AGB Cricket

REVIEWSIONIST HISTORY

Chris de Kretser and/or Daryl Timms in Today's Herald Sun Confidential:

No-ball a ton of trouble

The controversial no-ball reprieve for Australian captain Michael Clarke that gave him a chance to make a century at the Gabba would have had Shane Warne recalling one of his biggest regrets.

Warne was dismissed on 99 by New Zealand's Daniel Vettori when trying to bring up his first Test century at the WACA in 2001.

He later found out that Vettori had bowled a no-ball, which was missed by the umpire.

Michael Slater revealed during Channel Nine's cricket show yesterday that Warne only found out about the no-ball at the Allan Border Medal presentation night several months later.

"We shouldn't have told him," Slater said to co-commentator and former captain Mark Taylor, who was aware of the no-ball that was never called.

Warne was furious about never making the cherished three-figure score. He would be just as envious that the review system, as evidenced during the Gabba Test with Clarke, could easily have given him that elusive first Test century.

Not so fast, Kimosabe/s.

The review system would certainly have given Warne that cherished and elusive three-figure first Test century - if he was still batting.

You see, the review system would already have sent Warne packing when he nicked Chris Martin and was caught behind by Adam Parore, only for the umpire to reprieve Warne. Stephen Fleming would have teed the umpire's howler and Warne's not out would have been overturned. Lucky for Australia, too, since the let-off allowed Australia to avoid the follow on (had NZ enforced it).

Nor did Michael Slater reveal yesterday Warne only found out about the no-ball at the Allan Border Medal. We already knew when Warne found out just by watching the AB Medal that night. And nor was it revealed at the AB Medal "several months later". It was revealed at the AB Medal in early 2005, several years later.

So, apart from the sanitation, the medicine, education, wine, public order, irrigation, roads, the fresh-water system and public health...

D'OH BALL!

A lot of noise is made about "wickets taken" with no balls. Vaughan and Trescothick in England, for instance. These incidents are always couched in the same breathless terms as dropped catches. "The England skipper had two lives on 41."

I don't agree.

The flight of a no ball will be different to that of a legitimate ball. Thus a wicket taken by a no ball would probably not have been taken by a legitimate ball in it's stead. Granted the initial high of a no ball wicket, quickly followed by the let-down of seeing the umpy with his arm out can be deflating, but if the ball was legitimate in the first place, the end result would have been different.

Sure, sure, it's a rather fine point, but it's a point needs making.

Split hairs aside, what happened when Billy Doctor reprieved Ricky Ponting, was bizarre. Bowlers taking wickets with no balls has reached epidemic proportions, but yesterday was the first time I've ever seen a bowler no-balled when it wasn't a no ball.

Televisual adjudication of no balls is becoming more and more likely.

While I'm on the topic - Shane Warne. At the WACA back in 2001 Warne was dismissed for 99, caught in the deep by Wanker Richardson off Danny Vettori. As everybody is now aware, courtesy of footage at last year's Border Medal, Vettori had bowled a no ball. So, in the same way as Justin Langer was dismissed by a Flintoff no ball at Lords, Warne should have been not out and, in fact, scored a ton. The thing is though, here I am watching Warne on 99, I saw the dismissal, I saw the replays, and yet I didn't know it was a no ball. Why? I don't think I would have missed that. And if I hadn't, I wouldn't have forgotten it. Yet what was shown at the Border Medal was news to me. What am I getting at? Well, just this - was the Border Medal footage stooged?

NO-RAIN MAN

Today in The Age, Spanky Roebuck harks back to 2001 to preview the test series against New Z'Lund; see if you can spot what's missing.

Australians ready to blunt visitors' determination

Stephen Fleming's hopes of catching Australia on the hop seem slim. Last time around, the Kiwis arrived with a plan founded upon resolute batting and tactics that exposed dark corners of an ageing home side.

Fleming set the tone with astute field placements, a rousing innings and a declaration in Brisbane that obliged the hosts to respond. Chris Cairns led the charge towards victory on a gripping fifth afternoon. Australia was saved by an over from Glenn McGrath directed wide of the stumps.

Sustaining its challenge, NZ secured a draw in Hobart and almost won a topsy-turvy contest in Perth, only to be denied by poor umpiring and a withering innings from Adam Gilchrist.

Fleming and company left Australia with reputations enhanced and everyone realising that their high position in the rankings was not an aberration but a reward for consistent performances over several years.

NZ's achievement was founded upon the underdog's delight in tweaking the beard of a vast neighbour occasionally suspected of self-aggrandisement, upon the inclusion of many underestimated players and upon an understanding of the Australian psyche and strategy. Kiwis are inclined to think that Australians make a lot of noise.

NZ was at the peak of its powers and the host was taken aback. Fleming and colleagues forced the local pace bowlers to abandon their customary and conservative line of attack by the simple device of refusing to play anything not directed at the stumps.

Compromising fields were set for the Waugh twins and Damien Martyn and none of them had a happy time. Unable to recover its equanimity and sustained largely by its opening pair, Australia was lucky to escape with a drawn series.

If you said "rain" you win the prize.

Sure the last series was close, the Kiwis played some excellent cricket, but were it not for significant rain in Brisbane and Hobart, Australia would have been comfortably 2-0 up going into Perth's third test. There, after Enzed had TWICE gotten out of jail, Australia were ripe to be ambushed.

In Brisbane, the only reason New Zealand and Cairns, in particular, were able to mount an aggressive fifth day chase was that they were playing on a third day wicket (always the best at the Gabba) and within what amounted to a One-Day backdrop after (in my opinion) an overgenerous declaration from Steve Waugh.

Hobart was a bust, but Australia made over 500 and had NZ almost skittled for under 300 when rain washed out the game.

Then in Perth, where New Zealand played out of their collective skins, Australia counter-attacked and were heading for an unlikely win when Steve Waugh was dismissed courtesy of a unlucky run-out via a smack from Gilchrist that would have been four, but instead bounced of Vettori's hand and onto the non-striker's wicket.

I accept the series turned out close, but to suggest "Australia was lucky to escape with a drawn series", is OK if set within Roebuck's TYPICALLY selective context, but absolutely farcical in the wider picture.

For all the excellent articles Roebuck pen, he sure does write a whole heap of disingenuous nonsense.