[ad_1]
India’s T20I team eased some of the pain which the ODI unit endured two weeks ago in the World Cup final, when it defeated Australia in the fifth match of the series by six runs to clinch the series 4-1. Despite posting 160, considered a sub-par total at Bengaluru’s M Chinnaswamy Stadium, the Indian bowlers defended to win the contest by six runs, following some excellent death-overs bowling by Mukesh Kumar and Arshdeep Singh. Mukesh finished with 3/32, while Arshdeep chipped in with 2/40 – the latter successfully defending 10 off the last over – to give India the last laugh.
However, the finish witnessed a bit of controversy with as a couple of dubious umpire interventions aided India in the final over, which prompted an equally unwanted on-air remark from Australia great Matthew Hayden. Hayden was on commentary when the square-leg umpire did not signal wide when Arshdeep’s bouncer was clearly above Matthew Wade’s head and later when the umpire accidentally got hit courtesy a Nathan Ellis strike.
The first ball of the over was missed by the square leg umpire, whereas it would clearly a wide above head high. Wade expressed his disappointment at the call and appeared pretty livid with it, and rightly so. That’s when Hayden said, “You can see why he is upset, that’s definitely a wide. Way over his head. It has to be about his position as well. He was standing up on that ball and it was still over his head.”
Four balls later, Ellis connected the ball well and straight before it deflected off Arshdeep’s hands on to the umpire’s right thigh. Sharma was quick to react and had it not been for the deflection, the ball would have been headed straight, but luck simply didn’t favour Australia. Seeing the events transpire, Hayden simply went, “The umpire has done his job for the second time this over. Have a look at this. This time, it’s the one in front, not on square. They are tag-teaming here.”
Why Hayden’s remark was unwelcomed
A twitter user pointed out: “Didn’t particularly enjoy this remark by Matthew Hayden,” followed by a reply from another which said “Pathetic from a commentator! At best it would’ve been a couple, not that it matters.”
Hayden’s comments, one feels, weren’t required. Firstly, because the fielder at long-on was a lot straighter, and hence, even if the umpire would have managed to get out of the way, at max, it would have been a single, which in turn would have brought the equation down to eight required off the last ball. A valid point of contention could be the first ball – the wide – yet, even that would have only made a difference of one run, still not enough for Australia to secure the win.
[ad_2]
Source link