Group F - Ireland, Pakistan, New Zealand, Sri Lanka

[Smudge]

Have a cold and had work today so I was never going to bother watching. Besides, I knew we'd lose - we struggle time and time again against quality spin.

Actually go and blow something up.

That really isn't needed. Grow up.

 

[slugger]

nz peaks only last around 3 games in any tournment .. we've got to learn to time it to coinside with the semi and final. were only beat assciate teams.. and players like oram and styris are retained because of it .. where are they when you really need them vs pak & sri lanka..

 

[Days of Grace]

When was the last time New Zealand won a must-win match in a tournament? 2000 Champions trophy?

Why does Oram suck so much at T20 batting? You'd think he'd be tailor-made for it. What pisses me off about him and Mills to a certain extent is they always look so ****ing depressed. Their body language on the field is horrible.

 

[duffer]

Actually go and blow something up.

Are you kidding me?

 

[trapol]

Can i ask why the hate for Styris?

I have been following them closely over here and up till yest he was playing well. 50 off 30 against NZ in the warm ups, 42 off 28 against Aust, 29 off 18 against India then bats in a no win situation stuffed up by B Mac/Taylor against SA. Top scores against Pakistan before failing against SL...

Sometimes i dont get it? Is it that once your over 30 youre gone?

Oram on the otherhand i can understand. He also looked great early on but has gone down hill slowly since. I cant seem to work out why either???

 

[shivfan]

Of course it does.

Given how little the white ball has swung this year, the fact that Gul was getting it to reverse so soon means that something unusual was taking place.

I don't think that Vettori was wrong to suspect that something underhand may have been going on - a degree of ball tampering would certainly be one way of getting the ball to reverse so soon. Vettori was quite right to seek clarification from the umpires, because if Pakistan had been at it, then New Zealand would have a legitimate grievance about being cheated out of the tournament.

However, there is a world of difference between being suspicious, and outright accusing Gul/Pakistan of cheating, which Vettori to my knowledge hasn't done.

I disagree....

It might not have been an official complaint, but Vettori practically accused Pakistan of ball-tampering without evidence. He's certainly revealed his true colours.

Instead of looking for excuses, Vettori needs to accept that his batsmen have very poor batting technique, and address those problems....

 

[shivfan]

The implication is definitely there (assuming media reports are accurate). He's basically asking the umpires whether they saw Pakistan cheating.

I agree....

It's a pity, because at the start of the competition, New Zealand was the neutral team I was cheering for. After Vettori's behaviour, I was cheering for NZ to be knocked out.

 

[KiWiNiNjA]

I disagree....

It might not have been an official complaint, but Vettori practically accused Pakistan of ball-tampering without evidence. He's certainly revealed his true colours.

Instead of looking for excuses, Vettori needs to accept that his batsmen have very poor batting technique, and address those problems....

Huh?
Of course he didn't have evidence of ball tampering, he saw unusually early reverse swing and went to the match referee to see what was up with that. There are a number a possible reasons, hence the asking.

"Hey there Mr Match Referee, I noticed that the ball was reverse swing really early. What's up with that?"

"Well Daniel, we saw nothing untoward, so I guess it's just got to do with the balls they use here in England." (or something like that)

"Oh thanks Mr Match Referee. I just thought it was worth it to see."

And he was happy.


Just out of interest, just say that a team was doing something untoward, would the process be any different?
Answering such question is part of a match referees job, just like a supervisor.
Or is a captain suppose to just see something strange to him and go "Oh, thats strange. I don't know what's happening, but I better not ask any questions or people will say I am accusing the opposition of ball tampering."


Something happens at work that you have never seen before, what do you do?
Leave it when it could possible be something of importance? Or go up to your supervisor and say, "Hey, it's probably nothing, but I saw this happen. Has that ever happened before? Do you know what it is?"
"Oh, that has happened before. It is nothing major, but thanks for coming forward, I will get the technicians to have a look at it."


If Vettori went to the Match Referee and said "I think Pakistan was ball tampering" without evidence, then that's an accusation. But as far as I can see, he didn't do that. He had no evidence of why the ball was reverse swinging so early, as he was busy playing, so he asked the Match Referee. Is he suppose to ask around everyone to ask as to why the ball did so, is he suppose to look through video to see if something happened to the ball during the match? Oh, that's right, there is this guy whos job it is to watch the match, lets ask him.

 

[PhoenixFire]

Vettori doesn't strike me as someone who would be stupid enough to open up the massive can of worms that is ball-tampering without very good reason. Not that I even think that he accused anyone anyway.

EDIT, what KiWiNiNjA said, pretty much sums up my thoughts.

 

[Sanz]

Huh?
Of course he didn't have evidence of ball tampering, he saw unusually early reverse swing and went to the match referee to see what was up with that. There are a number a possible reasons, hence the asking.

"Hey there Mr Match Referee, I noticed that the ball was reverse swing really early. What's up with that?"

