The Andrew Strauss catch of Phil Hughes
Phil Hughes edged a Flintoff delivery to the slips. Andrew Strauss scooped it up, but did it graze the turf? The umpires didn’t refer it, but if they had have done, Hughes would certainly have been given not out.
The heart bleeds. The Australian view is that Hughes would definitely have gone on and made 260. Our own view is that if you’re in the habit of edging balls to the slips, you’re not batting that well.
Of course, neither argument can hold sway because it’s all supposition. However, what we do know is that this kind of pedantic nit-picking and straw-clutching is exactly the kind of thing that gave rise to the term ‘whinging Poms’.
Was Phil Hughes actually out? Look in t’book.
Subscribe to the King Cricket email updates
We just finished reading Lights Out in Wonderland
OWZAAAAT?
Out!
The Aussies have enough sour grapes to start up a low-quality vineyard. They’ll still be moaning about this in another four years.
Brilliant.
Well, King Cricket, get them to admit it, if you can. I mean, about whingeing. Apparently, there is a difference between claiming grounded catches(Strauss, Lord’s, 2009), and, er…, claiming grounded catches(Ponting, Sydney, 2008). You are not supposed to talk of the past, I believe, unless it involves showing Australia’s opposition at disadvantage.
Does the fact that 6 batsmen were bowled mean bad batting, great bowling or poor field place setting that stopped other ways of getting out or is it none of these or all of these?
It is quite odd isn’t it?
As long as we have umpires, we’ll have so called “questionable decisions.” If the Australian players don’t like it, they should build a bridge and get over it. If they can’t, may I suggest they take up a game where there is no umpire-chess perhaps.
England deserve to be leading the series. They’ve played better cricket. Its as simple as that.
David
California
(Australian supporter)