Jump to content

Beamers must be punished with ban - Mike Atherton


King

Recommended Posts

One name should be missing from the scorecard at the Oval on Thursday, that of Shanthakumaran Sreesanth - not to save the printing industry some ink, but to send out the message that the beamer has no place in cricket, says Mike Atherton. More... Beamers must be punished with ban By Mike Atherton, Sunday Telegraph Last Updated: 11:53pm BST 04/08/2007 form.gifHave your say comments.gifRead comments Blast from the past: Atherton v Donald In pics: Indian batsmen in buoyant mood Audio: Derek Pringle on jelly beans and sledging On Thursday, refreshed in body and mind, India and England will square up again at the Oval. It is difficult to envisage any changes being made to either line-up: winning teams tend not to be tinkered with, and England played well enough in spurts for Peter Moores to give his 11 a chance of redemption. One name, though, should be missing from the scorecard, that of Shanthakumaran Sreesanth. Not to save the printing industry some ink, but to send out the message that the beamer has no place in cricket. Predictably enough, it was 'Jellygate', not Sreesanth's beamer or his deliberate overstepping of the front line by a yard to bowl a rapid bouncer, which dominated the headlines. Whoever was responsible for leaving the sugary sweet on a length (sales of them must have leapt in Nottingham and I'd forgotten just how good they taste) has had a swift reminder that Test cricket, especially involving India, is a serious business. It was a puerile prank gone wrong; harmless, silly and unlikely to be repeated - and not very smart, either, since it has alerted everyone to the method used by England to try to induce some extra swing. Sreesanth did feel the match referee's finger under his collar, but that was for a trifling nudge against Michael Vaughan's shoulder. Vaughan's reaction to that, a scornful turn of the head, a withering look and a curled lip in Sreesanth's direction, was in stark contrast to his animated reaction at the non-striker's end when Sreesanth sent down his hand-to-head delivery that nearly decapitated Kevin Pietersen. I don't think I've ever seen the England captain angrier on the field. Rightly, he had no truck with Sreesanth's immediate apology, accusing him of missing his length by 30 yards and blasting any Indian fielder within earshot. The England captain had his calculations and his priorities right, even if the match referee didn't. By fining Sreesanth 50 per cent of his match fee for a shoulder nudge that could have inflicted no physical damage and ignoring the beamer which could have maimed a less alert batsman, the International Cricket Council once again showed a liking for the irrelevancies over the issues that matter. Mirroring the ICC's misguided sense of priorities, there was little comment in the media about Sreesanth's 'delivery'. This is partly because only one man, Sreesanth himself, knows whether it was deliberate, partly because a coterie of former bowlers in the press box (Mike Selvey an exception) are inclined to take the charitable view that it was not, and partly because there was so much more, other than the cricket, to talk about. But I have no doubt that Sreesanth's rancorous spell, which included the beamer and the no-ball, was the most glaring example in the match of something that ran completely counter to the spirit of the game. Forget the jellybeans and inane chatter. Certainly, Sreesanth apologised to Pietersen immediately by raising his right hand but he was quick enough to turn to his mark leaving the batsman to dust himself down unattended. The royal wave was all that was needed for him to be portrayed as an innocent in the matter and to be forgiven. Later that evening Paul Collingwood sportingly did so on behalf of the England team, but his acceptance was hardly gushing. Rather an apology than nothing, but it seems to me that the apology is irrelevant. The damage could have been severe. A batsman is conditioned to look for the ball on a downward trajectory out of the bowler's hand, and therefore will not necessarily pick it up. (The only other time I've seen one bowled in a Test match, by Glenn McGrath, it stuck straight in Mark Ramprakash's grille without the batsman flinching). Moreover, an apology doesn't necessarily mean it is sincere. With match referees on the prowl, any bowler with an ounce of survival instinct is bound to apologise, deliberately bowled or not. And the batsman/batting side has no option but to accept it, for if it is not accepted then the moral high ground shifts in favour of the bowler, whose integrity is suddenly in question. Only Sreesanth knows his own mind, but there was a glaring absence of extenuating circumstances: the ball wasn't new and the lacquer had worn off, making it less likely to slip out of his hand; it wasn't wet; he had directional problems but hardly of the 'yips' variety. We do know that, since the ball landed at the wicket-keeper's feet, he missed his length by a good 30 yards, an extraordinary failing for an international bowler. If it did slip, it slipped with remarkable accuracy, honing in on Pietersen's skull. Shortly afterwards he overstepped the front mark by two feet to bowl a rapid bouncer at Collingwood. Sreesanth was hardly in control of his emotions during that particular spell. If bowled deliberately there cannot be a more cowardly action on a cricket field; if bowled accidentally it is still potentially lethal. Either way it should incur an immediate one-match ban. (Only obvious extenuating circumstances, such as a one-day game played in the rain, should save the bowler from such a penalty).Thankfully, the beamer is a rare sight in cricket. Brett Lee has been known to bowl it occasionally, usually in one-day cricket; Curtly Ambrose made headlines for the wrong reasons playing for Northamptonshire when he sent down two beamers at Dermot Reeve (who had incensed Ambrose by sweeping him). Deliberate or accidental, a beamer should incur an immediate ban to ensure that it remains so. Since the match referee, Ranjan Madugalle, remained silent on the issue, it is Rahul Dravid who should take the appropriate disciplinary action ahead of the Oval Test match. Even if he doesn't want to take disciplinary action, he should ask himself: does he really want a bowler who so obviously cannot control his emotions to play in such a crunch encounter? After the Test, the bowling coach Venkatesh Prasad defended his protege by saying he has "all the talent required to succeed at Test level". Heaven knows there are countless talented cricketers who have failed to make the grade, talent being just one part of the whole package. The pity of it all was that the niggling, the jellybeans, the beamer and the no-ball detracted from what was a fascinating Test match. After the dross of the early summer, it was again a privilege to be watching Test cricket. More than that, Sreesanth's actions left a sour taste in the mouth and detracted from what was a stunning Indian performance. After the Test the talk should not have been of sugary sweets, but bitter pills.

Link to comment

If I remember right, a bowler is not allowed to bowl in the innings if he bowls more than one beamer. I don't understand what all this fuss is about. Any bowler can lose control over a ball. Suggesting a ban for bowling one beamer and that too for the next match is really extreme. Is he out of his mind?

Link to comment
If I remember right' date=' a bowler is not allowed to bowl in the innings if he bowls more than one beamer. I don't understand what all this fuss is about. Any bowler can lose control over a ball. Suggesting a ban for bowling one beamer and that too for the next match is really extreme. Is he out of his mind?[/quote'] Precisely.
Link to comment

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...