Tubs gets particular
Say what you will about 20-20 cricket; I reckon it's as exciting as... well... squashing the best spectator sport in the world into prime time. But I do feel for the commentators.
Usually in a cricket commentator's job, there are hours of nothingness to fill with whatever inane and tangential chit-chat pops into his or her head. The results can often be Sports Commentary Gold. Now five days of banter has been condensed into three hours, and the results are no less delicious.
Take Tubby's recent description of a particular bowler's dimensions:
"Apparently he's 210cm tall. Now I don't know exactly how tall that is..."
Showing posts with label cricket. Show all posts
Showing posts with label cricket. Show all posts
16 January 2009
12 January 2009
Sports Commentary Gold #7
Newton's theory withstands the cricket test
In the recent third test between Australia and South Africa (otherwise known as 'too little, too late, boys'), Mark Nicholas commented on the quality of the pitch thus:
"...The bounce is more up and down now..."
In the recent third test between Australia and South Africa (otherwise known as 'too little, too late, boys'), Mark Nicholas commented on the quality of the pitch thus:
"...The bounce is more up and down now..."
25 November 2008
28 August 2006
A Bad Hair Day
Waaaah! Waaaah!
As anyone who's even remotely interested in international cricket will be aware, there has been a bit of hoo-hah surrounding a recent test match in England, where the course of events went something like this:
1. Umpire Darrell Hair suspects Pakistan of ball tampering, so calls for a ball change and penalises Pakistan five runs
2. Pakistan refuses to return to the field of play after tea, as a protest
3. After waiting half an hour or so, Hair declares that Pakistan has effectively forfeited the match, and knocks the bales off the stumps, signalling the end of the game.
4. It's still to be determined whether or not Pakistan is guilty of ball tampering and/or bringing the game into disrepute.
Firstly, I love the fact that this happened while Sydney is still in the swing of footy season. To me, footy season is just a few long months thinking about the return of cricket season.
Secondly, I'm quite surprised to see the number of comments by journalists and letters-to-editors that criticise Umpire Hair and blame him for the whole affair. I gather from many reports that he's a fairly stubborn, pig-headed and attention-seeking umpire, but that doesn't mean that the Pakistanis were justified in locking themselves up in the dressing room for half an hour because somebody suggested they might not play nicely.
Sure, no proof has come to hand yet (as far as the media are concerned) whether or not the ball actually was tampered with. And Pakistan has every right to protest if the players think they've been treated unfairly. But it's not Hair's fault if they choose not to settle the matter with dignity, but instead perform the sporting equivalent of a two-year-old's tanty. The question of evidence is beside the point - Hair did his job in raising suspicion based on the condition of the ball, and the rest is up to the tribunal process, whatever that may be.
In summary, the Pakistanis did not forfeit the match because Hair accused them of ball tampering. They forfeited the match because they behaved like spoilt children.
As anyone who's even remotely interested in international cricket will be aware, there has been a bit of hoo-hah surrounding a recent test match in England, where the course of events went something like this:
1. Umpire Darrell Hair suspects Pakistan of ball tampering, so calls for a ball change and penalises Pakistan five runs
2. Pakistan refuses to return to the field of play after tea, as a protest
3. After waiting half an hour or so, Hair declares that Pakistan has effectively forfeited the match, and knocks the bales off the stumps, signalling the end of the game.
4. It's still to be determined whether or not Pakistan is guilty of ball tampering and/or bringing the game into disrepute.
Firstly, I love the fact that this happened while Sydney is still in the swing of footy season. To me, footy season is just a few long months thinking about the return of cricket season.
Secondly, I'm quite surprised to see the number of comments by journalists and letters-to-editors that criticise Umpire Hair and blame him for the whole affair. I gather from many reports that he's a fairly stubborn, pig-headed and attention-seeking umpire, but that doesn't mean that the Pakistanis were justified in locking themselves up in the dressing room for half an hour because somebody suggested they might not play nicely.
Sure, no proof has come to hand yet (as far as the media are concerned) whether or not the ball actually was tampered with. And Pakistan has every right to protest if the players think they've been treated unfairly. But it's not Hair's fault if they choose not to settle the matter with dignity, but instead perform the sporting equivalent of a two-year-old's tanty. The question of evidence is beside the point - Hair did his job in raising suspicion based on the condition of the ball, and the rest is up to the tribunal process, whatever that may be.
In summary, the Pakistanis did not forfeit the match because Hair accused them of ball tampering. They forfeited the match because they behaved like spoilt children.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)