Russell Kirkpatrick's Journal
Posted At : 10:09 AM
| Posted By : Russell
Related Categories:
Russell Rants
Mood: Disappointed
Now reading: Martin still
So Australia mount another marvellous comeback to score 460 odd after being 120-odd for 6. That's genius, and makes compelling telly. Problem is, they achieved it in large measure with the rub of favourable umpiring decisions. Andrew Symonds was out twice but went on to score 160.
All part of the game? No. Season after season the pattern is the same: Australia are favoured at home by umpires at about 3 to 1 (3 bad decisions in their favour to one against). It's got so ridiculous it takes the savour from the fine and courageous performances.
I haven't felt this disappointed since the early 1980s when Fred Goodall, the NZ umpire, was so biased he ought to have donned pads and played as a second batsman behind the man facing. Yes, we beat the West Indies back then. But, as Richard Hadlee tells it, he doesn't count his century as a real hundred as 'I was out four times before I got to fifty'.
And in the face of farce like this, the commentators continue to talk the Aussies up. Objectivity, lads. If the Aussie boys are as good as they say, they ought to walk when they nick it (like Gilchrist says he does). Win with pride or lose with dignity. Don't hide behind the men in white coats.
I saw the "out" when Symonds on about 30 - very obvious. I was wondering how the umpire could live with himself. I actually stopped watching at that point because of the almost inevitable consequence of seeing the Aussies get off the hook like this yet again.
In the interests of balance however, I had much the same reaction a couple of times during the recent one day series with Bangladesh. The local batsmen really seemed to get the benefit of the umpiring.
I remember Fred Goodall (I was there when Colin Croft used him as a tackle bag) - I have since wondered if he learnt his umpiring in Pakistan.
Posted By Ross / Posted At 1/3/08 11:18 AM
I was there that day too, Ross (I keep seeing myself whenever they show the highlights). Goodall was terrible. You're right about the Bangladesh series. Even today's tennis, where the local girl beat the Russian top seed, was full of dubious line calls, all of which went the local girl's way.
India are currently 100/1, and the Aussie commentators are lambasting the Indians.
Posted By Russell / Posted At 1/3/08 1:08 PM
Yes, we are the evil Australians, the only reason we keep winning is because the umpires love us and all the decisions are made in our favour.
Face it, the reason we keep winning is because we have the better team - we have so many good players in our domestic competition we can rotate them in and out and not make a shred of difference. If you don't like the commentary, turn down the volume, but keep watching the world's best cricketers do their stuff and beat all comers.
I was originally going to be more diplomatic, but when you go to that much trouble to bait a hook, it would be disappointing if the fish didn't rise...
Posted By Jo / Posted At 1/3/08 4:20 PM
Nope, sorry. You miss the point. I love watching the Aussie cricketers for their skill, but poor umpiring continually conspires against me seeing a contest. Stop the (no doubt unconscious) home town bias and let's see these magnificent cricketers do their stuff. I received absolutely no pleasure from watching Symonds compile 160 for twice out. It's not my opinion: statisticians came up with the 3/1 umpiring ratio in favour of the Aussies. It wouldn't be so bad if Ponting and Gilchrist didn't continually criticise other teams for unsportsmanlike behaviour.
Posted By Russell / Posted At 1/3/08 5:00 PM
Absolutely, Aussie are the BEST cricket team in the world and I cringe when we have to play them. What amused me is when Symonds was caught out of his crease (is that the right spelling?) The commentators were saying "he's definitely out, yes there's no way he cannot be given" Then of course he wasn't "given" and they started back peddling about how maybe they had misread it. To be fair I know what you are saying Russell but in that instance ...if in doubt the batsman gets the advantage. Thats all I can say......I didn't see any other part of the match!
By the way all you Russ fans, he is fading away....a mere shadow of his former self...no longer a hobbit...more a smallish Koala Bear :-)
Posted By Linda / Posted At 1/3/08 6:46 PM
That was Linda with the weight loss report. I've only lost 7 kilos, Linda. I think if I want to lose much more I'll have to cut off a limb.
Posted By Russell / Posted At 1/3/08 6:55 PM
I wonder if the weight loss will survive the next couple of weeks?
Posted By
Gillian / Posted At 1/3/08 7:44 PM
7 kilos is impressive, well done. OK, I get the point now... In fairness to me, this is a question I have often nagged my husband (the true sports tragic in this family) about - why don't we have umpires from a third nation during international matches? They do it for the Rugby, don't they? Or is it just that we don't have enough first class umpires available?
