|
|
|
|
|
|
`It's the Raj mentality' Wisden CricInfo staff - December 20, 2001
We asked for your views on Michael Vaughan's controversial dismissal. Was it a moment of madness? Was it unsportsmanlike of India to appeal, as Vaughan suggested and Nasser Hussain implied? The e-mails have been pouring in, most but by no means all taking the Indians' side. Here is a selection of them
It's the Raj mentality As to his much-publicised statement that the Indians' behaviour was not in the best spirit of the game, does Vaughan remember the Test against Sri Lanka where Jayasuriya was given out wrongly (caught off the ground) and yet virtually the same English team did not recall him? For them to say that they would have recalled the batsman is like shooting in the air. The English should come out of the "Raj" mentality and accept the reality. Saumil Kapadia
It's the modern way I would have been disappointed if England had not appealed under the same cicumstances. Can you imagine the Australians or South Africans being sporting in that situation and risk watching the batsman go on to make a big score ? I think not! Darren Talbot
It's England who are unsportsmanlike 1. Nasser Hussain's so-called catch at gully against South Africa. Was it clean? 2. Last year at Kandy, Sanath Jayasuriya's bump catch. Who was celebrating with huddle? Where was the sportsmanship then? Fazly Wahab
Only a Viswanath would have called him back I know of only one man who would have called Vaughan back and that would have been Gundappa Viswanath, as he so magnanimously called back Botham in the Test at Bombay ... but that is an age where cricket was still a gentleman's game. Alas with sledging, charging umpires, claiming catches which kiss the ground, it is as gross as what transpires on a soccer field. Ramakrishnan, Singapore
Out - end of story I am Australian and watched it with neutral eyes. David Fleming
England would have appealed immediately Was it a poor piece of sportmanship from an Indian side desperate for a wicket? NO ... your above statement is utter nonsense. Would England have done any differently? NO WAY ... they would have done the same thing In fact England players would have appeal immediately since they know the Laws better. Mohandas Menon, Bombay
It was a query, not an appeal
A time of paradox
A matter of colour
Whoever appealed should be an umpire
Ramps got it right Vaughan's comments questioning Sarandeep's integrity were unwarranted. Vaughan may not have meant to smother it, but he did, instinctively. He should look at it from the bowler's point of view. All Sarandeep saw was Vaughan smothering the ball as it fell ... Vaughan got what he deserved. Ramps was sane enough to tell him to get off the field, and prevented the incident from exploding. Kiran Krishna
The wrong instinct But looking at it, the only interpretation is that he thought it was going to roll back onto the stumps. Does he not know the law? Simon Sweetman
The rules are with India
Vaughan should know the rules
Giles incident shows England's hypocrisy Can Nasser Hussain & Vaughan give their opinions on this? The present match referee, Denis Lindsay, had earlier punished Ridley Jacobs of West Indies for not calling a batsman back when he knew a stumping was not proper. The Pom press praised the guy for applying the new "spirit of the game" clause. Will the ref use the same clause here against Giles? What do you think? Join in the debate by e-mailing feedback@wisden.com. Please note that we reserve the right to edit e-mails, and that views published are those of the reader concerned, not of Wisden Online.
© Wisden CricInfo Ltd |
|
|
| |||
| |||
|