Sri Lankans angry and justifiably so
Columnist 
Nuwan Kulasekara of Sri Lanka celebrates claiming the wicket of Australia captain Michael Clarke (Image: AAP/Joosep Martinson)
Related coverage
In a farcical non-finish on the SCG last night, the Sri Lankans were probably deprived of pocketing the five match series 3-1.
It was the fourth match in the series and a likely win by the tourists would have made the fifth and final ODI in Hobart on Wednesday meaningless. Now there is chance that Australia may win in Hobart and tie the series 2-all.
I was at the SCG match yesterday and thought the match abandonment was a joke. There was only about 90 minutes of drizzle and the covers were laid on the pitch promptly.
With the rain stopping and drying procedure going on, I thought it would be a 25 over game with Duckworth Lewis formula deciding the winner.
A surprised Sri Lankan skipper Mahela Jayawardene said at the press conference that he was disappointed with the ruling that the match be abandoned. He cited recent instances in a match against New Zealand as also in Sri Lanka when a match had continued after heavier rains.
He strongly queried the match abandonment and said that he would take up the matter with match referee Javagal Srinath.
According to Jayawardene, Srinath’s call to call off the ODI robbed his team of a possible chance to finish the series off, having bowled accurately to restrict Australia to 9 for 222.
He expressed surprise that a ground as rich in history and facilities as the SCG could not get the game re-started.
“We played New Zealand three months ago and the interpretation we got in that series was quite different to what we got today,” Jayawardene said.
“We played in Pallekele in Sri Lanka with a lot of rain during the World Cup as well. I think we need to find a bit more consistency, so that’s something we’ll probably write and put across to them [the ICC] and see how we can go about it.
“At the SCG, I would assume that a ground of this magnitude you should be able to get a game in. Maybe they should do what we do back home and cover the entire ground.
“I think we can write to the match referee because the interpretation we got three months ago in the New Zealand series was something totally different”, he added.
“It was deemed that we’d only stop play if it was dangerous, not unfair, but today the interpretation was different. I accept that, it comes from the match referee and the umpires so I’m happy to take that on board, but it was two interpretations we got within a three-month period.”
I remember many years ago in a match on the SCG, a helicopter was used to dry the pitch after a heavier downpour. I cannot remember the year and the opponent. Are any Roarers able to supply this information?
Yesterday’s match should have been continued for a few overs at least. If the playing conditions were all that bad, then the match could have been aborted. In my opinion, not to attempt a restart was wrong.
Kersi is an author of 13 cricket books including The Waugh Twins, Cricket's Great All-rounders,Six Appeal and Nervous Nineties. He writes regularly for Inside Cricket and other publications. He has recently finished his new book on Cricket's Conflicts and Controversies, with a foreword by Greg Chappell.
Sport, all day long. Does this sound too good to be true? We're searching for a Group Sales Manager to lead our team in Sydney. If you're a sales star who doesn't mind a hit, kick, throw, or cycle, we want to hear from you. Apply now.
- Explore:
- Cricket
January 21st 2013 @ 8:21am
Matt said | January 21st 2013 @ 8:21am | Report comment
You want to bat last when D&L comes into play, the other team are playing slow thinking they have 50 overs, the other team comes in like it’s 20/20 and are chasing a small total.
But that’s another debate altogether.
Wouldn’t say conspiracy but mighty odd that it’s called off with so little rain.
Isn’t there a simple thing they can do, such as “if this rod goes into the ground and there’s more than Xcm deep wet, it’s called off”. Or is dirt and grass more complicated then that?
January 21st 2013 @ 10:10am
Jason said | January 21st 2013 @ 10:10am | Report comment
DL takes all that into account. Given that SL had only faced a couple of overs last night, the DL target would have been pretty fair I’d say.
January 21st 2013 @ 11:11am
Matt said | January 21st 2013 @ 11:11am | Report comment
I haven’t watched too many – I haven’t seen anyone lose chasing 2nd though. You know you have 80 in 20 overs, vs 225 over 50 or whatever, so you know have a 99% chance.
January 21st 2013 @ 11:24am
Jason said | January 21st 2013 @ 11:24am | Report comment
If they had come back on for a 20 over second innigns last night, the target would have been 117.
January 21st 2013 @ 12:28pm
Matt said | January 21st 2013 @ 12:28pm | Report comment
117 over 20 overs, candy. With all 10 wickets to spare?
Much, much easier than chasing 225 off 50.
January 21st 2013 @ 12:42pm
Jason said | January 21st 2013 @ 12:42pm | Report comment
Not really.
January 21st 2013 @ 1:45pm
Matt said | January 21st 2013 @ 1:45pm | Report comment
For sure. In 20/20 if you can only muster 120 you’re not doing a great job.
January 21st 2013 @ 4:05pm
Jason said | January 21st 2013 @ 4:05pm | Report comment
But Aust only made 222 in 50 overs which wasn’t a great job either. So it stands to reason that the target shouldn’t be that difficult.
