|
One
bouncer an over in One day Internationals:
A fair deal
The
topic that has stormed the current cricketing world is the domination of
batsmen in one-day cricket. Not only the cricketing rules favor them, even
the pitches are laid down keeping the batsmen in mind. This helps the
batsmen to score big innings thereby minimizing the options for the poor
bowlers.
If
you look at it closely then you would find that except for the LBW rule
there is nothing that goes for the bowlers and in that too there are
various complications. So, in order to balance the game a bit, some of the
senior players and commentators have raised a few questions about the way
the rules have been worked out and how there should be a more serious look
taken at them. The rule in question is the one where the bowler should be
allowed to bowl a bouncer an over. Australian captain Steve Waugh has been
the most vocal of all, as he thinks that the 15 overs rule is totally for
the batsmen. They have no hesitancy in walking on the pitch even to the
best bowlers because they know that the bowler would not bowl a bouncer as
it would concede a run and secondly he can’t get out.
The
point raised thus sounds fully justified as it would not only give a
weapon to the bowlers to work with but would also play on the batsmen’s
mind. At the end of the day one does feel for the bowlers as they too work
as hard as the batsmen but only a few get the limelight, infact the
skilled one’s too have to face the tough times. The authorities are
still quiet about their decision on the said subject, but this point has
quite a few supporters and it would not be long before something would be
done. Lets hope it happens soon enough to bring some sanity to the game
called ‘Cricket’.
Chucking:
Has it been dealt with properly?
In
1995, the last of the Benson and Hedges series in Australia, Sri-Lanka
were playing Australia. In that particular series, an incident took place
that created so much roar and excitement all over the world. Australian
Umpires Ross Emerson and Daryll Hair called Sri-Lankan bowler Muthiah
Murlitharan for chucking the ball. He was not allowed to bowl in a match
and his case was referred to the ICC for further action. The Sri Lankans
protested against the decision as they felt that nothing was wrong with
his action. After some months Murlitharan was given a clean chit by the
panel and he was free to bowl again. But it did not end here. Ross Emerson
called him again and this time it was the umpire who had to face the
music. Not only did he receive criticism from all quarters but this also
ended his umpiring career forever. Besides Murli there have been others as
well. Shoaib Akhtar and Shabbir Khan of Pakistan were called for the same
reason and ICC suspended Shoaib from playing in the Carlton and United
Series but this was overruled by the then ICC President Dalmiya who stated
that he can bowl in the one-dayers since his action comes under scrutiny
when he bowls bouncers. As expected Dalmiya became the laughing stock and
this decision received World Wide criticism. After that Brett Lee had to
go through the tests conducted by ICC who thought that he had a suspect
action but was cleared by them. The latest to join the list is Grant
Flower who was recently called for chucking by Daryll Hair in the first
test against New Zealand. Well this backfired on Hair as the Zimbabwe
board cleared him and in the next match when he resumed bowling Umpire
Shephard found nothing wrong with his action. Some how the common factor
in all of this besides the chucking bit is the presence of an Australian
umpire. No one doubts the caliber of these gentlemen but the ICC panel has
cleared the players that they have called and not even one has been proven
guilty of chucking.
Chucking
the ball is unethical in the books of this great game and if there is
anyone guilty of doing so than he should be severely reprimanded. But one
should be careful in calling someone a chucker. Thank God these men were
strong enough to not only make a comeback but also became better.
Otherwise this can prove to be fatal for someone who doesn’t have the
strength to prove them wrong. The ICC has received a lot of flak in the
recent months over a lot of issues and they need to more precise and
professional in their decision-making. Lets hope that there are no
causalities as far this chucking issue is concerned
The A to Zee of cricket
Zee TV feels ICC is racistToo many people with wild ideas and wild theories? That sure is what
ICC Chief Executive David Richards seems to think. Faced with allegations from Zee TV that
the International Cricket council had racial motives while awarding telecast rights for
the World Cup, Richards found the remarks ridiculous. Zee TV, which had lost in the race
for earning television telecast rights for the 2003 and 2007 World Cups had recently
accused ICC of having 'a very clear game plan and a mischievous design of keeping the
developing world in a limited world of contractship.' Richards refuted that the
decision to go with the World Sports Group and News Corp Combine was taken on commercial
grounds only. The International Cricket Council, as the name suggests is an
organisation that is essentially made up of people from all over the world of cricket from
different cultures and backgrounds. Accusing such an organisation of racist motives is
quite, quite a bold step. And not just that, isn't Zee TV ruining its own relationships
with the more influential part of the cricket world? I mean, fair or unfair ( we're
talking about racism here - pun intended) this is one case where bygones should be left as
bygones. That's what has always happened, and that is how things will always be. The
powerful will always rule the roost. The egos need to be simmered down, and tempers
soothened. All this hue and cry will hardly do any good to Zee. Though, they might end up
proving their point, but sour relationships with the ICC is guaranteed hereafter. This is
something no media house would really like to indulge into.
However,
Ali Bacher too suggested that there might be rift within ICC on the east-west basis, but
Richards had ruled that possibility to. Well, well, the ball is in mid air right now, but
we are sure of one thing at the least - whosoever might end up winning this game of TV
rights, the ball is going to end up in ICC's court for sure.
|
