What I Saw: Energy Lolly and Saw Dust

What I Saw: Energy Lolly and Saw Dust

Post by Vicky B. Vigneswar » Thu, 22 Jan 2004 17:39:34


Channel Nine did not show the player when the rubbing was going on.  A
yellow thing was sitting on the zenith of the ball while the player's
fingers worked around it - without touching the yet thingy.  Actually
the lolly was not rubbed on the ball, although it was sitting on the
ball.

Tony Greig said, something to the effect that, a substance was applied
on it - that's for sure.

Once the rubbing around was over, the yellow thing was slipping on the
ball and the player picked it up.  I didn't know it was Dravid until I
heard in the news this morning.

Few overs later, I thought it was Kumble, showed the ball to the
umpire (local) and picked something from the ball.  I thought some
left over from the yellow stuff was still on the ball - but I may be
wrong.

Saw dust incident, which has been frantically discussed here by some
of the posters, was a non-incident.  A small heap of saw dust at
Nehra's bowling end nat the later stages of the match.  Pathan
attempted to field a ground ball behind the bowler, which hit the heap
and went to four.  Nehra came to bowl the very next ball and touch the
heap with the ball in his hand.  It might be an attempt to flatten the
heap or to get some dust to his fingers, but there was no rubbing of
the ball against saw dust.

Ganguly was the main 'drier' of the ball.  He did not rub the ball,
but he handled the ball like a tiny wet chicken.  He carefully closed
the ball in the towel in his palms.  I thought he was too careful, not
to clean the dirty side of the ball.

I am certain that this will be used by *** "we can't be beaten"
fans to settle their dented egos.  The fact remains that the Indians
won matches mainly with their batsmen in this tour.

I can't say whether Rahul Dravid was guilty or innocent.  I would give
him the benefit of the doubt at this point.  Probably Clive Lloyd did
that too.

Can't wait for the Sydney match tomorrow,
Vicky:      
[Look forward to reading some of the posters]

 
 
 

What I Saw: Energy Lolly and Saw Dust

Post by Michael Creeve » Thu, 22 Jan 2004 18:14:35



Quote:
> Channel Nine did not show the player when the rubbing was going on.  A
> yellow thing was sitting on the zenith of the ball while the player's
> fingers worked around it - without touching the yet thingy.  Actually
> the lolly was not rubbed on the ball, although it was sitting on the
> ball.

> Tony Greig said, something to the effect that, a substance was applied
> on it - that's for sure.

The TV pictures seemed rather damning. Whatever Greig said, I don't care.
He's done worse.

Quote:

> Once the rubbing around was over, the yellow thing was slipping on the
> ball and the player picked it up.  I didn't know it was Dravid until I
> heard in the news this morning.

> Few overs later, I thought it was Kumble, showed the ball to the
> umpire (local) and picked something from the ball.  I thought some
> left over from the yellow stuff was still on the ball - but I may be
> wrong.

> Saw dust incident, which has been frantically discussed here by some
> of the posters, was a non-incident.  A small heap of saw dust at
> Nehra's bowling end nat the later stages of the match.  Pathan
> attempted to field a ground ball behind the bowler, which hit the heap
> and went to four.  Nehra came to bowl the very next ball and touch the
> heap with the ball in his hand.  It might be an attempt to flatten the
> heap or to get some dust to his fingers, but there was no rubbing of
> the ball against saw dust.

> Ganguly was the main 'drier' of the ball.  He did not rub the ball,
> but he handled the ball like a tiny wet chicken.

What Ganguly does in his private life is his own business.

 He carefully closed

Quote:
> the ball in the towel in his palms.  I thought he was too careful, not
> to clean the dirty side of the ball.

> I am certain that this will be used by *** "we can't be beaten"
> fans to settle their dented egos.  The fact remains that the Indians
> won matches mainly with their batsmen in this tour.

> I can't say whether Rahul Dravid was guilty or innocent.  I would give
> him the benefit of the doubt at this point.  Probably Clive Lloyd did
> that too.

Quite possible that he did it unthinkingly. Certainly if he did he
deliberately, one would assume collusion from other Indian players,
including Ganguly and Nehra as well. Certainly the ball looked remarkably
shiny, one could suggest that perhaps this was noticed by the Indians during
training, and they thought that perhaps they could get away with it.

Quote:

> Can't wait for the Sydney match tomorrow,
> Vicky:
> [Look forward to reading some of the posters]

Regards,
Michael Creevey