In a brilliant bit of PR work which only shows how superior their white-collar bureaucratic instinct is to their ability to play spin bowling on the pitch, the England captain and coach went and met the match referee Javagal Srinath. After this meeting, they put out a statement which ought to go down as a classic
The first few camera angles on the Leach dismissal could not clarify if the catch was clean. only the stump cam gave a clear view of Pujara's hand on the grass that indicated that the catch was clean. So, if we had to take a decision based on only the first few angles, the benefit of doubt would have probably gone to the batsman-- Leach. The umpire was NOT hunting for camera angles to aid Leach. it was to justify the catch. It was also the right decision. Now if only they did the same for the stokes catch. The umpire didn't even bother looking at the complete catch in that single camera shot he reviewed. If he was patient enough to watch the whole thing, we 'd have clearly seen Stokes drag the ball through the grass -- as was shown in the replays later . Ironically, that would have cleared any doubts in any player's mind about the legitimacy of the decision. The review was not thorough. It was rushed.
It's ok to liken the English to children, but at least pick the right examples.
There is no doubt that the English pundits have been pushing this prejudiced narrative or spinning pitches being bad. That they are using the pitch to justify their poor performances. that they think the toss was important in the 2nd and 3rd test (which is ridiculous, the toss was more influential in the First test!)
But can we also stay clear of our sweeping assumptions? In an attempt to defend against their biases, we don't need to cultivate our own.
The first few camera angles on the Leach dismissal could not clarify if the catch was clean. only the stump cam gave a clear view of Pujara's hand on the grass that indicated that the catch was clean. So, if we had to take a decision based on only the first few angles, the benefit of doubt would have probably gone to the batsman-- Leach. The umpire was NOT hunting for camera angles to aid Leach. it was to justify the catch. It was also the right decision. Now if only they did the same for the stokes catch. The umpire didn't even bother looking at the complete catch in that single camera shot he reviewed. If he was patient enough to watch the whole thing, we 'd have clearly seen Stokes drag the ball through the grass -- as was shown in the replays later . Ironically, that would have cleared any doubts in any player's mind about the legitimacy of the decision. The review was not thorough. It was rushed.
It's ok to liken the English to children, but at least pick the right examples.
There is no doubt that the English pundits have been pushing this prejudiced narrative or spinning pitches being bad. That they are using the pitch to justify their poor performances. that they think the toss was important in the 2nd and 3rd test (which is ridiculous, the toss was more influential in the First test!)
But can we also stay clear of our sweeping assumptions? In an attempt to defend against their biases, we don't need to cultivate our own.