The Stokes-Starc Drama

We have just witnessed one of the real oddities of the game of cricket. 

In case you missed it:

• Kiwi-Englishman Ben Stokes hit the ball straight back to the bowler, the reputably aggressive Mitchell Starc
• Starc hurled it back at breakneck speed attempting to smash the wickets and remove Stokes baseball style
• Stokes stuck his hand out to block the throw and was subsequently dismissed for 'obstructing the field'

© foxsports.com.au

And now the cricketing world has blown up, a plethora of debate erupted from one ball of madness.

Question: Is it moral?

This topic is entirely subjective and farms out cricketing hypocrites like anything. The subject of 'gentlemen's game' and 'doing the right thing' is a red herring, even the cleanest outfit in the world has dirty laundry. The team in question is of course our humble Black Caps, remember the incident where McCullum ran out Muralitharan even though the universe knew he wasn't after a single? Now here he is on his high horse crying foul.

The Irish-Englishman captain in question has also taken the tall and mighty ground claiming he would have "withdrawn the appeal". Rubbish. I don't agree with Australians often, but George Bailey was bang on in calling this "a big thing to say". The poms are some of the worst when it comes to sporting behavior and moral standards on the field, the likes of Swann and Anderson are disgraceful.

They, and just about every other cricketing nation, has absolutely no grounds to call the card of "Blasphemy!  We would never do that!".

Question: Who do we blame?

There wouldn't be a debate if there wasn't somebody to point fingers at.

Suspect #1: Mitchell Starc. A bowler trying to destroy the stumps while fielding a return ball is commonplace. It could be a genuine attempt to run out the player, a cheap tactic to intimidate the batsman, or a dirty attempt to actually hit the batsmen. Usually only the Australians venture into the bottom end of the scale, as seen even by Starc himself taking aim at Kieron Pollard. *However* in this case I believe Starc was taking a legitimate shot at the stumps when the batsman was outside his crease. He was not trying to hit Stokes, and there is absolutely nothing wrong with it. 

Verdict: Not Guilty. 

Suspect #2: Ben Stokes. It is illegal to obstruct the ball from a fielders attempt at the stumps, he knew it and anyone with a reasonable eye on the game also knows it. However a look at the replays very clearly shows that this was all about self-preservation. He was genuinely concerned he was about to wear a leather red cricket ball coming at 200kph on his face, and stuck his hand out based on pure instinct and reflex. He was *not* trying to cheat and prevent his own run out. 

Verdict: Not Guilty. 

Suspect #3: The Rules. 

There is surprisingly a piece in the laws of cricket that captures the crux of this problem, self-preservation. 

Law 37 describes the following three circumstances where this applies, but the law is not limited to these circumstances. If, after completing the act of playing the ball, the batsmen willfully strikes the ball with a hand not holding the bat, unless this is in order to avoid injury, or any other part of his person or with his bat

This is a clear cut case of Stokes valuing his head (literally).

Verdict: Not Guilty.

This leaves one remaining culprit...

Suspect #4: The Umpires.
It went upstairs to be looked at, so the on-field umpires did the right thing here and called on the appropriate authority. They took the heat off themselves and avoided a rash and hurried decision. The third umpire then had the benefit of slow motion replays, interpreted the laws in a subjective and opinionated manner, and then sent Stokes on his way. In his eyes there would have been reasonable doubt either way, and in my opinion neither Starc nor Stokes were guilty... hence how can I fault the third umpire for taking a stance he had to make?
Verdict: Not Guilty. 

... Then who is guilty?

The answer is, nobody. And that is what makes any sport interesting.

The uncertainties and the debate are the life of the game. There isn't any right or wrong answer and it can be argued to death in every way. If it was possible to apply a mechanical decision on everything how boring would that be?

Truth is, the best we can all do is take a stance, have an enjoyably loud argument about it, and then get on with the rest of this fascinating series. 

Why Does India try to Sledge?

A week ago my call was 0-4 for India, and at 0-2 the whitewash is on!

Credit where it is due, India have competed quite well at times and in fact inexplicably threw away the Adelaide test which they should have at least drawn. How was that for a brain explosion, it was almost West Indies like. Nonetheless I have been impressed by Murali Vijay and Kohli, and expected worse.

Along came Brisbane, a place where Australia never loses and once again they didn't disappoint. But some hilarity stuck out, in particular India and their new found love for sledging.

Sledging is a cricket exclusive term, or as Steve Waugh termed it... "Mental Disintegration". The Aussies of old used it beautifully to defeat the opposition with mind games and end contests before they even started. Just ask any England team pre-2005 or Daryll Cullinan.

