It's a bit of a dilemma this one. Warne's legside attack for me isn't really cricket. The idea is throw the ball with the intent of (a) hitting the stumps at the other end; (2) hitting the batsman's pads and trapping him LBW or (iii) bowling him a ball that leads to a poor shot and a catch (or a run out or stumping).
I have been worried about Warne's sportmanship for a while, especially after the big deal he made about it in a recent interview. This wasn't sporting.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
Rubbish!!
Where a bowler is faced with a batsman who can hit any ball delivered under options 1 & 2, he is perfectly within his rights to out think his opponent and offer him balls under your option 3.
There is a fourth option aswell - to bowl a ball with the intent of preventing the batsman from scoring runs from it.
The leg side attack was a strategy used by Warne for one particular batsman and it was up to him to respond.
I make two observations:
1. Pietersen failed to respond and was most certainly prevented from scoring any where near as highly as he should have.
2. How can you ever accuse Warne of negative bowling in this way when his dismissal of Gatting in 1992 (a ball delivered round the wicket nearly a metre wide of leg stump) will remain the most amazing wicket in cricket history.
I am afraid it is a scorre draw on this one. One point to Pietersen for forcing Warne to adopt this strategy (nobody else has merited it in nearly 15 years of bowling!) and one point to Warne for most definitely stemming the flow of runs at that particular time.
Bowling Bodyline to every batsman is un sportsmanlike. Bowling a leg side strategy to one man in a successful attempt to dry up the runs is just plain clever.
Get a grip Pietersen. There is no real reason why several of those balls could not have been dispatched out of the ground over square leg - or do we lack the other sort of balls to try??!!
I think KP was simply 'playing the game' of leaving the ball to prove a point. I do agree that it is within the limits of the game for Warne to prevent runs being scored but in the spirit of the game it seemed a poor choice. It is interesting that the 'Gatting' ball was bowled around the wicket and into the rough outside legside stump. The difference is that Warne has the ability to turn those balls inward to the right-hander (and the left-hander as in the case of Strauss) but against KP he chose not to. His aim wasn't to get KP out; it was to frustrate him into making a mistake. It was a real battle of wills. Warne is a class act, I just think he has let himself down. He is a better bowler than that and can undo KP in a more attacking fashion in the same way he did with Collingwood at the Gabba...
Actually second thoughts - points win to KP.
KP forces Warne to play a negative strategy - One nil to KP
Warne succeeds in drying up the runs - One all.
KP displays staggering maturity not to fall into teh trap - Two, One to KP.
It is the greatest shame that KP is not a decade older. Can you imagine if these two had played out their careers in parallel?!
It is precisely this sort of thinking battle of wills that sums up why I love this game so much.
Post a Comment