« ICC World Twenty20 - Hero of the day: Brett Lee | Main | ICC Twenty20: Australia Continue to Improve »
ICC World Twenty20 - Villain of the day: Shaun Pollock
Can you win any cricket match having dropped an average of one catch every five overs? Of course you can't - and that's what cost England their Super 8s' match vs South Africa at a carnivalesque Newlands.
So it wasn't the turning point when KP was run out, but it was a big moment in every sense. KP was at fault for running with his eyes on the ball intent on getting himself between the thrower and the stumps, but isn't that what the coaches tell them to do? I've been waiting for a batsman to dismissed obstructed the field for just this trick - that would wipe the smile off the ex-pros in the commentary box who always call such a manoeuvre "smart cricket".
But what exactly was Pollock doing? Moving away from the wicket towards the ball, when every cricket instinct should have told him to get over the stumps for the return. I'm in no doubt that his apology to KP was sincere, but I've no doubt that Pollock's intention was to give Pietersen a running problem, not to run him out. Can Googlyers account for Pollock's actions?
[The Tooting Trumpet] [Image: Getty]
September 16, 2007 in English cricket, ICC Twenty20 World Championship, News Pavilion, One-day cricket, Twenty20 | Permalink | 
Stumble It!
Comments
Although i may be biased,i dont think after watching several tv replays,that you can honestly say it wasnt wilful obstruction,therefore the benefit of the doubt should have gone to KP.Simple fact is England lost the match due to not taking there chances,it may be a bit of a cliche but catches win matches,that and Snape going in before Dimi,whats all that about?
Posted by: steve | 16 Sep 2007 23:18:15
I must be watching a different replay, then. Kev, who has dawdled down his first run and makes a half-arsed turn for a 2nd , suddenly realises that Ntini is on the ball, and begins to panic. He tries to bead Ntini and carooms straight into Pollock and gets his own bat tangled up in his legs and goes down like a poleaxed pine. What Pollock was doing there was giving Ntini a clear shot at the bails. Seriously, the ENG cricket team should all don a fez instead of those caps and call themselves Henry Cooper.
Posted by: pepp | 17 Sep 2007 02:58:53
Something that has been missed in this incident is the excellent cricket by Ntini. First the quick and clean fielding and then throwing at the right end and hitting the stumps.
Pietersen was also called for the single by his partner (Prior?) and he too must take some responsibility for his demise.
Pietersen sure seems to find some quirky ways of losing his wicket. Some may call it bad luck but I'd call it bad cricket.
Posted by: nesta | 17 Sep 2007 12:20:06
Pepp, what the hell were you watching? He played the ball, went for an easy run and then realised he'd better hurry up, got caught up with Pollock and was out.
At no point in that bit did he "turn for a second run"
As for Pollock being in the way, he was obstructing the runner, KP should ahve been given the benefit, but thats not what lost us the game, droping catches and droping Maddy (who's scored runs) for Wright (who hasnt) appead to be the main issue
Posted by: andyinbrumnbrum | 17 Sep 2007 12:20:39
KP often plays bad cricket and this was an instant of that. And it was excellent cricket from Ntini.
But the fact is that he would have been in by a yard had Pollock not moved towards his line of running wholly inexplicably. The umpires should have sorted it out on the field as sole arbiters of the law.
But it wasn't a killer error - they were in the catching department.
Posted by: The Tooting Trumpet | 17 Sep 2007 12:36:02
I have no idea what they teach in South Africa or England but if a bowler gets in front of me, for example, in that situation I've been coached to shove the bat shoved firmly up his arse.
I believe Shaun Pollock to be an honourable cricketer and person and so said Nick Knight who knows him personally. If he did do it on purpose it is well out of character. It also needs to be remembered that Pietersen also ran off his line late which only added to the confusion.
Like the umpire, or as he was confusingly called at the Guardian, the video ref, I think it was out, however unfortunate. At no time did Pollock take his eye off the ball. If his head would have turned just a fraction for an instant I would have called him for obstructing and so would have the third ump I think.