"Well Daniel, we saw nothing untoward, so I guess it's just got to do with the balls they use here in England." (or something like that)

"Oh thanks Mr Match Referee. I just thought it was worth it to see."

And he was happy.


Just out of interest, just say that a team was doing something untoward, would the process be any different?
Answering such question is part of a match referees job, just like a supervisor.
Or is a captain suppose to just see something strange to him and go "Oh, thats strange. I don't know what's happening, but I better not ask any questions or people will say I am accusing the opposition of ball tampering."


Something happens at work that you have never seen before, what do you do?
Leave it when it could possible be something of importance? Or go up to your supervisor and say, "Hey, it's probably nothing, but I saw this happen. Has that ever happened before? Do you know what it is?"
"Oh, that has happened before. It is nothing major, but thanks for coming forward, I will get the technicians to have a look at it."


If Vettori went to the Match Referee and said "I think Pakistan was ball tampering" without evidence, then that's an accusation. But as far as I can see, he didn't do that. He had no evidence of why the ball was reverse swinging so early, as he was busy playing, so he asked the Match Referee. Is he suppose to ask around everyone to ask as to why the ball did so, is he suppose to look through video to see if something happened to the ball during the match? Oh, that's right, there is this guy whos job it is to watch the match, lets ask him.

That's massively understating what Vettori did. He first raised it with the on-field umpire and again with the match referee. If the On Field umpires already told him that there was nothing wrong then why raise it with match Ref ?

"Vettori's concerns centred upon the ball's quarter seam, which when lifted (illegal under the laws of the game) can aid reverse-swing. The umpires, England's Mark Benson and Australia's Rod Tucker, did inspect the ball but only for deliberate scuffs and scratches, none of which were of an incriminating nature."

What Vettori did is actually opened can of worms and now media has picked it up to humiliate another Pakistani Bowler just because their team were thrashed.

Umar Gul: Ball scratcher at The Oval? | Stuff.co.nz

It doesn't matter what is written within those columns, the conclusion is already relayed through the headline.

 

[KiWiNiNjA]

So it was OK for him to go to the umpires, but not to the match referee?

 

[Sanz]

So it was OK for him to go to the umpires, but not to the match referee?

Why do that when It was already communicated by the On Field Umpires that there was no wrong doing by Gul.

 

[PhoenixFire]

Maybe the match referee would have seen something that the onfield umpires didn't. Would you go to the Match Referee anyway? Isn't this exactly the sort of thing that they are for?

 

[Fusion]

It's not just that Vettori went to the match referee (which however you frame it was asking “are Pakistan cheating”?), it’s also what he said after the game. His comments about the disbelieve on how much swing Gul was getting were clearly implying something. When I first read those comments, my immediate thoughts were “wow, is he implying that Gul tempered with the ball”? And at that point I didn’t even know that he had approached the umps about the matter. So considering that he had approach the umps and was told that they didn’t believe any cheating was taking place, for him to make those comments afterwards only added fuel to the fire. All in all, it came off as sour grapes, as Geoff Lawson has commented. Here’s an excerpt of something Andrew Hughes wrote that summarizes my feelings on the matter:

As Daniel Vettori has recently discovered, getting your ass whipped can be a painful experience. But that doesn't mean you should air your unsightly soreness in public. In the bitterness of defeat as in the rush of victory, a skipper can, if he wants, react like any person in the street. Or he can choose to conduct himself like a captain of his country. Win gracefully; lose gracefully. It is a simple principle, and in these days of fist-pumping, verbal abuse and winner grabs all, it is the only boundary rope separating cricket from being just a rather expensive squabble over a ball.

 

[Flem274*]

Haha, can't wait until McCullum is captain (or better, Ryder ). Then there will be wars of words, and possibly knives (greatest DCYE quote on McCullum a while back, should go find it).

 

[Athlai]

Yeah something like he'd beat you up or throw you off a cliff for ten cents IIRC

 

[Jono]

I like Vettori, and don't necessarily disagree with his actions of what I'm about to list, but he has an interesting record as captain:

- questioned Tait's action
- locked himself and the rest of his team in the locker room against England, not shaking hands with Collingwood
- questioned whether Gul/Pakistan tampered with the ball in public

Interesting to say the least.

 

[Athlai]

Tait was the coach wasn't it?

 

[Mahindinho]

I like Vettori, and don't necessarily disagree with his actions of what I'm about to list, but he has an interesting record as captain:

- questioned Tait's action
- locked himself and the rest of his team against England, not shaking hands with Collingwood
- questioned whether Gul/Pakistan tampered with the ball in public

Interesting to say the least.

I have to say that, as much as I like Vettori as a player (especially when he was a shaggy-haired bespectacled student), he strikes me as a bit of a ****.

There are some cricketers I'd love to go for a drink with, there are some I really wouldn't, and that bears little or no correlation to how much I like them on the pitch.

 

[Jono]

Tait was the coach wasn't it?

You may be right actually.