4 June 2014

Buttler dismissal fair enough

I can't really see any reason why England are so upset with Angelo Mathews for going ahead with the dismissal of Buttler yesterday.   He'd been warned and he was still wandering down the wicket without looking at the bowler, so not the most intelligent piece of cricket ever seen.

I agree entirely with what Jayawardene had to say:

"We gave him a fair chance," Jayawardene said. "Twice. Before the first warning, we told the umpires that he was taking too much of a lead and then he was warned again. We had to do that, because they kept doing it. 

"We analysed our game after Lord's. They took 22 twos in the last 12 overs. Ravi Bopara and him ran riot. And most of the time they were taking starts that are not legal by the written laws. We just wanted to make sure we got a fair chance. We warned them and we warned the umpires, but they didn't listen to us, so we had to take the right steps.
"We always try to play in the right spirit, but if the other team is not playing in the right spirit and not going with the law, then unfortunately we had to take the law into our hands. It was the third time. It is fair enough, I think. We all need to play by the rules.

"If the other sides are not going by the rules, then they're not playing by the spirit, so what can you do?"

I can see England's annoyance, but I wonder how much of it is frustration because Buttler was key to the acceleration they needed at the end of the innings.   In effect his dismissal ended England's hopes of a competitive score, but the issue was with the way the batsmen above Buttler batted, as well as his dozy run out.   The talk around Buttler's run out makes it less likely that people will focus on England's batting shortcomings throughout the series.

How's about this for England's next ODI match?

Cook
Hales
Bell
Bopara
Ballance
Morgan
Buttler
Jordan
Etc?

Last word on the Buttler run out from Jeff Sheldon of Kidmore End (via my Facebook feed) - it certainly inspired quite a few comments!


Bookmark and Share

5 comments:

Peter Lamb said...

So who is cheating more? The batsman sneaking a yard or two or the bowler reported to the authorities on suspicion of chucking? I know two wrongs don't make a right, but I also know which I consider more serious.

Ed said...

Tricky one that one because being reported isn't the same as having an illegal bowling action. I guess it's innocent until proven guilty.

The likes of Vaughan etc have said they can't believe that people can't be tested live in the middle given tech these days, and only at that stage will it remove any controversy (as most people seem to think that players can bowl differently in the test scenario away from a match). Having said that, I believe they match the recorded test footage with that of the player bowling in real games to assess whether they're reasonably similar.

Clearly live on field testing would help a lot because games can't be replayed without the thrower where people are found to have gone beyond 15%, so the result stands.

Peter Lamb said...

Perhaps the Buttler controversy was deliberately created as a distraction from the chucking controversy. If so, it certainly worked, looking at today's press.

Mark Davis said...

Mark Butcher in a tweet yesterday said he could understand mankading and batsman not walking but had no sympathy for throwers

Ed said...

Interesting reference to the Australian reaction to the initial "Mankad" in Cricket Badger today:

"Back in 1947-48, Vinoo Mankad gave his name to this type of dismissal, running out Aussie Bill Brown not once but twice during India’s tour. What did captain Australian Don Bradman make of it?

“We considered it quite a legitimate part of the game… I can't understand why [the press] questioned his sportsmanship. The laws of cricket make it quite clear. If not, why is the provision there which enables the bowler to run him out?''