Over the last year or so, I've noticed the western media struggling with what to call Sreesanth. Apparently the edict has now been handed down, and Shantakumaran Sreesanth is henceforth to be referred to as Sree Santh. This gives rise to statements such as "Santh was fortunate not to be given lbw by Steve Bucknor." Wonderful stuff.
Speaking of lbws, it's hardly escaped anyone's noticed that Simon Taufel is having possibly his worst series ever, at least on the evidence of the television cameras. India may yet want to thank him though, for by triggering Tendulkar and Ganguly when he did, he's set up the low 4th innings target. Had he not done so, we might have seen India pushing for an innings victory, and winding up running out of time.
Cue the media again - and this time it's the turn of Sambit Bal, CricInfo's editor, to make the moronic pronouncement of the week, one that reflects a complete lack of comprehension of the game that pays him his living.
"It is not criminal to have the benefit of the doubt extended to the bowler occasionally, particularly when he has beaten the batsman with a good ball"
he says. What a great idea. Rather than have the umpires adjudicate on the facts of the matter, let's have them decide whether or not they think the bowler bowled a good delivery. If he did so, then perhaps the umpire could toss a coin, and if it comes up heads, let's give the batsman out. That way, good deliveries get rewarded.
Do people think before they write this stuff?
2 comments:
All this begs the question: If technology exists to assist a decisions why not use this?
DNA evidence is used in the courts. Why not the TV Umpire in cricket when needed?
This, of course begs the question: When?
Needs to be thought through. But this is inevitable - given the crowd entertainment value this brings!!! KKC
I have no clue where this Sambit Bal came from. Some of his comments are like, what the!!?!?!
He's copped a bit in one of my posts too - idiot.
Post a Comment