DAMBULLA: Virender Sehwag was left stranded on 99 as Sri Lankan spinner Suraj Randiv bowled a no-ball with India and Sehwag both needing a run, the team for victory and the batsman for his century. Sehwag hit the ball for a six but according to cricket rules got no runs.
Before the tri-series started, MS Dhoni had said he didn’t mind playing so many one-dayers against Sri Lanka since the matches were largely controversy-free. On Monday, rookie Lankan off-spinner Suraj Randiv had a brain freeze which could change the dynamics of this rivalry forever.
In the 35th over, India needed one run to win and Virender Sehwag also needed one to complete his century. In what appeared a deliberate and foul contravention of the spirit of the game, Randiv, coming from around the wicket, bowled the biggest no-ball seen in recent times, with even his backfoot close to over-stepping. Sehwag hit a six and raised his arms in celebration before realizing India’s win had come about with the no-ball and he would be left stranded on 99. Coincidentally - or was it? - this came immediately after Randiv had fired four byes.
India won with a bonus point chasing 171 but all hell broke loose immediately after. Both Sehwag and Sri Lankan skipperKumar Sangakkara were courteous at the post-match presentation but presented a different face immediately after. Sangakkara lambasted Randiv in front of the dressing room.
Sehwag said: "I did not know the rule when I was batting. They should have shown sportsman’s spirit. If there is a player on 99, it does not mean you bowl a no-ball, give away four byes. That has no place in cricket. It was done deliberately. He hadn’t bowled a no-ball in Tests and ODIs till now, when I was on 99 why did he bowl a no-ball? I don’t need to see videos, he was a foot outside. I’m not the opposing captain, so I don’t know what happened, but something must have been said (to the bowler) by either the captain or the seniors. This is not the first time Sri Lanka have done this. They might have done it with other teams but with us this is the second time."
Sehwag was referring to an incident in Cuttack last year. With Tendulkar at the non-striker’s end batting on 96, and India needing two runs to win, Malinga had bowled a wide down the leg side.
The indications are there could be repercussions to this episode which might have a lasting impact on the player involved, if not the Lankan captain himself. Will the game’s guardians too have a rethink on the law?
Unlike Sehwag, Sangakkara did not mention that he wasn’t aware of the rule, but said he would address the issue very, very strongly in the dressing room if he found out something had been said to the player and the act was proved deliberate. Sangakkara denied he had any role to play in the incident. "If that was intentional that has got no place on the field of cricket. If it is deliberate I will have to have a chat with him and make sure things like that don’t happen again. I will also have to see if there was any talk about it on the field prior to that delivery. Suraj is a nice guy, I hope it’s not deliberate. Maybe he was trying to bowl the doosra, get some bounce."
The MCC also has serious rethinking to do about the rule which states a match is over with a no-ball. It’s similar to a player hitting a four with one run needed, but if the batsmen cross before the ball reaches the boundary, it is counted as one and the match declared over.
Sangakkara, however, strongly disapproved: "I think if a batsman scores the runs, he should get the runs as his own
whether it is a no-ball or not. Viru deserved to get a hundred."
After venting his ire, Viru played down the issue, saying the important thing was India had won. "They have done it because no team wants to have a hundred scored against them. I don’t think there will be a change in the spirit of the series." That, however, remains to be seen.
TOI
Before the tri-series started, MS Dhoni had said he didn’t mind playing so many one-dayers against Sri Lanka since the matches were largely controversy-free. On Monday, rookie Lankan off-spinner Suraj Randiv had a brain freeze which could change the dynamics of this rivalry forever.
In the 35th over, India needed one run to win and Virender Sehwag also needed one to complete his century. In what appeared a deliberate and foul contravention of the spirit of the game, Randiv, coming from around the wicket, bowled the biggest no-ball seen in recent times, with even his backfoot close to over-stepping. Sehwag hit a six and raised his arms in celebration before realizing India’s win had come about with the no-ball and he would be left stranded on 99. Coincidentally - or was it? - this came immediately after Randiv had fired four byes.
India won with a bonus point chasing 171 but all hell broke loose immediately after. Both Sehwag and Sri Lankan skipperKumar Sangakkara were courteous at the post-match presentation but presented a different face immediately after. Sangakkara lambasted Randiv in front of the dressing room.
Sehwag said: "I did not know the rule when I was batting. They should have shown sportsman’s spirit. If there is a player on 99, it does not mean you bowl a no-ball, give away four byes. That has no place in cricket. It was done deliberately. He hadn’t bowled a no-ball in Tests and ODIs till now, when I was on 99 why did he bowl a no-ball? I don’t need to see videos, he was a foot outside. I’m not the opposing captain, so I don’t know what happened, but something must have been said (to the bowler) by either the captain or the seniors. This is not the first time Sri Lanka have done this. They might have done it with other teams but with us this is the second time."
Sehwag was referring to an incident in Cuttack last year. With Tendulkar at the non-striker’s end batting on 96, and India needing two runs to win, Malinga had bowled a wide down the leg side.
The indications are there could be repercussions to this episode which might have a lasting impact on the player involved, if not the Lankan captain himself. Will the game’s guardians too have a rethink on the law?
Unlike Sehwag, Sangakkara did not mention that he wasn’t aware of the rule, but said he would address the issue very, very strongly in the dressing room if he found out something had been said to the player and the act was proved deliberate. Sangakkara denied he had any role to play in the incident. "If that was intentional that has got no place on the field of cricket. If it is deliberate I will have to have a chat with him and make sure things like that don’t happen again. I will also have to see if there was any talk about it on the field prior to that delivery. Suraj is a nice guy, I hope it’s not deliberate. Maybe he was trying to bowl the doosra, get some bounce."
The MCC also has serious rethinking to do about the rule which states a match is over with a no-ball. It’s similar to a player hitting a four with one run needed, but if the batsmen cross before the ball reaches the boundary, it is counted as one and the match declared over.
Sangakkara, however, strongly disapproved: "I think if a batsman scores the runs, he should get the runs as his own
whether it is a no-ball or not. Viru deserved to get a hundred."
After venting his ire, Viru played down the issue, saying the important thing was India had won. "They have done it because no team wants to have a hundred scored against them. I don’t think there will be a change in the spirit of the series." That, however, remains to be seen.
TOI
