting involved in creating a 2005-2011 composite side (including Tom Fordyce of the BBC), I thought I'd have a go myself.
1) Alastair Cook (2011) - Just count the runs. Not in sparkling form thus far in this India series, but his feats over the winter and into the Sri Lanka series speak for themselves.
2) Andrew Strauss (2005) - A really tough one this for the opposing opening berth - do you want the Strauss of 2011 with added captaincy? Or the hard-hitting Trescothick, who'd otherwise walk into any composite England team of recent history? Instead I've gone for 2005 edition Strauss, as he gutsed out two big hundreds despite wearing a few from Brett Lee. As classy and stylish a batsman as you could ever see, and 2005 was just about at his pomp.
3) Michael Vaughan [Captain] (2005) - As much for the excellent batting (on his day Vaughany was as good as any in the world) as the innovative and inspirational captaincy. Would certainly get the best out of his bowlers, as well as plenty of runs from number 3.
4) Kevin Pietersen (2011) - The Kevin Pietersen of 2005 was a breath of fresh air; the young skunk-haired Saffa who hit Warney for sixes and dropped catches for fun. The 2011 KP still drops the odd catch, but has become a bit more wise about his cricket. While in 2005 he'd hit a six, but then be caught on the boundary trying it again, in 2011 he's a touch more circumspect, as seen in a gritty 200 at Lord's last week. After a rough patch, 2011 KP has found a way back to the 2005 form that saw him burst onto the world scene, which is why the more mature vintage makes it into the team.
5) Ian Bell (2011) - No contest at all for which edition of Ian Bell to put into the team; in 2005 he was very much a boy amongst men, whereas in 2011 he towers over his contemporaries. Since being shellshocked in 2005, Bell has added guts to his obvious skill, and is arguably the best batsman in the world right now.
6) Andrew Flintoff (2005) - Do I even need to elaborate? Runs, wickets, bucket hands at first slip, inspirational match-winning performances, a few drinks.
7) Matt Prior (2011) - Matt Prior is quite simply the best wicket-keeper batsman in the world, and his all-round game has improved leaps and bounds since arriving on the international scene. Geraint Jones never flourished with either glove or bat, but is still revered as a hero for catching Kasprowicz down the leg side.
8) Graeme Swann (2011) - Graeme Swann is an attacking offie who turns the ball a fair way. Ashley Giles was a defensive slow left armer who's stock ball was the straight one. Thanks for the runs at Trent Bridge Gilo, but I'm sticking with Swanny.
9) Steve Harmison (2005) - Harmy was probably already on the slide by 2005, but was still a fearful sight for any batsman. That early spell on the first morning at Lord's where he skittled the Aussies (and cut Ricky Ponting) set the tone for the series (even if England were thumped) and Harmison led England's most successful attack of recent years with distinction.
10) Jimmy Anderson (2011) - The leader of England's attack six years later. Now with an ability to swing it wherever he wants, there is no better bowler in English conditions, and Jimmy takes wickets for fun.
11) Simon Jones (2005) - A tough one for my final seamer's spot. Chris Tremlett, he of the fearful bounce? Stuart Broad, theenforcer man risen from the dead who takes wickets and scores runs? Matthew Hoggard to share the new ball and make it talk? Instead, I've gone for the master of reverse swing, and the unsung hero of England's 2005 Ashes win. The Welsh Warrior, Simon Jones.
So then, that's my composite 2005 and 2011 England team. Just imagine if such a side (at their peak) had taken to the field - especially with the likes of Trescothick, Trott, Strauss, Pietersen, Tremlett, Broad and Hoggard in reserve - we'd have been world number one years ago!
1) Alastair Cook (2011) - Just count the runs. Not in sparkling form thus far in this India series, but his feats over the winter and into the Sri Lanka series speak for themselves.
2) Andrew Strauss (2005) - A really tough one this for the opposing opening berth - do you want the Strauss of 2011 with added captaincy? Or the hard-hitting Trescothick, who'd otherwise walk into any composite England team of recent history? Instead I've gone for 2005 edition Strauss, as he gutsed out two big hundreds despite wearing a few from Brett Lee. As classy and stylish a batsman as you could ever see, and 2005 was just about at his pomp.
3) Michael Vaughan [Captain] (2005) - As much for the excellent batting (on his day Vaughany was as good as any in the world) as the innovative and inspirational captaincy. Would certainly get the best out of his bowlers, as well as plenty of runs from number 3.
