A tale of sour grapes
Originally published on Tuesday, August 30, 2005
A hungry fox noticed a juicy bunch of grapes growing high on a grapevine. He leaped. He snapped. Drooling, he jumped to reach them, but try as he might, he could not obtain the tasty prize. Disappointed by the fruitless efforts he'd made to get the grapes that day, he said, with a shrug, to comfort himself, "Oh, they were probably sour anyway!"
No prizes for guessing who the hungry fox is in this story. Ricky Ponting's comments after the Trentbridge test and an interview with Melbourne Radio has been nothing but a great example of this story. His stand on the England's substitute fielders usage, coupled with his blatant reaction after getting ran out at Trentbridge and his media talk later on have been shameful to say the least. But then he has never been put in such situations before which is why he isn't matured enough to handle them.
Ponting's claims about England's unfair use of substitutes may be justified. But what England is doing is strictly within the laws and Australia should be the last team talking about spirit of the game which they have so often violated while in the middle. His allegations could not have been more mistimed as his concerns were not arising from the current match, but over the whole series. Then why was he not whinning about it earlier? Or was he waiting for one of the substitutes to actually get him ran out?
Duncan Fletcher asked a very good question "If one of our bowlers is unfit, why will we bring someone on who doesn't have fleet feet?" And is it England's fault that Garry Pratt was the one who managed to hit the stumps when Damien Martyn and Ponting planned a suicide for themselves? I would like to ask another question. Would Ponting have been as outrageous if he had not gotten out to a substitute fielder's throw? I guess that wicket did not increase the severity of the issue of England's use of substitutes. And no one can claim that the run out was the cause of Australia's defeat. I don't know why they can not wholeheartedly accept that they were outplayed by a team that was far more spirited, if not necessarily superior.
Remember what Ponting did when the Aussies could not chase a paltry target of 107 at Mumbai? Instead of accepting the inability of his men while playing on dust bowls, he kept shouting all the way in the press conference about the dust bowl itself. Agreed the wicket there had many devils in it. But even Indians in the past have shown more maturity when they were made to play and were subsequently mauled on the cattle-grazing fields in New Zealand. The way Ponting acts and the arguments he makes in such situations, suits a child cricketer owning the only kit being used to play in gullies of a small town, not the skipper of the 1 st ranked team in the world.
If he really had a case and wanted to take it up, he should have taken it up right after the Old Trafford test, which the Aussies saved despite English dominance. But then it's hard for an Aussie captain to accept such defeats. Perhaps the last (and one of the very few) Aussie captain who would have reacted in a more amenable way was Mark Taylor. Ponting should have used the example of the Don himself, who complained about the balls being whirled at Aussie batsmen more to kill them than to get them out, right after the 2nd test at MCG which the Aussies WON and not after losing a test, during the defamed body line series. And that was an issue of far more magnitude than the trivial use of more agile substitutes. That's when yours appears as a valid case and not as just an excuse to a mediocre performance that costs you the game (not that this is an attempt to call the Aussie performance at Trentbridge mediocre). Otherwise the statements that you make will always be perceived as nothing but a tale of sour grapes.
A hungry fox noticed a juicy bunch of grapes growing high on a grapevine. He leaped. He snapped. Drooling, he jumped to reach them, but try as he might, he could not obtain the tasty prize. Disappointed by the fruitless efforts he'd made to get the grapes that day, he said, with a shrug, to comfort himself, "Oh, they were probably sour anyway!"
No prizes for guessing who the hungry fox is in this story. Ricky Ponting's comments after the Trentbridge test and an interview with Melbourne Radio has been nothing but a great example of this story. His stand on the England's substitute fielders usage, coupled with his blatant reaction after getting ran out at Trentbridge and his media talk later on have been shameful to say the least. But then he has never been put in such situations before which is why he isn't matured enough to handle them.
Ponting's claims about England's unfair use of substitutes may be justified. But what England is doing is strictly within the laws and Australia should be the last team talking about spirit of the game which they have so often violated while in the middle. His allegations could not have been more mistimed as his concerns were not arising from the current match, but over the whole series. Then why was he not whinning about it earlier? Or was he waiting for one of the substitutes to actually get him ran out?
Duncan Fletcher asked a very good question "If one of our bowlers is unfit, why will we bring someone on who doesn't have fleet feet?" And is it England's fault that Garry Pratt was the one who managed to hit the stumps when Damien Martyn and Ponting planned a suicide for themselves? I would like to ask another question. Would Ponting have been as outrageous if he had not gotten out to a substitute fielder's throw? I guess that wicket did not increase the severity of the issue of England's use of substitutes. And no one can claim that the run out was the cause of Australia's defeat. I don't know why they can not wholeheartedly accept that they were outplayed by a team that was far more spirited, if not necessarily superior.
Remember what Ponting did when the Aussies could not chase a paltry target of 107 at Mumbai? Instead of accepting the inability of his men while playing on dust bowls, he kept shouting all the way in the press conference about the dust bowl itself. Agreed the wicket there had many devils in it. But even Indians in the past have shown more maturity when they were made to play and were subsequently mauled on the cattle-grazing fields in New Zealand. The way Ponting acts and the arguments he makes in such situations, suits a child cricketer owning the only kit being used to play in gullies of a small town, not the skipper of the 1 st ranked team in the world.
If he really had a case and wanted to take it up, he should have taken it up right after the Old Trafford test, which the Aussies saved despite English dominance. But then it's hard for an Aussie captain to accept such defeats. Perhaps the last (and one of the very few) Aussie captain who would have reacted in a more amenable way was Mark Taylor. Ponting should have used the example of the Don himself, who complained about the balls being whirled at Aussie batsmen more to kill them than to get them out, right after the 2nd test at MCG which the Aussies WON and not after losing a test, during the defamed body line series. And that was an issue of far more magnitude than the trivial use of more agile substitutes. That's when yours appears as a valid case and not as just an excuse to a mediocre performance that costs you the game (not that this is an attempt to call the Aussie performance at Trentbridge mediocre). Otherwise the statements that you make will always be perceived as nothing but a tale of sour grapes.
posted by w_o @ 2:57 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home