Balls I Say!

What a load of bollocks over Sri Lanka's game plan for the Aussies eh? Micheal Holding is the latest to add fuel to Ian Chappel's fires, already burning brightly with Arjuna Ranathunga's good ol' firewood. Unfortunately for him, I don't think he paused long enough to think about what he was saying. See, he's said that Sri Lanka's tactical move only allowed for corruption to creep in to the game by making the result predictable. How? Apparently because the odds in favour of Australia increased on the day of the game when it became common knowledge that Vaas and Murali were not going to be playing. So what? I mean, why does not Micheal Holding say that West Indies should not play at all? After all, the bookies are going to know they are going to lose if they play against any half decent team. Right? So if the bookies are going to have foresight of a one sided match, does that mean corruption could creep in? Does that mean that one sided matches should not be played? Micheal Holding has handled balls (erm cricket ones but of course) for long enough to know that games are played between two teams, who use all the skills and tactics that they have, to end up one over the other. The teams are not expected to try and play the game in such a way that the bookies don't make an extra buck. So what if Sri Lanka didn't want to play their best bowlers? I fully support the team's thinking. The element of surprise is the oldest trick in the book. Regardless of whether we get into the finals or not, if we do get in we want to be at our most effective. Leaving out key players in a match, the outcome of which has no significance whatsoever, is perfectly justifiable. This is not a "virginal" situation. When I was young, I was always taught that cricket was a game of the mind. I've also read around that there's no point winning the battle, you need to win the war. If our war comes, i'm confident now that we will put our best foot forward, because our management had the sense of mind to employ, what I would regard as, a brilliant tactic against the Aussies. Now the Ireland match is another story altogether. I believe Marvan Atapattu should have been given a chance, considering our poor show up front in the first few overs in the last few games. Anyway that's another story altogether. The likes of Ian Chappel, Micheal Holding and Arjuna Ranathunga are not the best ones to talk about bringing the game into disrepute. Australia have consistently applied tactics over sportsmanship in the past (ie the "go slow" incident at the 1999 world cup against West Indies). In 1996 Australia and West Indies both refused to play in Sri Lanka citing security reasons. Apparently there was nothing unsportsmanly in that, even though ample security was ensured. New Zealand refused to play in Kenya, and Australia and England refused to play in Zimbabwe back in 2003. But that's al forgotten I guess. Even Arjuna Ranathunga, who has always stood up against poor sportsmanship, turned a blind eye to the fact that there was no such incident in this whole scenario. If we won or lost we'd still be in the same position on the points table. Enough on this. But Mr. Chappel, go tell the ICC that Sri Lanka are being unsportsmanly. I hope you went and told your mummy back in 1981 that your beloved brothers, Greg and Trevor, made fools of themselves and the Chappel name and brought the game into disrepute over the under-arm incident.