4) Kevin Pietersen (2011) - The Kevin Pietersen of 2005 was a breath of fresh air; the young skunk-haired Saffa who hit Warney for sixes and dropped catches for fun. The 2011 KP still drops the odd catch, but has become a bit more wise about his cricket. While in 2005 he'd hit a six, but then be caught on the boundary trying it again, in 2011 he's a touch more circumspect, as seen in a gritty 200 at Lord's last week. After a rough patch, 2011 KP has found a way back to the 2005 form that saw him burst onto the world scene, which is why the more mature vintage makes it into the team.
5) Ian Bell (2011) - No contest at all for which edition of Ian Bell to put into the team; in 2005 he was very much a boy amongst men, whereas in 2011 he towers over his contemporaries. Since being shellshocked in 2005, Bell has added guts to his obvious skill, and is arguably the best batsman in the world right now.
6) Andrew Flintoff (2005) - Do I even need to elaborate? Runs, wickets, bucket hands at first slip, inspirational match-winning performances, a few drinks.
7) Matt Prior (2011) - Matt Prior is quite simply the best wicket-keeper batsman in the world, and his all-round game has improved leaps and bounds since arriving on the international scene. Geraint Jones never flourished with either glove or bat, but is still revered as a hero for catching Kasprowicz down the leg side.
8) Graeme Swann (2011) - Graeme Swann is an attacking offie who turns the ball a fair way. Ashley Giles was a defensive slow left armer who's stock ball was the straight one. Thanks for the runs at Trent Bridge Gilo, but I'm sticking with Swanny.
9) Steve Harmison (2005) - Harmy was probably already on the slide by 2005, but was still a fearful sight for any batsman. That early spell on the first morning at Lord's where he skittled the Aussies (and cut Ricky Ponting) set the tone for the series (even if England were thumped) and Harmison led England's most successful attack of recent years with distinction.
10) Jimmy Anderson (2011) - The leader of England's attack six years later. Now with an ability to swing it wherever he wants, there is no better bowler in English conditions, and Jimmy takes wickets for fun.
11) Simon Jones (2005) - A tough one for my final seamer's spot. Chris Tremlett, he of the fearful bounce? Stuart Broad, the
So then, that's my composite 2005 and 2011 England team. Just imagine if such a side (at their peak) had taken to the field - especially with the likes of Trescothick, Trott, Strauss, Pietersen, Tremlett, Broad and Hoggard in reserve - we'd have been world number one years ago!
Tuesday, 2 August 2011
2005 v 2011 - Who's Better?
With the current England side looking like it's going to be the best in the world in a couple of weeks, it's natural to wonder if it's the best England side in living memory. Of course, the biggest opposition to that claim is the victors of the greatest series - the class of 2005. Captained by Vaughan, inspired by Freddie at his best and packed with big names, the 2005 vintage battled and beat the best side in the world.
The 2011 lot are also playing the team who are at the summit of test cricket. However, unlike 2005, instead of scraping tight fought victories, they're destroying all before them and sauntering to big wins. This doesn't automatically make the 2011 team better than their 2005 contemporaries, as it's plainly obvious that the opposition in '05 of Warne, McGrath, Gilchrist, Ponting et al are on a slightly higher plain than the current touring Indian side.
However, for me, if the two best England sides of the 21st century were to meet, there'd only be one winner. As good as the 2005 team were, they managed to win the Ashes while carrying a few players. Ashley Giles, a man who's runs at Trent Bridge and the Oval make him a hero amongst men, was hardly the most threatening spinner of the ball. You don't get called the Wheely Bin for nothing. And the 2005 edition of Ian Bell is a far cry from the hardened run-machine currently seen, with a freckly rabbit-in-the-headlights a more apt description. In 2011, there simply isn't that. Everybody pulls their weight.
However, we won't know the true ability of the 2011 side for quite a while. Back in 2005, having won the Ashes, England had the world at their feet. However, a combination of taking their eyes off the ball, untimely injuries and the gradual aging of players meant the side drifted apart and world domination was not reached. As such, the 2005 side is seen as just a one-off - a side that was put together with winning the Ashes in mind, and ultimately they achieved their goal. The key for Andy Flower and Andrew Strauss is to create a legacy - a side that dominates world cricket for years to come.
The 2011 lot are also playing the team who are at the summit of test cricket. However, unlike 2005, instead of scraping tight fought victories, they're destroying all before them and sauntering to big wins. This doesn't automatically make the 2011 team better than their 2005 contemporaries, as it's plainly obvious that the opposition in '05 of Warne, McGrath, Gilchrist, Ponting et al are on a slightly higher plain than the current touring Indian side.
However, for me, if the two best England sides of the 21st century were to meet, there'd only be one winner. As good as the 2005 team were, they managed to win the Ashes while carrying a few players. Ashley Giles, a man who's runs at Trent Bridge and the Oval make him a hero amongst men, was hardly the most threatening spinner of the ball. You don't get called the Wheely Bin for nothing. And the 2005 edition of Ian Bell is a far cry from the hardened run-machine currently seen, with a freckly rabbit-in-the-headlights a more apt description. In 2011, there simply isn't that. Everybody pulls their weight.
