INDIAN CRICKET NADIR AS ENGLAND ENJOY BRIEF SUMMER.

What a pathetic collapse by the Indian cricket team.

After good performances in the first 2 tests, including a win in the second, they've fallen apart thereafter. England, if you believe the pundits, have been transformed from a team of no-hopers to a team of world beaters - if only it were true.

The players are the same, the only difference has been attitude and determination. Frankly, the Indians have shown little determination and their attitude has been pathetic; England, on the other hand, have been buoyed by some fine bowling by Anderson and Broad and some large slices of luck for their captain. Alastair  Cook has made a couple of good scores but has also been dropped numerous times along the way, not quite what would have happened against Ricky Ponting's Australians.

Earlier in the year, Cook's position both as captain and batsman, was under attack. Now, after a couple of decent scores, courtesy of one or three dropped catches, and some easy victories, he appears utterly secure. What has changed ? He's still a fine batsman having a poor spell, but a weak and uninspiring captain; in one position he should be a 'shoe-in', from the other he should still be on his bike. 

The latest crushing of the Indians in less than three days is an utter humiliation for the tourists and will be greeted as a terrific performance by England. In truth, the Indians capitulated as they did in the previous 2 matches, completely unable to deal with English conditions. Unlike the great Indian batsmen of the past, the modern crop don't understand what to do when the ball swings or seams and don't have the patience and/or ability to work out an approach. All of this has been with the one glorious exception of captain M S Dhoni who has shown his 'batsmen' how to do it from his position as captain, wicketkeeper and number 7.

Jimmy Anderson is, undoubtedly, one of the best bowlers in world cricket; Stuart Broad is a pretty good support for him. The rest, Jordan, Woakes, and so on, are nowhere near world class. If Anderson and Broad don't do it early on, the team will have problems; while the batsmen may pile up the runs, the bowlers will struggle.

England don't play another Test Match until they visit the West Indies for a 3 match series next April, which seems a very long time away. By then, Anderson and Broad will be a year nearer retirement and we still won't have a decent third seamer, let alone a spinner of any class. The batting looks good for years to come, the bowling appears horribly fragile; the captaincy is in the hands of one of the poorest to inhabit the role. Our chances don't look good.

STUART BROAD DID NOTHING WRONG, THOUGH IT STINKS.

The controversy over whether or not Stuart Broad should have 'walked' yesterday really is an argument between old morals and new. In days gone by, cricket was a game played for pleasure and entertainment with money playing little part. Indeed, until the early 1960s, English cricket maintained a distinction between amateurs and professionals, those who played for fun and those who played for cash.

 

No amateur would have been likely to have stood his ground waiting for the umpire's decision, as Broad did; if he had so obviously hit the ball and been caught, he would have 'walked'. Professionals, on the other hand, may not have been quite so quick to surrender their wickets, a move which could well have affected their earnings. There is no doubt that the great W G Grace, who was nominally an amateur but also made substantial money from cricket, probably never volunteered his wicket and, if I remember correctly, Sir Donald Bradman always left it to the umpire to decide his fate. More recently, Geoffrey Boycott was very clear that he would abide by the umpire's decisions, good or bad and was not in the habit of helping them out in times of doubt.

 

In an age when the main sport of this country, football, is riddled with cheating of every possible sort, it is hypocritical to criticise Broad for his actions. 'Yes', he clearly edged the ball and 'yes' it was caught, but the umpire made a mistake and said 'not out'; Broad was wholly within his rights to stand his ground and if anyone is to be criticised, it is the umpire.

 

I don't like this scenario but it is the one we have to accept; the world in which gentlemen played sports in an honourable way and within the 'spirit of the game' is long gone, at least in football and cricket. There is so much money involved in these sports that honour can no longer exist. Given this state of affairs, I'm at a loss to understand why cricket umpires are not empowered, as are the officials in rugby union, to call for a televisual review whenever there is doubt about a decision, rather than being restrained by the system of allowing a small number of 'reviews' to each side. Rugby officials are not reduced in power by their system, in fact their positions are substantially enhanced; why does not cricket do the same ?

 

Stuart Broad's action leaves a bit of a sour taste but he did nothing wrong, given the ways of today. If cricket authorities or supporters don't like it, then they must look to change the rules and introduce more help for umpires; until they do, things are as they are.