Sunday, March 02, 2008

Ban or no ban Mr Atherton?

The furore that has followed his rather too frequent use of the beamer is easier to justify. The beamer is the hardest ball for a batsman to pick up precisely because it pitches (or doesn't pitch) so far from where the batsman expects. If it is bowled on target, as Lee's invariably is, then it can be lethal. Lee was visibly sheepish after his latest beamer at Marcus Trescothick during the NatWest Series final. After taking Andrew Strauss's wicket shortly afterwards he remained head bowed rather than celebrating in his usual fist-pumping fashion.

His visible embarrassment and immediate fulsome apology convinces me that Lee's beamers are unintentional, although other international bowlers doubt that such a quality performer can be so far out of kilter. The other reason for giving Lee the benefit of the doubt is that he is such a demonstrably decent fellow. His popularity among team-mates, current and former, is legend. Michael Slater, one of the few Australian pundits prepared to speak frankly about former team-mates, says "he's just a champion".

---

Rather an apology than nothing, but it seems to me that the apology is irrelevant. The damage could have been severe. A batsman is conditioned to look for the ball on a downward trajectory out of the bowler's hand, and therefore will not necessarily pick it up. (The only other time I've seen one bowled in a Test match, by Glenn McGrath, it stuck straight in Mark Ramprakash's grille without the batsman flinching).

Moreover, an apology doesn't necessarily mean it is sincere. With match referees on the prowl, any bowler with an ounce of survival instinct is bound to apologise, deliberately bowled or not. And the batsman/batting side has no option but to accept it, for if it is not accepted then the moral high ground shifts in favour of the bowler, whose integrity is suddenly in question.

....

If bowled deliberately there cannot be a more cowardly action on a cricket field; if bowled accidentally it is still potentially lethal. Either way it should incur an immediate one-match ban. (Only obvious extenuating circumstances, such as a one-day game played in the rain, should save the bowler from such a penalty).

----

40.1 Lee to Tendulkar, 1 no ball, spears in the full toss, a no-ball which appeared to crash into his helmet
That seemed to slip out, it hit him on the shoulder in fact. Tendulkar is typically sanguine and accepted the apology readily, the umpires are having a word with Ponting now


34 comments:

Prabu said...

you are like an elephant (no not the one that Manjrekar was talking about) - won't forget an issue from the past will ya? :)

Bill Lawry I think it was who made a good point during the commentary. HE said, "he bowled two perfect yorkers last over!"

Prabu said...

Following your comment on my cap smokesignals:

good point you brought up about my cap and YES I did. Not only that, I figured SRT makes runs every time I switch to my cable channel between overs and so followed that ritual as well. The pains I had to go thru to get us to victory..phew

Anonymous said...

if there's a controversy, this blog will be sure to capitalise on it. the fine line between a fan and a fanatic......

Anonymous said...

I dont't know what this anonymous guy means (the one that wrote "fan and fanatic").

I completely agree with Homer on this one - it is NOT a controversy I agree (mainly because of Sachin's acceptance) - but that exactly is the controversy.

If it had been Sreesanth - all hell would have been lose by now. Wonder what Jeff Crowe has to say on this also. Probably nothing - white cronysim.

By the way, talking of elephants, Sachin did rather well for one did he not? Wonder what Professor Manjrekar has to say next.

Soulberry said...

There are double standards...that is well known. We have seen it for long.

There's another storm brewing up...smh.au is trying to raise the monkey issue again. Sore losers some chaps are.

Sachin played a gem Homer. Right from the albums...it was a Sharjah re-run.

Rohit did well too.

Anonymous said...

I agree with anonymous on one point. Lets duck the beamer, the way SRT did. He did get hurt but he didn't charge down the pitch as a Matty Hayden would have done (with or w/o the boxing gloves).. So let us try to be as gracious as a SRT on this one.

But 'the fine line between fan and fanatic' is an equally inflammatory statement. Mr. Anonymous, dont make generalisations please. I guess Homer will answer you better but I felt that the comment wasn't in good taste.

One has a choice to read a blog or watch a news channel. So its better that if you think a blog content is a 'beamer', duck it, rather than charging at the delivering guy.

Anonymous said...

Manjrekar should be thanked. didn't sachin bat very well the last time Manjrekar said something similar. If these statements affect the way sachin bats then we need more of it!!

Homer said...

lol prabu.. Keep that cap on for one more game :)

Homer said...

Anonymous,

Thanks you for your comments..

The fine line between fan and fanatic.. quite like the one between a waist high full toss and a head high beamer :)


Cheers

Homer said...

Naresh,

Thanks for your comments...

If Manjrekar is such a motivating tool, can he please be a part of our dressing room on a permanent basis :)

Cheers

Homer said...

SB,

Could I take this opportunity to say - Mumbai boys both :)

Cheers

Homer said...

namya,

Lee has had a history of bowling head high beamers.. And it was on display again..

In this case, I do not care being called a fanatic - better be a fanatic than wait for a batsman to be maimed or worse yet, killed!.

Cheers

Homer said...

Anonymous,

Thanks for your comments..

Manjrekar for head motivator :)


Cheers

Gaurav Sethi said...

