Iagree that agarkar is far better than shrisant.He bowled fast&strait in ranji.Dhaval and Tyagi also could be tried.And fanally Whay Mishra is left out.He can pose lots of problems to protos.Arun
it's jem of a game..realy enjoy the whole evening..but I have to say that a jingle of errors of umpaires cost dearly to SA.The run out of peterson,L.B.W of morkel and than the boudary..but these things is common when u place the home umpire...But cool DHONI sud take all the credits to overcum the jingles..beat of luck for coming 2 onedayers.
Re: Re: poor umparing
by SHEIKH HILAL on Feb 22, 2010 09:18 AM
Field Umpiring errors is alright.But 3rd; umpire making error is not justified. SA are morally victorious.
it's jem of a game..realy enjoy the whole evening..but I have to say that a jingle of errors of umpaires cost dearly to SA.The run out of peterson,L.B.W of morkel and than the boudary..but these things is common when u place the home umpire...But cool DHONI sud take all the credits to overcum the jingles..beat of luck for coming 2 onedayers.
India may have won this match but we could have lost this because of nehra and sreesanth. South Africans are always poor players of spin bowling and dhoni persisted with nehra and sree. He could have utilized the spin of tendulkar or sehwag. Poor cricket by dhoni. Then he did not utilized Praveen kumar earlier even when he was the most economical fast bowler then and he knows how to mix up the deliveries well. I do not know how they are selected for national team they are not even best bowlers for their ranji teams. And the good bowlers like the Ahimanyu mithun and dhawal kulkarni who were the highest wicket takers in the ranji last season are not selected. Even irfan pathan is bowling better than them in ranji season and he is also good with the bat. Then there are bowlers like Iqbal abdulla , sudeep tyagi and batsmen like cheteshwar pujara are not selected.
Re: sreesanth is good for nothing
by ravitej on Feb 22, 2010 08:23 AM
i agree with u how can a bowler who gives 10 runs per over in almost all matches, get a place in the team? Is it possible to enter into semis forget about winning world cup with these stupid bowlers, nehara, sreeshant & Praveen?
Re: Re: sreesanth is good for nothing
by krishna v on Feb 22, 2010 09:13 AM
simply becuase we need wicket taking bowlers also.his wicket of kallis tilted the match in our favour.imagine had kallis stayed till the end ?
There was no clear evidence that sachin have not touch the rope while stopping a boundary. They have given only 3 runs. So In face match was tie. But its only power of BCCI. Just think if India were batting they would have given definitely 4
Re: benefit of the dount always goes in favour of Batsman
by S Shrikanth on Feb 22, 2010 08:08 AM
Yes. I saw the replay many times and found that umpires favored India and disallowed one run to SA.
And later news channels were flashing that Sachin won the match for India. What a pity! It was the third umpire who won the match for India.
Re: Re: benefit of the dount always goes in favour of Batsman
by fink fanther on Feb 22, 2010 08:26 AM
sachin's effort must be praised here. this proves that every single run in a match is important. what if he had just given up and allowed the ball to go to the boundary? effort is important and in this regard sachin's contribution made the difference.
Re: Re: Re: benefit of the dount always goes in favour of Batsman
by S Shrikanth on Feb 22, 2010 08:54 AM
I think it was Shreesanth's throw that ran out Parnell was the winner. Had the throw been wrong, the match would had tied.
Re: benefit of the dount always goes in favour of Batsman
by indy on Feb 22, 2010 08:18 AM
had it been declared four India would have won the match by more than 1 run... bcoz set batman Parnell came to strike as it was given as three..
Re: benefit of the dount always goes in favour of Batsman
by rocky on Feb 22, 2010 08:35 AM
"There was no clear evidence that sachin have not touch the rope while stopping a boundary. ".
When evedence was not there then how cud a boundary be given :)
Re: Re: Re: benefit of the dount always goes in favour of Batsman
by rocky on Feb 22, 2010 10:40 AM
APAC - AC:
Benefit of doubts goes in batsmen's favor in case of dismissals. U r extending the same to the boundary decision. is it so. I do not think so.
In case of runouts when it is not clear whether the batsmen is in or out, the decision goes in favor of teh batsmen. Similarly, here there was not enough evedance that Tendu had touched the rope, so the decision went in favor of the fielder. The norm is if u r not sure that it is out then dont give, similarly if u r not sure it is a boundary then it is not a boundary :)
Re: benefit of the dount always goes in favour of Batsman
by Seenu D on Feb 22, 2010 08:40 AM
dude..if it was a four then Langeveldt would have come on strike..well it could have been a dot ball as well..so lets accept umpires can be wrong sometimes..
Re: benefit of the dount always goes in favour of Batsman
by B M on Feb 22, 2010 08:14 AM
Shame on Indian umpiring for not having given Gibbs caught behind in the 2nd over when he had edged the ball! If he had been given out, SA may not have reached close to India's total and Sachin stopping the ball would not have been relevant!
Re: benefit of the dount always goes in favour of Batsman
by AK Ganguli on Feb 22, 2010 08:33 AM
Judging it a 3 favoured the SA team, as otherwise the new comer would have to face Kumar. Even the commentator said "SA wants it to be a 3" while the decision was pending.