However, we won't know the true ability of the 2011 side for quite a while. Back in 2005, having won the Ashes, England had the world at their feet. However, a combination of taking their eyes off the ball, untimely injuries and the gradual aging of players meant the side drifted apart and world domination was not reached. As such, the 2005 side is seen as just a one-off - a side that was put together with winning the Ashes in mind, and ultimately they achieved their goal. The key for Andy Flower and Andrew Strauss is to create a legacy - a side that dominates world cricket for years to come.
Monday, 1 August 2011
England's Win a Victory for Tenacity
Test cricket is more than just about having a good technique or a solid defence. It's about mental fortitude and having the concentration for fifteen two-hour sessions of intense cricket where you have to keep your eye on the ball. Games of test cricket can be won and lost in an instant, and the best teams are those who are always switched on and are as such able to win those games at any given moment.
Having a team of good cricketers does go a long way, but the great sides of test cricket are the teams full of "winners" - those who refuse to give up when faced with defeat, or allow opposing teams to rise from difficult situations. England are certainly a team of winners. At 88/6 and 124/8 on the first afternoon, it would have been easy to fold and put up a score that would almost certainly be a losing one. But the grit and determination of the lower-order saw them to 221; not an awful score given the tough scoring conditions. India had overtaken that score with only four wickets down, and looked set to build a sizeable lead. But England fought back, and led by Stuart Broad taking 5 wickets for 0 runs in 18 balls, were reduced to a lead of only 67.
Even when things weren't going their way during that Indian first innings, England kept fighting. They never stopped believing that they could cause an Indian collapse, and it only needed the spark of Stuart Broad to make it happen. Compare that to the lifeless display of bowling from India at the back end of England's second innings, where runs were being gifted away and nobody seemed to bothered. The impressive Praveen Kumar aside, it was a completely gutless and embarrassing display, as Prior, Bresnan and Broad all cashed in with the easiest runs in test cricket they will ever make. India had completely given up - remarkable for a team that boasts some of the greatest talents to ever grace the game, are World Champions, and the current holders of the world number one ranking. That seems as though it's going to be meekly surrendered too. Bell's innings was full of class, and even allowing for his reprieve, India still were in with a chance. Bell departed at 323/4, a lead of only 256. Had they got their tails up and stuck into England, they could have been looking at a chase of not much more than 300. Given that Bell showed batting wasn't a total nightmare on that pitch, and that they possess Dravid, Laxman and Tendulkar, India were still in with a big chance of winning that game. You know England, or indeed, any team of winners would have at least given it a crack. Instead, they ceded another 200 runs as England's tail took it well out of their reach. By the end, it was men against boys. They didn't even bother trying to reach the victory target of 478.
India are quite clearly a team of class individual players, all with skills that on their day make them world-class performers. However, when the going got tough, they didn't get going at all, instead retreating so meekly it made England's march to victory almost painful to watch. The hosts, on the other hand are a side that relish the big battles, and they invariably win them. To win the game by 319 runs given the perils of the first two days certainly shows the character of this current England team. India earned the number one test ranking, but have underperformed massively so far, with England taking full advantage. England are now odds-on to take over that coveted number one ranking, and having seen the way they've played in the first two tests of the series, you'd fancy them holding onto the position for a very long time to come.
Having a team of good cricketers does go a long way, but the great sides of test cricket are the teams full of "winners" - those who refuse to give up when faced with defeat, or allow opposing teams to rise from difficult situations. England are certainly a team of winners. At 88/6 and 124/8 on the first afternoon, it would have been easy to fold and put up a score that would almost certainly be a losing one. But the grit and determination of the lower-order saw them to 221; not an awful score given the tough scoring conditions. India had overtaken that score with only four wickets down, and looked set to build a sizeable lead. But England fought back, and led by Stuart Broad taking 5 wickets for 0 runs in 18 balls, were reduced to a lead of only 67.
