S. Africa's Amla overcomes England bully-boy tactics
This is a good start. The colonial power picking on the ex-colony. Maybe verbal abuse or a knee to the groin? I can't wait for the details.LONDON (AFP) - Hashim Amla was a quietly proud man after his unbeaten century helped see South Africa to the safety of a first Test draw against England here at Lord's and in the process erased some painful memories.
He must be an old man too if he's been unbeaten for a century!!
During the 2004/05 series in South Africa, Amla averaged just nine in two Tests against England before being dropped after struggling against the short ball. But the men who got him out back then - Stephen Harmison, Simon Jones and Matthew Hoggard - weren't in the England side at Lord's where a placid pitch made life tough for fast bowlers.
Come again please? Seriously, what could this possibly mean? "Weren't in the England side"?
That didn't stop England peppering Amla on Monday with a succession of short-pitched deliveries and packing the legside, close-in field.
"I am satisfied to score a hundred at Lord's," said Amla, who was 104 not out when the match ended prematurely thanks to what South Africa captain Graeme Smith said was a "gentleman's agreement" even though the Proteas were only 47 ahead with a minimum of 19 overs left in the day.
Huh??
"To score a hundred anywhere is a lovely feeling," Amla added.
Sure, just ask Wilt Chamberlain! That's the only part of the story I understand.
7 comments:
What kind of barbarian colonial Philistine does not understand straightforward cricket journalism such as this?
So I had my suspicions at "fast bowlers," but if a non-enthusiast has to see the photo next to the article to figure out what sport is under discussion...
Fail.
It said "test" didn't it? A five-day match ending in a draw? What else could it be?
I knew it was about cricket but "packing the legside"? sounds like an instruction to actors in a porno film!! and why is "throwing the short ball" a "bully boy" tactic? Is it against the rules? Does cricket even have any rules? is being "104 not out" a good thing or a bad thing?
This American had no trouble following the article which is all basic cricket lingo. Sorry if you don't know cricket, but it's not too hard to pick up with a little patience.
Btw, "104 not out" is very good it means the batsman in question scored 104 and a was still at the bat (i.e., hadn't been put out) when the match was called. A "century" is scoring 100 runs at the bat, and is considered a fairly significant, if not unusual, feat. It's kinda like a hat trick in hockey.
A short delivery is a bowling action where the ball pitches (bounces) far away from the batsman. Such a delivery comes up high (remember most deliveries are aimed at the wickets and hence are around leg height when they reach the batsman) and there is a high chance of injury.
see http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dp08VbVdzSE
(They show the relevant bit in slow-mo at the end).
The legside is the side of the field to the left of a right handed batsman and the right of a left handed batsman. The way most cricket shots (hits) work, the ball ends up on the legside. This is especially prone to happen when the bowler pitches short, as one way of protecting yourself from the ball involves hitting it to the legside. Putting loads of fielders there means you're in a good position to catch the batsman out on the only kind of shot he can use to protect himself. This tactic was infamously used in one particularly nasty series between the English and the Aussies back in the 1930s. The Aussies were so incensed by English use of the tactic that the UK had to threaten them with a trade embargo before they would play cricket with England again.
Thank you, you've been a great audience.
thank you Kunal!!
Post a Comment