Bowlers deliver

Dravid won the toss and put England in to bat. My immediate reaction was that of surprise. The ground reports shown on TV said that the outfield was very soggy and the bowlers would struggle with the run up and delivery, plus the ball would become soft very quickly. On the other hand, the humid conditions with a hint of breeze meant it would favor the swing bowlers well.

Whether Dravid had more faith in his bowlers or less faith in his batsmen, he decided to bowl first and the bowlers did deliver.

The job is only half done. It will be the turn of the batsmen to deliver tomorrow. The conditions that were so favorable to the Indians will continue tomorrow for the English bowlers to exploit and it will be up to the Indian batsmen to ensure a lead of at least 100-150 runs.

But first there is the small matter of removing the last three English wickets. The worst thing that could happen (apart from the Indian batsmen failing, of course),  is for the Indians to let the English tail take the score beyond 200.

(There has been a lot of criticism on Dravid’s captaincy in the previous game. But a captain is only as good as his team. If the captain plans something, and the rest of the team do not play according to it, the captain usually gets blamed. If the Indian bowlers had bowled poorly today, everyone would have criticized Dravid for the decision to bowl. But now that the bowlers have delivered, it seems to be a brilliant one!)



8 responses to “Bowlers deliver

  1. sampath kumar

    There was so much said and made about Dravid being “unlucky” at the hands of the umpire in the first test.
    Now, Cook was ‘unlucky”–that is the only way the pedestrian bowler like Ganguly can get a wicket–yet, no mention of this in the report by Mahesh!!

  2. Yep. I agree. Horrible decision by Simon Taufel. With SreeSanth bowling all over the place , Dravid had no choice but to bring on Ganguly. RP could not control his swing.

    SreeSanth sometimes gets “too” pumped up. Hopefully, he will learn to control his emotions, while being aggressive. He is a very promising bowler for India.

    PS: BTW, Bucknor who has doomed India on many previous occasions, saved the first test for India, by not giving LBW for SreeSanth for Panesar.

  3. Samapth, as an ump yourself I am surprised you brought this up!

    And I wish Sreesanth always behaves as Sreesanth and not as someone we would like him to be. He is best left alone. His aggression comes from being Sreesanth. As long as he does not transgress the abuse line, he is perfectly fine in my view.

  4. Pingback: England Vs India: Test 2 Day 1 — Dravids’ Captaincy « i3j3Cricket :: A blog for fans of Indian cricket…

  5. sampath kumar

    Mohan ,

    I wasn’t whingeing

    I brought the Cook decision for two reasons
    One–Simon Taufel can, does and will mistakes–in this case the batsman was batting a foot outside the crease ie 5 feet from the stumps–he is tall–the ball hit him just above the knee roll–basic training would have involved the square leg umpire signalling to Simon re the batsman standing outside the crease–Simon would have had this view from 20 yards as well.
    Umpires do not blindly approve every decision made by the umpires!! Only exception is, in a match, the two umpires will not ctriticise the other, behind his back–to players and/or officials

    Secondly–I am trying to get some of the bloggers to become fair and balanced–not too one eyed and myopic!!

    For example, in the first test Dhoni “CLAIMED” a non-catch and Taufel, without consulting Bucknor gave it Caught / Out, then he had to change the decision after decision by 3rd umpire and Petersen was allowed to bat again- Dhoni was lucky not to have been reported by the referee–few years ago, two wicket keepers–one from Windies and R Latif the other were suspended or fined for similar incidents

    Conveniently, there was no mention in Indian Press or this blog re Dhoni ‘s appeal!!!!!

  6. Somehow, I don’t quite agree to to you Sam. I think India received more benefits from the bad umpiring in the last test than England did. Secondly, Cook was hit way below the kneeroll in this inning even though he was standing a feet outside the crease and moved further on Ganguly’s delivery. But does that mean he was not out? Didn’t Vaughan benefit from a plumb lbw appeal turned down earlier, or was it Cook?

  7. Sampath,

    Cook may have been a tad unlucky to be given out to Gangulay. I know I didn’t mention this in my brief report.

    I also didn’t mention the fact that Sreesanth had Cook plumb when the score was 47-3 (soon after Peitersen got out). England would have been in a bigger mess if he was given out at that stage, but it was not to be. No marks for guessing who the umpire was…Maybe Simon Taufel wanted to make amends after he saw replays during the Tea break 🙂

    (I think this is the LBW appeal that Chandan is referring to)

    I think you need to be balanced in your views too 🙂

  8. Re: Dhoni. I think he actually believed that he had taken the catch cleanly. While wearing the keeper’s gloves, it is sometimes (not always) hard to judge whether you’ve taken the catch cleanly or not – I see nothing wrong in claiming the catch. After all that is what the umpires are there for.

    I have seen instances where people like Ponting have stood their ground and have refused to walk when they are unsure that the catch has been taken cleanly. The third umpires were then consulted.

    Pietersen actually started walking in this instance before the umpire had given him out…

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s