Cricket

What a bitter cnut that cnut randiv is.

Also what a ridiculous rule!! for example if sri lanka scored 200 and india was at 199 and and hit a four then that would take the score to 203 rather than 201 so why was sehwag denied ?
 
Jeez...is that what really happened? The purposeful no-ball I mean?

I went to pray and missed it, disgusting, if it's true.

Randiv's backfoot was over the no-ball line, disgusting tactics by the Lankans.
 
SLC, Randiv apologise to Sehwag for no-ball incident

Cricinfo staff

August 17, 2010

Sri Lanka Cricket and offspinner Suraj Randiv have both apologised to Virender Sehwag for denying him a one-day century after a deliberate no-ball from Randiv ended the match and left the India opener stranded on 99, despite him hitting the delivery for six. SLC has also asked for an enquiry in to the incident.

Sehwag went on to criticise Randiv's actions in the post match press conference, and SLC secretary Nishantha Ranatunga called India manager Ranjib Biswal this morning to apologise.

"Today in the morning, Sri Lanka Cricket secretary Nishantha Ranatunga called me up expressing his regret about yesterday's no-ball incident. He expressed his regret officially and asked me to convey it to the Indian team, particularly to Sehwag. They have also assured that they will look into the matter officially, why it happened and correct the procedure."

Meanwhile Sehwag revealed on Twitter that Randiv had apologised to him personally. "Hi guys. Randiv came to my room n(sic) apologize," Sehwag wrote.

Biswal said it was clear everything had happened in the heat of the action and now that Sri Lanka had apologised, it was time to move on.

"Randiv has himself gone to Sehwag's room and apologised for his action. I believe Sanga [Kumar Sangakkara] has spoke to Gary [Kirsten] and expressed his regret. So basically, it was done in the spur of the moment and once that action seeped in, people realised that they have made a mistake and they have come forward and expressed their apology.

"If you go by the rules, it's very much lawful. There is no violation of cricket rules. But when it comes to spirit of cricket and gamesmanship, one feels slighted about these things. Since they have expressed their regret and apologised for their action, we should put an end to this episode."

Ranatunga said the SLC has asked the team manager, Anura Tennekoon, to investigate the incident and will decide whether any further action is needed after seeing his report.

"We have asked him to probe the incident. We will take necessary action in this regard once we get the report. We are upset about the incident and we are unhappy as Sri Lankan cricketers have won the ICC spirit of the game award thrice and these things won't be tolerated," he said.

Sehwag was on 99 with India needing just one run to win, when Randiv overstepped the line by a large margin. Sehwag smacked the ball over long off but the runs did not count as the no ball meant India had already won the game.

After the game, Sehwag said Sri Lanka had used such tactics in the past, having left Sachin Tendulkar stranded at 96 with a similar strategy in a match in Cuttack.

"It was clear that the Lankan team did not want me to get to my 100," Sehwag said.

Well SL have come out and apologized, and the player in question went to Sehwag personally...hopefully that is the end of it, and more importantly lessons are learnt from it.
 
What a bitter cnut that cnut randiv is.

Also what a ridiculous rule!! for example if sri lanka scored 200 and india was at 199 and and hit a four then that would take the score to 203 rather than 201 so why was sehwag denied ?

Yeah, I'd agree with that. Runs scored off a no-ball would normally count, so why not in this instance? Pretty mean-spirited thing for the bowler to have done as well.
 
What a bitter cnut that cnut randiv is.

Also what a ridiculous rule!! for example if sri lanka scored 200 and india was at 199 and and hit a four then that would take the score to 203 rather than 201 so why was sehwag denied ?
I'm not totally sure but I still think you only win by the one run.
 
Yeah, I'd agree with that. Runs scored off a no-ball would normally count, so why not in this instance? Pretty mean-spirited thing for the bowler to have done as well.

I agree with you that logically it should count but the rule is in black & white.
As soon as the bowler delivered the no-ball, India got 1 run and won the match so what happened next doesnt matter. The basic rule of cricket is that the team batting second need to score more than the team batting first with atleast 1 wicket left which was achieved as soon as the no-ball was bowled.
Personally, I would have liked it if Sehwag was given the century.

The only reason I can see behind having such a rule is in case of a senario as follows.
India is down to the last pair with one run needed to win. The bowler delivers a no ball off which the batsmen try to get one run but end up getting run out before the run was completed. India would win the game but what would the result be? India won by '0' wickets?
As i mentioned earlier, one of the fundamental rules of Cricket is that the team batting second need to score more than the team batting first with atleast 1 wicket left. In the above scenario, the team batting 2nd have no wickets left.
Technically, Due to the run they got for the no-ball, they won the match with 1 wicket in hand so the game has ended there. What happened after that is immaterial.
 
England 52-4

If only Pakistani batsmen had any skills or cojones, we could have had a really good series. As it is, England when bowling will replicate this passage of play, if not better it.
 
Pietersen's poor run continues..

67/5

England's preparation for the Ashes is less than ideal.. this Pakistan series is the last one before the Ashes and they have question marks over the make up of the team.
 