Posted By Jo / Posted At 1/3/08 11:29 PM
...please, Oh Great Oracle, answer my questions... Thou font of all wisdom....
(stop gagging Gillian, Linda)
Posted By Jo / Posted At 1/3/08 11:31 PM
Cricket does use neutral umpires. The two umpires standing in the current test (Australia vs India) are from England and the West Indies respectively. I'm certain there's no corruption involved. Instead there seems to be a slightly larger margin for doubt if an Aussie batsman is appealed against, while the finger goes up more quickly for the visiting team. It appears to be subconscious, but it shows up statistically nonetheless.
Posted By Russell / Posted At 1/4/08 3:50 AM
Well, if it's subconscious, how do we fix it?
Posted By Jo / Posted At 1/4/08 10:39 AM
Hit the consciousness over the ehad with a bat?
Posted By
Gillian / Posted At 1/4/08 11:56 AM
A greater reliance on technology, I suspect. Many of the decisions could be corrected within moments if they were referred 'upstairs'.
Posted By Russell / Posted At 1/4/08 12:55 PM
It happens at big, emotionally-fraught matches and the advantage is mainly given to the home side. This suggests that the umpires are aware of the crowd and its sentiments, even when they think they're switched off from it. A change in training might help.
Posted By
Gillian / Posted At 1/4/08 6:26 PM
An increased reliance on technology (apart from annoying the purists, always a good thing) would be fine in test matches, they're already...shall we say, sedate? In the shorter forms of the game, can you imagine how slow a match would become with every decision referred to the 'man upstairs'? Plus, does it get to the stage where every decision is made upstairs and the only reason to have umpires on the field is to have someone to hold the sunglasses and hats? Perhaps there could be an allowance made for the third umpire to be allowed to question the field umpire on blatantly wrong decisions. These guys are only human after all and can't always see every angle.
Posted By Jo / Posted At 1/5/08 11:18 AM
And that, Jo, is the debate nicely summed up.
Posted By Russell / Posted At 1/5/08 3:01 PM
Aw, now I feel all clever and such...
We attempted to go to a 20Twenty match last night, Qld V SA, but it was rained out. Like, really wet, like buckets, cats, dogs, etc!!! We did get to see some of the players though, they were out on the field playing football *grin*. Saw Jason Gillespie, batsman extraordinaire, so I was happy!!
Posted By Jo / Posted At 1/5/08 4:56 PM
Does he still have his mullet?
Posted By Russell / Posted At 1/5/08 7:28 PM
A little bit hard to tell, it was slicked down in the rain, plus we were sitting in the top row of the Gabba (the nosebleed seats). It's hard to imagine Dizzy without it though!
Posted By Jo / Posted At 1/6/08 9:11 AM
What has really disapointed me is the australian cricketers attitude's. If they don't want to walk when their out thats fine but they shouldn't then complain when they get a bad decision since they are happy enough to take tghe bad ones when it goes in their favour. Ponting and Lee should be fined for dissent.
Posted By Craig / Posted At 1/7/08 5:08 AM
The terrible scenes and dreadful histrionics at the end of the test, as well as Harbajan Singh's 'ban' and the resultant fuss, is entirely predictable. peter Roebuck summarises it this morning in the Sydney Morning Herald. Ponting should resign. I've gone from a supporter of the best team in the world to a disgusted onlooker.
Posted By Russell / Posted At 1/8/08 7:51 AM
Wow kiwis that hate aussie sports teams hey thats unusual.
In all honesty and jokes aside guys u will always find that the home team in any sporting team/event will always get the 50/50 go there way more often then the visitors do. Guess what its a fact of sport suck it up and get on with it, personally it makes sport fun having something to bitch about when ur team loses. As for Ricky Ponting quitting wjy should or would he he is after all the best and most winning captain of all time. Maybe u kiwis still hate us aussies for the underarm delivery and hey i dont blame u. But as an aussie i apologise for that. Anyways its all in good fun
Posted By Carpo / Posted At 1/24/08 7:59 PM
5ASGKz <a href="http://ijvnxghvemvu.com/">ijvnxghvemvu</a>, [url=http://qhpkzsjbdsou.com/]qhpkzsjbdsou[/url], [link=http://mdsmudsppddw.com/]mdsmudsppddw[/link], http://nmihbkcqspqn.com/
Posted By
xjsyvom / Posted At 3/14/09 8:42 PM