But it is important to realize the most important ingredient the Aussies had, the batting and bowling riches to make it work. The wonderful oxymoron Glenn McGrath is the best example, hurling expletives in the opposition's faces and yet delivering the same dour ball at the same generous pace patiently waiting for the batsman to crack.

Which brings us to India who it seems have adopted the same tactic, hey it worked for them why won't it work for us? This problem is, they are hopeless at it.

So what happened in Brisbane?

• Ishant Sharma, after being utterly thumped all day throws a few f-bombs when removing Steve Smith.  Note that Smith was yet to be dismissed in the series so far and was on 133. Note also that this is one of the most useless bowlers in the game today and it wasn't even a good delivery.
• Rohit Sharma and Superstar Virat greet Mitchell Johnson to the batting crease with some foul mouthing off, followed by some "bouncers" and "fast bowling" of the Indian variety. He proceeds to belt them for 13 fours and a six and then shows them how it's done with the ball including both Kohli (1 run) and Rohit (0 runs).

"Economy rate less than 5, in your face!"

Ladies and gentlemen, this is *not* how it's done.

Add to that whinging more about umpiring (but DRS won't solve anything of course!), Kohli not having enough time to pad up, the practice wickets not being up to standard and apparently the food was no good either. Moan moan moan. 

The real mystery is why India decided to adopt the brilliant idea of annoying the Australians into hammering them. 

In the 90s - Indian teams would show up, get disintegrated, go home and await the return series for revenge. It was horrible, but at least we lost with dignity.

In the 00s - Sourav Ganguly taught the boys to stand up for themselves and push back when pushed. But these guys didn't go around picking fights, the likes of Dravid, Tendulkar, Kumble and Laxman continued to play with dignity and class. It wasn't sledging, it was simply refusing to be bullied and we saw some of the best and most competitive India-Australia cricket. 

In the 10s - We have Gambhir shoulder charging Shane Watson, whose shoulders are bigger than Gambhir himself. We have Raina and Dhawan flopping around on the field mocking an injured batsman. We have two-bit bowlers like Varun Aaron giving send offs to David Warner. Sir Jadeja, Kohli and the Sharmas are always willing to throw in their unwanted two cents, while Dhoni tells us it provides entertainment for the crowd. 

The Indian cricket team that I grew up with was all about humility and grace, they had adopted a more English approach of cricket being a gentleman's game. Now they have taken on the Australian model of turning cricket into psychological warfare, only without any actual weapons. It is all noise and hot air at the moment.

So this is the message to Team India... sledging while winning makes you Australia, sledging while losing makes you idiots.

World Cup 2011 - New Zealand Defeated By Murali and Stupidity

It was business as usual really. New Zealand fielded hard and restricted Sri Lanka to a gettable 265, only to be thwarted by Murali and friends and falling well short. Looking at the scorecard alone it all looked pretty innocuous and predictable, but for one incident.


The Moment
Jayawardene was bogged down for a number of overs, and the run rate was really going nowhere. Nathan McCullum finally drew the mistake, gobbling up a miscue with the catch of the tournament.

Gotcha. ©Getty Images

But Did He!?
Jayawardene stood his ground, and the umpires went upstairs. The replay was reasonably conclusive and everyone, myself and commentators included, was expecting the finger. But alas it was given not out! McCullum and Taylor (surprisingly animated) gave the umpire and Jayawardene a good spray. Simon Doull had a good rant on air while Russell Arnold amusingly wanted nothing to do with it. Where did it go wrong? Who is to blame for this blunder? Lets play judge.

1. Nathan McCullum
Took the catch and rightfully claimed it, before venting his frustrations when the decision was overturned. He did nothing wrong and has every reason to be annoyed. Remember that the person who best knows if the catch was clean is McCullum.
Verdict: Not Guilty

Isn't this a face you can trust? © Getty Images

2. Mahela Jayawardene
Did the right thing by standing his ground if he was unsure, but looking at the big screen should have been enough for him to realize that he was a goner. At the very least he should have gone up and asked the bowler what happened and walked based on his word.
Verdict: Accomplice To Crime


3. Asad Rauf
Was the umpire standing at the time. He did the right thing by going upstairs, but again lacked the backbone to make the rightful stand and send MJ on his way. Shrugging your shoulders was not the answer.
Verdict: Accomplice To Crime


4. Amiesh Saheba
The third umpire at the time, he had the luxury of getting all the replays and angles from upstairs, but you can only take the thirsty horse to the well...
Verdict: Accomplice To Crime


5. Common Sense
Or lack of it. It really goes to show once again that it doesn't matter how brilliant the technology is, having muppets using it will always lead to farces like this. What happened to cricket being a gentleman's game?
Verdict: The Real Culprit