I've been away for a couple of days and haven't been able to watch any cricket, but I have been trying to keep up as much as I can.
Sadly, Blackpool has the worst mobile reception away from my home town in Australia, Killyourself W.A. This means I wasn't able to do my usual obsessive checking of wap.cricinfo on my phone or text/ring anyone who might be able to update me.
We did have Sky Sports news in our room, though, so I was able to get a bit of info in between hearing about Liverpool winning 6-1, Chelsea losing to Wigan (that's a wee bit funny) and Bolton actually winning a match for a change.
And all I have to say is this: What the hell is going on over there? South Africa are out; Sri Lanka are on the verge of going out; Australia made hard work of beating West Indies B; India lost to Pakistan and now have to beat us to stay in the tournament and - this is the hardest to swallow - England are through to the semis!!
And, btw, does anyone else think Strauss is a complete arse for not allowing Smith a runner last night? I caught the end of that match and you could see Smith was in pain, plus the Saffers had a mountain to climb in order to win, so why not just let him have a runner?
Anyone who has ever even so much as hiccupped near this blog will know that I am not a fan of Strauss, but it has now disintegrated into downright dislike. The man ought to be boo-ed from rooftops the cricketing world over.
Must go - pigs are flying across the sky and Ponting has just won the toss! By god I hope we can beat India today!!
6 thoughts on this post:
Mike Hussey can bat again. Seriously, what is going on in South Africa?
Just when I have given up on him, he goes and starts batting well!
Why is Clarke not playing again?
He's still out with his back injury. Which he sustained by sitting on the plane for too long.
I didn't think it was an injury so much as a twinge ... hhhmmm ...
Well, Pup's coming home so probably more than a twinge. :/
Also, didn't know about Strauss not allowing Smith to have a runner...and since when does the opposing captain decide that? Thought the umps made the call.
Sigh...I miss all the cricket I used to religiously follow. Damn free to air TV. And it's not like we have an exciting summer coming up...the Windies should be a piece of cake.
It was ultimately up to the umpires, but an opposing captain can complain if he thinks something is against the rules.
What happened was that Smith had batted all day and was limping and in pain, so he called for De Villiers to run for him. Strauss stepped in and recited the rules, which state that a batsman is allowed an umpire for sickness or injury only. He claimed that this was not injury, but fatigue and that therefore Smith was not entitled to a runner.
It was ultimately the umpires' decision, and they changed their mind to agree with Strauss. Which I think is wrong, but had Strauss been magnanimous in victory he would nto have opposed it and the umps would have allowed the runner. They were obviously going to allow it because De Villiers had actually come out ready to run.
So it is not all Strauss's fault, but I think he was being nit-picky for no reason. England had won the day - let the guy have his runner. This is how the English behave in victory.
Post a Comment