Even when things weren't going their way during that Indian first innings, England kept fighting. They never stopped believing that they could cause an Indian collapse, and it only needed the spark of Stuart Broad to make it happen. Compare that to the lifeless display of bowling from India at the back end of England's second innings, where runs were being gifted away and nobody seemed to bothered. The impressive Praveen Kumar aside, it was a completely gutless and embarrassing display, as Prior, Bresnan and Broad all cashed in with the easiest runs in test cricket they will ever make. India had completely given up - remarkable for a team that boasts some of the greatest talents to ever grace the game, are World Champions, and the current holders of the world number one ranking. That seems as though it's going to be meekly surrendered too. Bell's innings was full of class, and even allowing for his reprieve, India still were in with a chance. Bell departed at 323/4, a lead of only 256. Had they got their tails up and stuck into England, they could have been looking at a chase of not much more than 300. Given that Bell showed batting wasn't a total nightmare on that pitch, and that they possess Dravid, Laxman and Tendulkar, India were still in with a big chance of winning that game. You know England, or indeed, any team of winners would have at least given it a crack. Instead, they ceded another 200 runs as England's tail took it well out of their reach. By the end, it was men against boys. They didn't even bother trying to reach the victory target of 478.
India are quite clearly a team of class individual players, all with skills that on their day make them world-class performers. However, when the going got tough, they didn't get going at all, instead retreating so meekly it made England's march to victory almost painful to watch. The hosts, on the other hand are a side that relish the big battles, and they invariably win them. To win the game by 319 runs given the perils of the first two days certainly shows the character of this current England team. India earned the number one test ranking, but have underperformed massively so far, with England taking full advantage. England are now odds-on to take over that coveted number one ranking, and having seen the way they've played in the first two tests of the series, you'd fancy them holding onto the position for a very long time to come.
My Take on the Bell Run-Out
I won't make this a long-winded thing because I know absolutely every cricket fan with access to the internet has already voiced their opinions on the incident already, but just because I can, here's my two cents worth.
Massive credit to India. They didn't have to repeal the appeal. With the game situation as it was, they knew just how important the wicket of Ian Bell would be, and in the laws of the game, they had taken it. It would have been easy for them to do nothing, or to argue that they'd done nothing wrong in whipping the bails off and appealing. From what we heard from Rahul Dravid, the whole team felt distinctly uneasy at getting the wicket that way, and the unanimous decision was made to recall Bell.
However, as sporting as India clearly were, England certainly didn't cover themselves in glory. Bell's celebrations when reaching 150 were, given the reprieve he'd been granted, a touch over-exuberant, and he seemed to show a tragic lack of self-awareness when not taking responsibility for his part in it in the interviews at the end. And Andy Flower and Andrew Strauss probably shouldn't have put pressure on the Indian dressing room to change the decision - at the end of the day it was completely up to India to decide and nothing to do with Strauss or Flower.
We all know the whole situation could have been avoided had Ian Bell simply waited for some sort of signal from the umpires, or for the ball to be thrown in from the boundary. However, once he didn't do that, India were well within their rights to knock the bails off, and the umpires were totally correct in giving him out. There's no denying that Bell was certainly very foolish, and the way he argued his way out of the situation rather than holding his hands up and admitting his error didn't look brilliant. However, the odd situation shouldn't take away from a fine innings - one of the best we'll see in test cricket this year, and what could be a match-winning one.
All in all, while the ICC statement praises one side, only one has come out of this in credit. India, who lest we forget are the number one side in the world, certainly set the benchmark for the way cricket should be played, and for that, they should be applauded from the rooftops. The spirit of cricket, in some quarters at least, is certainly alive and well.
Massive credit to India. They didn't have to repeal the appeal. With the game situation as it was, they knew just how important the wicket of Ian Bell would be, and in the laws of the game, they had taken it. It would have been easy for them to do nothing, or to argue that they'd done nothing wrong in whipping the bails off and appealing. From what we heard from Rahul Dravid, the whole team felt distinctly uneasy at getting the wicket that way, and the unanimous decision was made to recall Bell.
However, as sporting as India clearly were, England certainly didn't cover themselves in glory. Bell's celebrations when reaching 150 were, given the reprieve he'd been granted, a touch over-exuberant, and he seemed to show a tragic lack of self-awareness when not taking responsibility for his part in it in the interviews at the end. And Andy Flower and Andrew Strauss probably shouldn't have put pressure on the Indian dressing room to change the decision - at the end of the day it was completely up to India to decide and nothing to do with Strauss or Flower.
We all know the whole situation could have been avoided had Ian Bell simply waited for some sort of signal from the umpires, or for the ball to be thrown in from the boundary. However, once he didn't do that, India were well within their rights to knock the bails off, and the umpires were totally correct in giving him out. There's no denying that Bell was certainly very foolish, and the way he argued his way out of the situation rather than holding his hands up and admitting his error didn't look brilliant. However, the odd situation shouldn't take away from a fine innings - one of the best we'll see in test cricket this year, and what could be a match-winning one.
All in all, while the ICC statement praises one side, only one has come out of this in credit. India, who lest we forget are the number one side in the world, certainly set the benchmark for the way cricket should be played, and for that, they should be applauded from the rooftops. The spirit of cricket, in some quarters at least, is certainly alive and well.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)