117/7 England

Really annoyed to see Pakistan getting good fast bowlers while we've apart from Zaheer, no-one decent on the test match level.
 
Randiv suspended for 1 match and also fined of his entire Match Fee by the SLC Board, harsh decision IMO, Taking off the entire match fee would have been a sufficient punishment.
 
233 all out. Well bowled by Pakistan, good fielding today for once, Prior batted brilliantly to get England to a decent score. Still, I'm not confident we'll get a lead although Yousuf's inclusion should help.

Cook failed again. He has a maximum of 3 Test innings before the Ashes start, I doubt England will change it now, but I'd have liked to have seen Michael Carberry given a chance.
 
Randiv suspended for 1 match and also fined of his entire Match Fee by the SLC Board, harsh decision IMO, Taking off the entire match fee would have been a sufficient punishment.

No choice...Indians made a big deal of it, and in the post match interview Sanga spoke about it, so to now go easy, would mean they were simply paying lip service.

No big deal, he will learn from it, and both teams will move on
 
No choice...Indians made a big deal of it, and in the post match interview Sanga spoke about it, so to now go easy, would mean they were simply paying lip service.

No big deal, he will learn from it, and both teams will move on

Just heard that the SLC got audio evidence that Dilshan told him to bowl a No Ball
 
No choice...Indians made a big deal of it, and in the post match interview Sanga spoke about it, so to now go easy, would mean they were simply paying lip service.

No big deal, he will learn from it, and both teams will move on

Indians made a big deal of it? Who?

Apart from Sehwag saying it in the press conference, who has spoken about it?

It's only SLC trying to appease BCCI because they need BCCI's money.
 
Pakistan will win this test, I think.. it's a good batting line-up.
 
I agree with you that logically it should count but the rule is in black & white.
As soon as the bowler delivered the no-ball, India got 1 run and won the match so what happened next doesnt matter. The basic rule of cricket is that the team batting second need to score more than the team batting first with atleast 1 wicket left which was achieved as soon as the no-ball was bowled.
Personally, I would have liked it if Sehwag was given the century.

The only reason I can see behind having such a rule is in case of a senario as follows.
India is down to the last pair with one run needed to win. The bowler delivers a no ball off which the batsmen try to get one run but end up getting run out before the run was completed. India would win the game but what would the result be? India won by '0' wickets?
As i mentioned earlier, one of the fundamental rules of Cricket is that the team batting second need to score more than the team batting first with atleast 1 wicket left. In the above scenario, the team batting 2nd have no wickets left.
Technically, Due to the run they got for the no-ball, they won the match with 1 wicket in hand so the game has ended there. What happened after that is immaterial.

Yeah that makes sense. Good post.
 
Swann has his 100th wicket, but looking like Pakistan are going to get a decent lead, currently only 21 runs behind with 5 wickets remaining

I doubt England want them getting much over 300 from here
 
How reliable is Pietersen at the moment in terms of staying sensible and not trying to be clever?
 
England 110-2 at lunch, Cook on 72 (he's probably saved his arse in the nick of time...). A lead of only 35, but Anderson has already bat so plenty of batting still to come for England.

England need to get a lead well above 300 I reckon to have any kind of chance. This is the Oval so I would expect that the batting will only get easier. I'm putting my money on Pakistan to win this.
 
Yep, that surely saves Cook for the Ashes, and hopefully it can be the beginning of finding his form again

Probably going to need some runs from KP as well
 
Trott has brought up his century of dot balls.

Good that he's their anchoring the innings, but scoring a bit quicker would be better if you ask me

Is anyone watching, any signs of pitch wear (uneven bounce, sharp turn)
 
Trott has brought up his century of dot balls.

Good that he's their anchoring the innings, but scoring a bit quicker would be better if you ask me

Is anyone watching, any signs of pitch wear (uneven bounce, sharp turn)

The sooner Bell comes back and takes his place the better. Awful player to watch.
 
Trott now gone, poor shot. Bell will come in for Morgan, although Trott is one of the worst players to watch and the amount of time he takes to get ready before each delivery is pathetic.

Need to get Collingwood early and then the in-form Prior if we're to chase a reasonably low total.
 
The sooner Bell comes back and takes his place the better. Awful player to watch.

I like Trott. Nice technique, doesn't get wound up. Perfect player to play against the Aussies..
 
Trott is such a horrible person. Paul Collingwood is not exactly poetry in motion while batting, but Trott just takes it to another level. Really is a shame, England need South African players like him to fill the gap in the national team.

36 from 130 deliveries, and then gets out playing a rubbish shot.
 
202/6, Collingwood out

Morgan and Prior at the crease, going to need the tail to wag here, as the lead is only 127
 
127-6 effectively, but Prior, Morgan, Broad and Swann to still bat, if England get this to 230-250, Pakistan won't be able to chase it.
 
Finally the Pakistani fielders are supporting the bowlers by taking catches. If only we did that in the last test, we might have won. Will be interesting when Swann bowls, ball has started to turn a bit in the past hour.
 
Morgan out now, I'm guessing something is happening, can't just be poor batting, is it reversing or turning now?