SA Footy

Just tuned in on Fox on a slow-TV day to catch a strange test match in NZ.

From memory -

SL 1st Innings 153 (52.4 overs)
NZ 1st Innings - 206
SL 2nd Innings - 170
NZ 2nd Innings - 5/117 - a 5 wicket victory

What was bizarre?

well -

game finished in 2.5 days with 4 innings batted
cuming (NZ) got out three times on no-balls - twice in one innings and once in the other. He made "two 40s" with a total of 5 "dismissals".
With NZ needing 15 runs to win in an empty Jade stadium, the umpires called Tea and the two teams marched off for 20 minutes!
Murali got 7 wickets as did Bond for NZ. (SL captain Jayawardene called Murali the best spin bowler in the world).
Maharoof's (I think it was him) bowling action - anyone seen it? Looks like a cross between Jeff Thompson and Sean Tait!

BUT

There's more!

In Sri Lanka's 2nd innings, they were 9/169 with Sangakarra on 99. Sangakarra hits a scoring shot and they take a single. Murali, the other "batsman" (no 11) then turns around while the ball is still being thrown back to the keeper from fine leg and walks up the pitch to congratulate Sangakarra and gets run out! Talk about comical. As Fleming pointed out afterwards, if there had been a chance to take overthrows they would have so the run out was fair enough even though everyone knew what Murali was doing - he just didn't wait until the ball was dead!

And even though Sangakarra got the only century of the match - Bond (NZ) got man of the match for seven wickets in the game.

Test matches in 2 days, excuse me
They need Les Burdett

I'm not sure what is bizarre about it. Sounds like a normal test match in NZ.

Agreed Pete. This is quite normal in NZ, especially when teams from the subcontinent come to play there. The ball swings around something fierce and the wristy batsmen can often get sucked in by the small grounds. What IS bizzare is that NZ hadn't won a test match at Christchurch for twelve years. Could you imagine the Aussies with that sort of carp record on one of our own grounds?

regards,

REB

Murli the best spinner in the world? what sport has Sri Lanka been watching the last 15 years. There is a young Australian who has taken close to 700 wickets and 20 million Aussies who disagree with that. Warne is the best bowler the world has seen, at least Warne doesn't throw the ball down when bowling.

MightyEagles wrote:Murli the best spinner in the world? what sport has Sri Lanka been watching the last 15 years. There is a young Australian who has taken close to 700 wickets and 20 million Aussies who disagree with that. Warne is the best bowler the world has seen, at least Warne doesn't throw the ball down when bowling.

....and to finish that arguement off, Warne has had to wait for a plethora of good fast bowlers who have all taken buckets of wickets to finish their spells before he gets a crack.. He also hasn't had the luxury of being able to have his home cricket authorities schedule every second series at home against the 'C" grade opposition of Ziimbabwe and Bangladesh on pitches doctored to suit Murali. Still what defeats that last part of the arguement to a degree is how many wickets would have been left for him in anycase once Mcgrath, Lee and the other quicks finished their spells?

Near 700 wickets over a long period of time despite all the other distractions off field, injuries etc and playing with great fast bowlers puts him way above the curry munching chucker IMO.

Squawk wrote:
In Sri Lanka's 2nd innings, they were 9/169 with Sangakarra on 99. Sangakarra hits a scoring shot and they take a single. Murali, the other "batsman" (no 11) then turns around while the ball is still being thrown back to the keeper from fine leg and walks up the pitch to congratulate Sangakarra and gets run out! Talk about comical. As Fleming pointed out afterwards, if there had been a chance to take overthrows they would have so the run out was fair enough even though everyone knew what Murali was doing - he just didn't wait until the ball was dead!

Did they cross over?

If so wouldnt the furst run have NOT counted?

BPBRB wrote:

Near 700 wickets over a long period of time despite all the other distractions off field, injuries etc and playing with great fast bowlers puts him way above the curry munching chucker IMO.

poor form.

matt wrote:

BPBRB wrote:

Near 700 wickets over a long period of time despite all the other distractions off field, injuries etc and playing with great fast bowlers puts him way above the curry munching chucker IMO.

poor form.

How so? Calling him a curry munching chucker? If so what part of the statement is incorrect? Certainly not the chucker part that's for sure. Does Murali not eat curry?

Borat wrote:

Squawk wrote:
In Sri Lanka's 2nd innings, they were 9/169 with Sangakarra on 99. Sangakarra hits a scoring shot and they take a single. Murali, the other "batsman" (no 11) then turns around while the ball is still being thrown back to the keeper from fine leg and walks up the pitch to congratulate Sangakarra and gets run out! Talk about comical. As Fleming pointed out afterwards, if there had been a chance to take overthrows they would have so the run out was fair enough even though everyone knew what Murali was doing - he just didn't wait until the ball was dead!

Did they cross over?

If so wouldnt the furst run have NOT counted?

i THINK THE first run would have been counted as it was completed.

rod_rooster wrote:

matt wrote:

BPBRB wrote:

Near 700 wickets over a long period of time despite all the other distractions off field, injuries etc and playing with great fast bowlers puts him way above the curry munching chucker IMO.

poor form.

