Newsgroups: rec.sport.cricket

In rec.sport.cricket, ABEGLEY@ccmail.sunysb.edu (Anthony M. Begley) writes:

} Thanks to all those involved in reporting another exciting test. I wont say
} anything about that deluded :--) supporter who thought Pakistan were the 
} greatest team in modern history.

Wait a minute.. Did someone claim that ? Although I think Pakistan has
the best and most varied bowling attack in the world today.

} picked the perfect bowlers to achieve it. Some would argue that adapting
} your pitch to suit your bowlers is cheating but what do you expect when England
} only produces medium pace swing (but mostly seam) bowlers. The Headingly pitch 
} and conditions were just perfect for the England seamers who bowl a good line 
} and length, but not as suited to the Pakistani quickies. Although all the luck
} seemed to have gone Englands way.

Nothing wrong with preparing a pitch to suit your strength, or cover your
weaknesses :-) It has always been done. Now should we ask for neutral
groundsmen as well, while we are at it ?

} People are right when they say the English attack is mild (Pringle, mallender,
} Lewis, Munton are all trundlers who would never bowl a good side out twice
} on a respectable wicket). I still feel the Oval will be more suitable to the
} Pakistan attack. However, we shall see.

Pringle has probably been the best of English bowlers off late. Why he
was dropped in between I don't know. Lewis has a few good spells every
now and then. But England lacks a strike bowler. Someone who can carve
through the line up. Like Waqar did in the England innings.

}> The claim is preposterous because if "English umpires are the best in the world" then 
}> nobody, visiting or home, should be able to get an advantage. Hope that is 
}> clear now. 
}This is rather a silly argument, altogether. What should really be implied is
}that England was disadvantaged because it didnt have a bowler of the quality of
}Alderman. Only in England did Alderman get the perfect conditions to suit his
}beautiful action. Thus only the English umpires were tested as to their strength
}of character in giving so many LBW decisions impartially. It was just a case
}of a great bowler, admirably suited to the conditions, having a fantastic summer

I have to score you high on originality. By a similar logic, Zimabwe 
is disadvantaged because it does not have a Curtly Ambrose, Waqar, McDermott
or Akram. Alderman went straight for the middle stump and exploited the 
conditions. Why should that bother the "impartial" English umpire and test
the strength of his character ? He is the best in the world, right ?

I think you have to make up your mind. If Alderman was really good and trapped
more people in front, he should get more LBWs. Shamim's point was that
when you have a truly neutral umpire then he is equally fair to both sides.
Are you saying that England was disadvantaged because the umpire was neutral?

} > Nobody is talking about  English umpires cheating: the original
} > postings all talked about the English Cricket establishment's claim
} > that English umpires are the best in the world, 

} They are THOUGHT to be the best in the world because the best umpire
} is the consistent one who has the most experience at the highest level.
} Some English umpires qualify on this. Lets try to avoid the old sweeping
} generalisations.

We have to work on this THOUGHT process a little bit. I think you have to
quit thinking that your umpires are the best, impartial, and dismiss it
off as "all the luck seems to have gone England's way" when they make bad
decisions. If you are going to give the umpires the benefit of the doubt
then you should extend that to all umpires, not from your country alone.

} >that TV replays 
} > show that they do make mistakes as everybody else, 

} Well, what a surprise !! Of course they do -- noone can be questioning this,
} surely. As an aside I hope everyone criticizing umpiring decisions has 
} actually umpired themselves in a game. Im sure we all know how difficult it
} is in the heat of the moment, especially 2 foot short run outs !

I hope you will remember to say this when England tours India. It gets
very hot in India, you know.

} >that if a Pakistani/Indian umpire
} > makes a mistake it is dubbed as cheating by visiting Aussie and English
} > sides, their estab and their media

} I feel this is a tremendous generalisation. Forgive me if Im wrong but the 
} incidents of complaints about cheating umpires are not commonplace on Englands
} tours. We are all remebering the gatting-Rana episode alone. I agree that
} in the heat of a tight match everyone can lose a little control, and that
} the gutter press of all nations are the trouble makers.

When Gatting mouths off obscenities, he is losing a "little" control. 
Aquib loses a "little" control, he brings the game to shame. 

} > , and that this duplicity generates ill-feelings
} > in players which can be removed by employing third country umpires.

} I would agree that although it will not remove all the problems generated by
} the nature of umpiring and cricket itself, 3rd country umpires would overall
} help the game rather than hinder it.

Well said. 

rajeev