Now if it was Maradona or Afridi I might believe that the bowler was cunning and quick enough to pull off that stunt but Pollock! Come on. He has no history of this type of behaviour and he has played an awful long time.
Posted by: nesta | 17 Sep 2007 12:55:57
oh it was as funny as hell. I was a bit disappointed when ENG left out NannyNix, because Paul was an endless source of comedy , never a dull moment, from sledging himself to that terrible reversesweepy thingy. The comedy was then up to Kev alone, but I had faith he could pull it off, at least once a match. And so it rolls on. Against NZ.. what CAN he come up with?? Something from the Ministry of Silly Walks, I do hope. Stay tuned.. ( still crying with laughter every time I replay it ).. Naturally , the idea from plucky little Ingerland is to defame Pollock... more comedy..
Posted by: pepp | 17 Sep 2007 13:05:51
Nesta - I have a similar view of Pollock, although I believe he was let off lightly in the Cronje affair.
Were it anyone other than KP involved in the incident, I would shrug my shoulders and say that I couldn't understand it, but that's all part of the game. But there is both real antipathy towards KP from the Saffers (and I have a lot of sympathy with their view and would join in baiting KP myself) and a desire to get "in his face / in his eyeline" to upset him.
Put it this way - had Graeme Smith moved the way Pollock did, who would doubt that he had some intention of getting in KP's way? Very few England supporters that's for sure, and I would be surprised if neutrals did not share that view.
So are we judging the act or the man?
Posted by: The Tooting Trumpet | 17 Sep 2007 13:32:58
Prepare for a surprise then, toots. I dont know anyone who would perceive that Graeme would bother, and I am surrounded by neutrals. Graeme doesnt have to do a damn thing, Kev will do it to himself. Dont forget, the Saf rejected Kev for precisely the reasons that remain in force today, as then. He stated he was entitled to a place on the team and moaned about reverse racism. Kev just couldnt see that he is a liability to any team, but a complete disaster for evolving SouthAfrican cricket. But the Saffers saw it and decided to dispense with the high maintainance problem. And who is to say they made a wrong call?? Not I .. The Saff cricketing public slags off Kev for the same reasons. It's not to upset him, they couldnt give a bugger about that, it's to underline their unchanging views. A spontaneous bonding public hooting. That fool Nixon strolled around and walked in front of the wicket every game he played in that I saw, got in everyones way, including the fielders, and Umpires, batsmen just ran round him or shoved him, same thing. But not our Kev.. the DRAMA IS ALL!!!!.. . ( playing the replay again and the dog has collapsed with laughter, too. )
Posted by: pepp | 17 Sep 2007 14:05:59
I was judging the dismissal and unfortunately for Kev I would have agreed with umpire Howell (who is dodgy) on the evidence presented.
The cold hard truth is, if Pietersen just put his head down and ran straight he would have made it easily. Poor cricket gets punished one way or another.
For example, Shah & Collingwood mixed up in catching Morkel (Shah's catch by the way) and the next three balls were hit into the street. That's cricket and that's why it teaches.
Kev is a terrific bat but a slow learner who doesn't seem to possess a keen cricketing brain.
Shame really. He has the raw talent to be one of the greats. Instead he'll be very good but not in the top echelon. For they all have one thing in abundance. A sharp and instinctive feel for the game.
And I am slowly warming to Smith. He has plenty of courage and is becoming quite a good leader. I know nothing about him except that he works hard to succeed in a tough job. And that McGrath got him cheaply, often enough, to finally shut him up. .
Posted by: nesta | 17 Sep 2007 14:08:06
I'm warming to Smith too who made his mistakes when young and doing a very, very tough job.
I'm not sure KP has a great cricketing brain either, but I think he had the right to expect the bowler to be somewhere other than where he was at that moment. Once the bowler was there, I accept KP didn't solve his problem well.