Who better to bowl a beamer than Lee. A last ditch effort? Or an honest mistake? At times, does the bowler's hand follow his heart, not his mind? Or does he follow Punter? Did Lee want to blast Sachin out? Recall the KP/Vaughan episode after Sreesanth's beamer? And the aftermath. Wickets are cheap, when life is near broke. Ban the bomb. Ban the bulb. Ban the beamer. Ban the bowler.

@purV said...

Well.. rewind back 5 years and I would have thought it was intentional, but definitely not now.. Lee's not just up a couple of notches on his bowling, but also on his temperament.. definitely unintentional and finally some great spirit on show immediately afterwards.

straight point said...

wonder why ball slips 'unintentionally' from binga's hand only when oz is under pressure??

Anonymous said...

Intentional or not is hard to tell... in these situations, one can only hope that there was no mad intentions... sometimes the ball can slip. It is maybe important to judge at what stage of the match, the general atmosphere of the situation to actually reprimand a bowler.

Homer said...

Naked,

Brilliant!

Cheers

Homer said...

@purv,

Thanks for your comments..

If Lee is a couple of notches above in his bowling, how does one explain a 143K beamer?

And even if it was accidental, how does one reconcile with a fast bowler bowling a beamer?

If SRT had a broken collar bone yesterday on account of the beamer, would it then have been a big enough deal or were we to accept BretT Lee's spirit as being "awesome"?


Cheers

Homer said...

SP,

:)

Cheers

Homer said...

Scorpi,

Left to the ICC, we all know how those judgments will be made :)

Cheers

someone's dad said...

Homer,
The beamer ball was declared a noball. Does this not qualify for a free hit as with overstepped no balls. Ponting claiming the ball was slippery and needed to be changed was atrocious and total misuse of captains powers. obliging CA immediately sent somebody with a box of replacement balls. what a joke.

@purV said...

Valid question mate, but at times you have to give it to them. I'm an ardent Sach fan, but what Brett Lee's shown us this summer perhaps is the only glowing display from the Aussies, not just in pure cricketing terms but otherwise as well.

Beamers are dangerous, perhaps lethal; and I agree that the 'folks at the helm' need to do something 'bout it. Perhaps a warning at the end, and if you bowl another in the next 'x' odd games, you probably need to sit out for a while and sort out your skills/technique.

And for that matter, everyone knows that if the batsman really gets hurt like that, you are in a lot of trouble..Way too much to perhaps risk your career.

-Apurv

Soulberry said...

Ypou could Homer...and with pride!

Mumbai Mamba was striking the other day!

Soulberry said...

Just remembered...sorry for the additional post...in relation to one of your earlier posts and the Mumbai boys comment, Harsha Bhogle slipped one significant comment during that match on the current state of affairs in India that curiously went unnoticed. While explaining the difference between two Sharmas, he emphasized the Telugu Mumbai Sharma aspect. Relevant to our times.

Anonymous said...

subbu,

Thanks for your comments..

The free hit rule is only in place for the front foot no ball.

I was not aware that it was Ponting who took up the discussions with the umpires post the beamer, the visuals diod not make clear who started that particular conversation.

And if it was Ponting who started that conversation, I would not be too surprised. After all, he views himself as batsman, fielder, captain, umpire, third umpire and match referee on the field of play:)

Cheers

Anonymous said...

Can anybody tell me when was the last time Lee bowled a beamer

Homer said...

@purv,

Cant think of any bowler who has been penalized for hurting a batsman.

Cheers

Homer said...

lol SB :)

Homer said...

Anonymous,

against Trescothick during the Natwest Trophy 2005 ?

Cheers

Anonymous said...

Two in three years.
My initial research indicates he has bowled two in about 8,600 balls

Given the game was played at night & the ball can be damp as at Sydney I think the expression "too frequent" is perjorative unless you expressed the same sentiment when SreeSanth "beamed" KP.Frankly I am prepared to give both the benefit of the doubt. Lee's apology was fulsome (as it should have been) for more so than SreeSanth's

Please don't take the above to mean I support beamers. I'm a batsman & fully against them and two is two too many but they can & do happen. I would also guess that his own batsman would be the same way if only because the possibility of retaliation. A Mutualy Assured Destruction type sanity would prevail.

I would rather focus on the class of Tendulkars innings and his response and composure. Perhaps KP & Vaughan could take a leaf out of his book in that regard

Homer said...

Anonymous,

Two things

1. Lee had bowled beamers to Razzaq and McCullum prior to the Treco beamer.

2. The beamer itself - I have always advocated more powers for the bowlers - bouncier balls, more bouncers per over, a more lenient wide ball rule.. But the beamer is a no no..Hitting a batsman with a head high full toss, even with all their padding, is just not cricket.

As regards the cricket itself, if not for all the drama on and off the field, this was by far the best of the contests between India and Australia since 1996 ( when the Border Gavaskar Trophy came into being).

Cheers :)

Anonymous said...

Yeah, he had a bad patch for a while but hadn't sinned for a while which is why I'm reasonably content this was an accident

Coulkdn't agree more with you about a deliberate beamer. I think the rule is two in an innings & the bowler is taken out of the attack. I think that;s reasonable.

Personally as a batsman I've always regard bowlers as the enemy & felt more kinship with the batsmen on the opposing team than my own bowlers!!

Must be a flaw in my character

Homer said...

lol anonymous.. I completely understand the kinship..

I am ( used to be) a bowler myself and have no pity for batsmen, especially when they can pad every square inch of their body even when fronting up to spinners :)

Cheers