Poor losers and poor umpires (Re: TV replays/Umpiring decisions)

Poor losers and poor umpires (Re: TV replays/Umpiring decisions)

Post by Narasimha P » Fri, 31 Jan 1992 09:12:12

      [ lot of sensible stuff before and after the quoted portion deleted]

> I think it is more a case of poor losers than poor umpires.  How often do


> you see a winning side complaining about decisions which didn't go their way?

(The quoted article was posted during the third hour on the fifth day of the
fourth test)

Why should a winning side complain if they won inspite of what, in their
opinion, was a bad umpiring? Only those who suffer will complain. And there is
nothing wrong as long as it is just a complaint (and not a walk out or a
threat of walk out). It is still in the spirit of cricket (a gentle man's

Let me give you an example of poor losers! This one is a hypothetical example
and if you find similarities between this and any real test match, it must be
because of "your impression" of that match rather than mine. To me, this is a
hypothetical test match (with, possibly, a few statistical similarities with  
a real test).

The team, on winning the toss, asked the opponents to bat and bowled them out
for a very low score on the first day. Then, they lost the wicket of an in-form
flamboyant opener, who just opened up, in a close decision. Another batsman X
who was capable of responsible and long innings and who had been doing well for
the last 20 days fell to a very very dubious decision for a low score, on the
second day. With an unusually high number of LBW decisions (atleast compared to
their opponents' innings), half of which were "very close", they managed a
not-so-huge lead. On the final day, chasing a not-so-easy target they lost the
same X (who had been doing well for the last 20 days) in a dubious decision
again. They lost another good batsman who had some good knocks in some recent
tests in an outrageously stupid decision (not close, but umpires' goof - no one
knew whether intentional or unintentional). This guy was very experienced and
could have done anything if he stayed. Then again, in a flurry of LBW
decisions (half of which was "very close"), they lost the test by 38 runs.
The close LBW decision in which one gritty alrounder (a bowler who could also
bat) was given out sealed their fate, though what they needed was 51 runs off
74 balls or something like that. Any one close decision decided the other way
could have tilted the match in their favor. So many close decisions, all in
favor of their opponents! And I forgot to tell you, they lost the series
because they didn't win that test, though there was another test.

Now tell me, didn't they have any reason to feel let down? Would they be wrong
in complaining? Sure, they were losers, for umpires' word was final. But weren't
they "good losers", if not "m***winners"? Would you call them "poor losers"
because they complained of "poor umpiring"?

PVR Narasimha Rao