The Shah - Colly mix-up was poor cricket and was deservedly punished (agreed Shah's catch too), but that sort of thing can happen to the best players, as I'm sure SR Waugh and JN Gillespie would confirm.
Posted by: The Tooting Trumpet | 17 Sep 2007 15:27:37
Tugger and Gillespie paid a very expensive price for their misunderstanding. What a mess that was. Ugly.
I wasn't having a go at them just illustrating the point as I did in my article with the preamble to Lee's hat-trick that there is always a price to pay.
And I'll say it again, what a slick pick up and throw from Ntini! It was one of the best pieces of fielding in the whole match. Deserved a wicket.
I'd like to say that Kev was unlucky but it was more a case of bad management than bad luck. Only Pollock knows what really happened but it was an avoidable accident.
When called through for the quick single, sprint in a straight line. It's the shortest possible route. It ain't rocket science, Toots.
I think international Twenty20 is a different game to the domestic stuff. I think it's because of the concentration of talent. The captains have more at their disposal and new tactics are developing.
It's been interesting and enjoyable however I am finding the matches too short. What about two 20 over innings each? That would produce some good cricket in my opinion. And satiate my appetite.
Posted by: nesta | 17 Sep 2007 16:06:41
Nesta - Bushnumpty, oft seen in these parts, floated a two T20 innings per team format to replace ODIs at GU a fair while ago. I thought it genius then and do so now.
I think you're dead right about the evolution of international T20 - it does seem a different game - less like baseball and more like cricket. I just love the reward great fielding gets in T20 and I love the emphasis it places on quick and correct decision-making.
Straight line? Of course you're right, but don't the coaches say that you should run between the fielder and the wicket these days? It's always praised here as smart cricket - as I write above, I think it's dumb cricket.
Posted by: The Tooting Trumpet | 17 Sep 2007 16:38:28
Toots: I must admit to have missed your proposal some time ago of a two-innings Twenty20 and on reading Nesta's comment, thought - wow, that would be good. Sorry for lack of attention to your thoughts. I totally agree that what we are seeing now makes international 20/20 a very different thing from domestic, but my doubts about a two-innings format are that the ICC could find a way to screw it up.
One of the joys of this tournament is that it is so fast, with multiple matches and it is not at all the yawn-fest that was the World Cup.
Posted by: mimi | 17 Sep 2007 18:08:07
Mimi - It was Bushnumpty's proposal which I have championed at every opportunity!
Posted by: The Tooting Trumpet | 17 Sep 2007 18:22:43
Well then, my apologies to bush as well for missing his genius idea.
Posted by: mimi | 17 Sep 2007 18:27:57
Apologies accepted mimi. I am wondering if it is too late to throw my hat into the ring to become ECB chairman. Not managed to see the KP thing but if there is a daft way to get out you can guarantee KP will find it.
Posted by: bushnumpty | 17 Sep 2007 20:44:38
bush: if I had a say in it, I'd vote for you as ECB and ICC chairman. Sound sense always, and they could do with it. Re KP, there must be more daft ways for him to get out. Perhaps you should run a comp?
Posted by: mimi | 17 Sep 2007 21:13:02
bush: if I had a say in it, I'd vote for you as ECB and ICC chairman. Sound sense always, and they could do with it. Re KP, there must be more daft ways for him to get out. Perhaps you should run a comp?
Posted by: mimi | 17 Sep 2007 21:19:21
A quick note on running between wickets. If you are going to be a metre short of your ground, sure, get yourself between the fielder and the stumps. That's sensible and often a touch painful.
In Oz if a batsman does that you brand him in the back with a very hard well directed throw. Happens to me at least once a season and is the price you pay for protecting your wicket. Better a big purple bruise with a seam imprint than the death rattle.
But if there is a chance you'll make your ground you just run flat-out in a straight line and slide your bat into the crease.
Posted by: nesta | 18 Sep 2007 04:43:57
The comments to this entry are closed.
