> Now that most of you Springboks or Proteas or whatever you want to be called
> have dried your tears and stopped holding your breath until your faces turn
> blue, put your dummies (aka pacifiers) back in and ceased to hyperventilate, we
> can all look at this umpiring thingy in a calm, objective manner.
> Umpire Daryl Hair is not a good umpire.
> He could even be called a bad umpire.
> are Umpire Hair and Keeper Richardson related? Waugh would most probably still
> be batting if not for the Hair-Richardson duo.
***Did you really see the 2nd test or are you just arriving to conclusions?
If anyone has been "robbed" of his wicket during the Aus - Sa series, it
has been Dave (the keeper). Especially, in the 2nd test he and Jonty
were beginning to wrest the intiative from Australia in the 2nd innings
when Richardson was given out (ct behind or something, when he clearly didnt
touch the ball) for 24- ending a partnership of 72. As for S.Waugh being
"robbed", yes the umpiring has gone in favour of both sides, but has certainly
favoured Australia more than Sa. Again Dave was "robbed" of his wicket
(sa 2nd innings, 3rd test), that too at a very crucial stage. So I don't see
how you can relate the bad umpiring to "The Hair-Richardson duo", unless
you feel that they collaborated and Dave agreed to being unfairly out if
the same happened to S.Waugh :-). Unlikely isn't it :-)?
> Face up to the facts that SAF never looked comfortable as a batting side this
> series, and were lucky to win the second test,
***Not luck, but sheer determination on behalf of the Sa players. There
were quite a few decisions which went against them (Dave, Symcox among others)
Agreed Aus were on top for 3/4 of the match, but you don't attribute Jonty's
magnificent 76* to *luck*. Neither do I think, can you say that Devilliers
snatched 10 wkts in the match due to *luck*.
> South Africa really must thank Daryl Hair.
*** Peter Kirsten already did :-)
> David Mudge