How so? Calling him a curry munching chucker? If so what part of the statement is incorrect? Certainly not the chucker part that's for sure. Does Murali not eat curry?

you're now in the same boat. no need for me to explain it.

mighty_tiger_79 wrote:

Borat wrote:

Squawk wrote:
In Sri Lanka's 2nd innings, they were 9/169 with Sangakarra on 99. Sangakarra hits a scoring shot and they take a single. Murali, the other "batsman" (no 11) then turns around while the ball is still being thrown back to the keeper from fine leg and walks up the pitch to congratulate Sangakarra and gets run out! Talk about comical. As Fleming pointed out afterwards, if there had been a chance to take overthrows they would have so the run out was fair enough even though everyone knew what Murali was doing - he just didn't wait until the ball was dead!

Did they cross over?

If so wouldnt the furst run have NOT counted?

i THINK THE first run would have been counted as it was completed.

i thought there was a rule that you need to at least cross for the next run for the first run to be counted, but i definitely may be wrong.

Statistically Murali is the better bowler. Even disregarding Test matches against Zimbabwe and Bangladesh. In comparison he has a better average against all opposition except Pakistan. He has a better overall career average, strike rate and economy rate. Some may say he throws the ball, but others might say Warne is a drug cheat.

Interestingly, Lara averages mid 50's against both Warne and Murali and Tendulkar averages mid 50's against Murali and 39 against Warne.

Both bowlers have been brilliant for cricket and I'm sure all Sri Lankans would claim Murali the better bowler and all Aussies would claim Warne.

Borat wrote:

mighty_tiger_79 wrote:

Borat wrote:

Squawk wrote:
In Sri Lanka's 2nd innings, they were 9/169 with Sangakarra on 99. Sangakarra hits a scoring shot and they take a single. Murali, the other "batsman" (no 11) then turns around while the ball is still being thrown back to the keeper from fine leg and walks up the pitch to congratulate Sangakarra and gets run out! Talk about comical. As Fleming pointed out afterwards, if there had been a chance to take overthrows they would have so the run out was fair enough even though everyone knew what Murali was doing - he just didn't wait until the ball was dead!

Did they cross over?

If so wouldnt the furst run have NOT counted?

i THINK THE first run would have been counted as it was completed.

i thought there was a rule that you need to at least cross for the next run for the first run to be counted, but i definitely may be wrong.

well im not too sure about all that, and i could very well be wrong as well but as long as Murali made his ground on the first run and wasnt short then I think the run stands. Would have been funny if Murali didnt make his ground because he was more worried about celebrating with his team-mate!!!!!!!!!

Borat wrote:

mighty_tiger_79 wrote:

Borat wrote:Did they cross over?
If so wouldnt the furst run have NOT counted?

i THINK THE first run would have been counted as it was completed.

i thought there was a rule that you need to at least cross for the next run for the first run to be counted, but i definitely may be wrong.

You definitely are wrong.

Aerie wrote:Statistically Murali is the better bowler. Even disregarding Test matches against Zimbabwe and Bangladesh. In comparison he has a better average against all opposition except Pakistan. He has a better overall career average, strike rate and economy rate. Some may say he throws the ball, but others might say Warne is a drug cheat.

Interestingly, Lara averages mid 50's against both Warne and Murali and Tendulkar averages mid 50's against Murali and 39 against Warne.

Both bowlers have been brilliant for cricket and I'm sure all Sri Lankans would claim Murali the better bowler and all Aussies would claim Warne.

Each to their own. Warne a drug cheat? Not a performance enhancing drug. Murali's chucking = performance enhancing. Rules were changed to suit him. Murali is an extremelly nice man though whereas Warne does some very stupid things. Both have very good records and that's about all both sides of the argument will agree with.

matt wrote:

rod_rooster wrote:

matt wrote:

BPBRB wrote:

Near 700 wickets over a long period of time despite all the other distractions off field, injuries etc and playing with great fast bowlers puts him way above the curry munching chucker IMO.

poor form.

How so? Calling him a curry munching chucker? If so what part of the statement is incorrect? Certainly not the chucker part that's for sure. Does Murali not eat curry?

you're now in the same boat. no need for me to explain it.

No matt, there is a need for you to explain. I eat curry quite a bit. I therefore am a curry muncher. I have no problem with that. Political correctness has got to you. I guess your offended when people call the English Poms

Perhaps though you are offended by the label chucker? Well he does chuck it. The rule was changed to make his action legal. Good luck to him though. He has done very very well.

Murali grounded his bat and turned to go and congratulate Sangakara (sp). Ball came back to the wickey, he took the bales off. The Kiwi commentators asked is it within the spirit of the game to take of the bales when clearly, the batsman was not going for a run? They also asked, should the umpire have used more discretion before putting his finger up?

From my point of view, Murali didn't wait for the ball to come back to the wicket keeper (foolishly as it turns out), it's in the rules so he's out. Whether it's in the spirit of the game, well...

No doubt the Sri Lankan press are all over it.

MagicKiwi wrote:Murali grounded his bat and turned to go and congratulate Sangakara (sp). Ball came back to the wickey, he took the bales off. The Kiwi commentators asked is it within the spirit of the game to take of the bales when clearly, the batsman was not going for a run? They also asked, should the umpire have used more discretion before putting his finger up?

From my point of view, Murali didn't wait for the ball to come back to the wicket keeper (foolishly as it turns out), it's in the rules so he's out. Whether it's in the spirit of the game, well...

No doubt the Sri Lankan press are all over it.

New Zealand has a habit of contreversal run outs. Dean Jones anyone...................

That was umpire Cumberbatch against the West Indies rodney. Unless there was another one you thinking of with Deano.

regards,

REB