h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Not getting the tv coverage out here in ksa I haven't seen the footage of the swearing and jelly bean throwing by the English fielders. Was it as childish as it sounds? I did read Collingwood saying it was part of the game and no doubt Vaughn has defended it - possibly in the third person!! Would someone mind telling me if the Indian response was proportionate and possibly what the hell has happened to the game I love?

SBE

Well, Vaughan has denied it, saying that they must have been left there after a drinks break. There was a lot of sledging from both sides, and it was all pretty undignified. The umpires really should have stepped in early, and their inaction just added to the needle.

The Indians responded with some antics of their own, including a head-high beamer at Pietersen from Sree Santh (clearly shaken, KP was out lbw shortly afterwards, but not to the same bowler). According to my reading of the Laws, he should have been taken out of the attack immediately by the umps, but was allowed to continue, albeit with a warning. If that happened in a match I was umpiring, I'd instruct the fielding captain to remove him from the attack immediately. He also overstepped by two feet for a no ball. Both have been described as accidental, though Dravid has said he'll have a word with Sree Santh.

The after-match fall-out has been much more dignified - Vaughan's comments are here http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/cricket/england/6924184.stm - but my view is that England went too far too often, and the sledging was clearly counter-productive. I also think that if a bowler is so wayward that he can can overstep by two feet and misjudge the trajectory of a ball by a pitches length, he should not be bowling in Test matches.

The implication in my last sentence, in case it wasn't clear, is that I believe Sree bowled both those balls deliberately, and that the authorities should be tougher when these rare incidents do occur. He lost 50% of his match fee for shoulder-barging Vaughan, but escaped significant punishment for two extremely dangerous balls.

Thanks for that admirably clear sighted summing up. I was interested in Vaughans description of hard test cricket. The Aussies on that basis would have been chucking full jars of vegemite at the batsmen!!
Not sure where I stand on beamers. I think they can be accidental, but chiefly because of loss of mental control on the part of the bowler. I've done enough coaching to know that a slight change in a bowling action can give disproportionate responses good and bad by the time the ball is delivered to the batsman. However, the no ball sounds ridiculous and probably intimidatory. Sounds like Dravid handled it ok though. Still wonder if this is the game I watched in the 70s and 80s though. Botham would have force fed the beans to short leg and Gatting would have scoffed the lot!!!
SBE

Well, the Law regarding beamers is very clear:

If it's accidental and between waist and shoulder height, it's a no ball - three of those and you're off.

It it's considered deliberate, you're off immediately.

If it's above shoulder height, you're off immediately, regardless of whether it's deliberate or accidental.

The difference between the ball pitching on a good length and pitching somewhere just behind the wicketkeeper, as a shoulder-height beamer would, is probably about 20 yards. That's almost a pitch length, and I find it difficult to believe a Test bowler could get it that wrong. The ball bowled by Sree Santh was fast, swung and was at head height, and KP only just evaded it - it was extremely dangerous, and I shudder to think what would have happened if it had hit him. Even if that ball was an accident, he shouldn't have been allowed to continue bowling; the Law is there to protect the batsman from this sort of delivery.

I quite agree with you on life threatening bowling. Not having seen it I didn't know if it had KP hopping or nearly took him out! From your description it was the latter. Mind you its an object lesson not to wind up a fiery young bowler with a cricket ball in his hand!! KP always seems to be at the centre of every controversy, deliberately so I think. Like coming halfway down the pitch to the godlike Glenn. He paid for that!

Don't get me wrong I've quite warmed to him, but having a psychotic Wk nearby probably eggs him on. Prior seems to be less Gilchrist like now he's facing a decent attack. It'll be musical stumpers again before you know it!!

As Steve Waugh used to say, if you're going to chirp you'd better be sure you can back it up - Anderson, Collingwood and Prior take note!

SBE

I think there's a difference between a batsman taking chances to put the bowler off and this constant talking with the aim of putting the batsman off, though. If a batsman advances down the wicket to a quickie to disrupt his length (a good tactic to a line and length bowler like McGrath), that's fair enough - he's taking a pretty big chance, and the bowler can legitimately bowl even shorter or fuller to counter it. That's part of the game. Bowlers take exception to what they see as 'cocky' batsmen who disrupt their plans! I think KP just unsettles people and gives no quarter, and that's an attitude you love if you're on his side but resent if you're not. Witness his return to SA for the tourtwo years ago; even the home support had to give him a grudging respect at the end of that series.

Once a batsman has taken his guard, though, the chat has to stop. England were hugely disrespectful, clearly believing that the more they tried to distract the batsmen, the quicker they'd be out. Whether or not it was successful - and clearly it wasn't - is irrelevant; it's disrespectful, rude and against both the Laws and the Spirit of the game. 'Tough cricket' isn't about this constant yakking; it's about digging in and changing the game when the odds appear to be against you. You compete with bat and ball, not by sledging.

We all remember that image of Flintoff consoling Lee in an act of true sportsmanship. It's sad that that attitude appears to be severely lacking in this series.