February 29, 2012

Man up, Huss

Andrew Hughes
David Hussey steadied Australia with 54, Australia v India, CB Series, Sydney, February 26, 2012
David Hussey: not particularly fond of beer and barbies either  © Getty Images
Enlarge

RELATED LINKS

Sunday, 26th February One of the joys of cricket is the opportunity it gives us for vigorous debate whenever another little hole is found in the tattered fabric of the blessed Laws. Is the ball dead, or is it merely resting? Is it six if a stray platypus catches the ball and carries it over the boundary rope whilst keeping one webbed foot on the field of play?

This kind of stuff also lets us bask in the illusion that, through the scrutiny of a few densely written paragraphs of cricket scripture, ideally read aloud from a tatty old Wisden, we can pin down the whole messy business of reality, dig out the pure truth and then batter everyone about the head with it until they agree with us.

India’s captain knows all about this kind of thing, and having been overly generous at Trent Bridge last year, he wasn’t letting Hussey minor get away with anything today. But after an awful lot of chin-scratching, Hussey II did wriggle free of the clutches of Law 33, on the grounds that he had handled the ball to avoid injury.

So perhaps Law 33 needs a new paragraph, defining the difference between “injury” and “Mummy, I got an owie!” Besides, I thought Antipodean cricketers were tough. If Little Huss is claiming that he was scared of a tiny bruise on his tummy, then it’s time he thought seriously about whether he’s entitled to that Australian passport.

Monday, 27th February Once upon a time, television viewers were enthralled by shows like Dallas, Dynasty and, if their evenings were particularly empty, The Colbys; glamorous melodramas featuring ludicrous characters and preposterous financial goings-on that almost always ended in tears, recriminations and implausible, series-ending cliff-hangers.

But in recent years, cricket lovers have been able to follow their own high-finance and skulduggery-themed soap opera. The Shires is a tale of colossal egos and massive financial incontinence amongst the deceptively comatose world of county cricket. It’s a tale of dodgy architects, high-maintenance South Africans and crazy fixture lists.

Above all, it’s the story of 18 desperate men, men who know there’s only so much subsidy money to go round. In an earlier episode, the chairman of Hampshire had sold his ground to the council. Today he sold the name of the ground that he’d sold to the council to a company named after a random selection of Scrabble tiles.

From now on, Hampshire cricket lovers, proud heirs to the legacy of Hambledon, will be privileged to call the place where they watch their cricket the Ageas Bowl. “Ageas” is from the Latin “agere” meaning “unpronounceable drivel” but was also the name of the Greek God of Financial Disaster. I can’t wait to see what Hampshire do next.

Some troublemakers might ask what all the hospitality gazebos, satin-furnished conference suites, innovative financial arrangements and Surrealist pavilions have got to do with identifying and developing talented England cricketers? This is, after all, the thing for which counties receive the annual subsidies that keep them afloat.

But, like Dallas, The Shires shouldn’t be taken seriously. It is a fantasy world populated with implausible men in suits pretending that their heavily subsidised debt-ridden sports clubs are proper businesses. And, like the best soaps, it will end with a bang as several counties commit financial suicide in the final episode.

Andrew Hughes is a writer currently based in England

RSS Feeds: Andrew Hughes

© ESPN Sports Media Ltd.

Posted by Longman on (March 1, 2012, 4:05 GMT)

Hussey was clearly out under any cricketting law; notice from as far back as 30-40ft he began the process of fending off the ball. he wsa looking at the fielder and his arm slightly lifted until it got to the point where he intercept thr throw. When a bats man is running to save his wicket he dosent think of been hit with the ball he ran like a scared heir and dove in if necessary. look at the guy after when he ran to save is wicket, what did he do, he dove in fully streched.

Posted by Richard Lesh on (March 1, 2012, 1:27 GMT)

On the sublect of handling the ball as a method of dismissal, I would suggest that it should be discussed in terms of intent. The intention of the law is to prevent the batsman using anything other than his bat and a few other parts of his anatomy, to fend a ball from hitting the stumps or being caught, thereby causing him to be dismissed either bowled, caught or run out. In the case of a side-on throw for a run out dismissal it is virtually impossible to knock down a ball that would otherwise hit the stumps with the batsman out of his ground. Therefore if the ball was going to hit the batsman ( if he took no action with hand to prevent it), then it was never going to run him out anyway and therefore no intent to break that law can be established.

Posted by Smart Man on (February 29, 2012, 20:37 GMT)

"If Little Huss is claiming that he was scared of a tiny bruise on his tummy, then it’s time he thought seriously about whether he’s entitled to that Australian passport." Good line. If an Indian had claimed this, I would understand. Coming from an Aussie? Since it was an Aussie, the only likely explanation: cheating. Indians are wimps, Aussies are cheats. The odd exception of course...

Posted by Bhushan on (February 29, 2012, 20:24 GMT)

Interesting...personally i think Hussy jr did the right thing...after seeing the replay many times , i feel he had the right to protect himself..its not about a bruise on tummy..standing behind the stumps my self for league matches i know how it can hurt....may be i you should stand in the middle and have Raina throw at you and see if you are able to stand the bruise :)

Posted by Satya on (February 29, 2012, 19:10 GMT)

Excellent article !!!

Posted by Satya Chowdary on (February 29, 2012, 17:44 GMT)

I thought the ODI cricket ball was white....?

Posted by Satya Gorthy on (February 29, 2012, 8:43 GMT)

Well said! It was ridiculous on Umpires part to deem it as they did - citing "injury". Shame on them and on Aussies.....

Comments have now been closed for this article

ABOUT THE AUTHOR

Andrew Hughes
Andrew Hughes is a writer and avid cricket watcher who has always retained a healthy suspicion of professional sportsmen, and like any right-thinking person rates Neville Cardus more highly than Don Bradman. His latest book is available here and here @hughandrews73

All articles by this writer