January 21st 2013 @ 4:22pm
Matt said | January 21st 2013 @ 4:22pm | Report comment
I don’t disagree. There is no good answer. You need only 11 runs per wicket vs 22 per wicket though, a much easier task.
January 21st 2013 @ 8:22am
Rabbits said | January 21st 2013 @ 8:22am | Report comment
You’re right Kersi. The game should have continued, at least until it became evident the condition of the out field was deemed not fit. I can’t help but think the match officials got it wrong, In the scheme of things, perhaps it was a decision taken more to keep the series alive rather then for the home team to be heading into a meaningless match in Hobart. That’s what it looked like to me, but that’s just my opinion.
January 22nd 2013 @ 12:17pm
Stag said | January 22nd 2013 @ 12:17pm | Report comment
As mentioned below, the lightness of the rain along with a lack of wind meant the moisture stayed on the surface instead of sinking in further, making it much more dangerous than it would really appear. Also, if you add the shocking umpire decisions with the fact that Sri Lanka would have needed a little over 100 with 10 wickets, than it was almost a guaranteed win for Sri Lanka. Thus your comment on keeping the series allive by not just giving the game to Sri Lanka might be right. I also find it slightly ironic that Sri Lanka are complaining when they were the ones who wanted to leave the field in the first place.
January 21st 2013 @ 8:23am
Christo the Daddyo said | January 21st 2013 @ 8:23am | Report comment
I wonder whether the lightness of the rain actually made it harder to dry the ground to the point where play could resume?
Ironically I drove past a suburban ground earlier in the day where the play was continuing despite the rain and poor light. I wonder why professionals cricketers can’t do the same thing?
January 21st 2013 @ 11:21am
mds1970 said | January 21st 2013 @ 11:21am | Report comment
Good point. The park cricketers, without lights & multi-million dollar drying equipment, get on far quicker than the pampered professionals. What happened last night wasn’t fair on the people who paid top dollar to attend the game.
January 21st 2013 @ 8:23am
Andy_Roo said | January 21st 2013 @ 8:23am | Report comment
Agree Kersi, they should have at least restarted the game to test the conditions.
January 21st 2013 @ 8:31am
Jordo73 said | January 21st 2013 @ 8:31am | Report comment
Absolutely farcical that the match was not restarted. Abandoned due to a wet outfield? Come on – if the pitch is dry, a bit of dampness in the outfield is not a strong enough reason to call the match off. Spectators have paid their money, a prime time TV audience is there – put the game on! But you’ll never hear any criticism of the SCG and its ground staff, who appear to be untouchable!
–
Comment left via The Roar’s iPhone app. Download it now [http://itunes.apple.com/au/app/the-roar/id327174726?mt=8].
January 21st 2013 @ 9:06am
Happy Hooker said | January 21st 2013 @ 9:06am | Report comment
So what did the ground staff do wrong?
January 21st 2013 @ 8:40am
Pope Paul VII said | January 21st 2013 @ 8:40am | Report comment
The SLs were in too much of a hurry to get off initially and Mahala ponced around like it was a cyclone. Christo’s correct, even park cricketers know rule no.1 is don’t go off unless it is torrential.
Anyway, sounds like the decision not to restart was a bit dubious.
January 21st 2013 @ 10:59am
Kersi Meher-Homji said | January 21st 2013 @ 10:59am | Report comment
Pope Paul VII,
January 21st 2013 @ 11:09am
Kersi Meher-Homji said | January 21st 2013 @ 11:09am | Report comment
PP VII,
Perhaps the reason Mahela Jayawardene walked off quickly when it started to rain was because he wanted the covers to be placed on the pitch ASAP. That way, the pitch would remain as dry as possible.
But it backfired.
January 21st 2013 @ 2:37pm
Pope Paul VII said | January 21st 2013 @ 2:37pm | Report comment
Fair enough, didn’t think of that
January 21st 2013 @ 8:53am
RickG said | January 21st 2013 @ 8:53am | Report comment
I was there and like most people just sat in the light drizzle the whole time (while helping to construct the beer snake:)). it was never really a problem. It’s really disappointing that the game wasn’t restarted. 50 over ODIs are under pressure and abandoning games like this won’t help.
January 21st 2013 @ 9:01am
sheek said | January 21st 2013 @ 9:01am | Report comment
Hi Kersi,
On the face of it you might be right. However, I thought the argument put forward by head groundsman Tom Parker, that the drizzle had sat on the surface & not penetrated, thus making the outfield slippery, was a very reasonable one.
As an aside, I reckon the occupation of groundsman is a fascinating one & groundsmen the world over, & especially here in Australia, are fellows of the highest knowledge & calibre. Green keeping in general, is becoming a lost art in our increasing techno world.
And on another note again, the Australians might feel calling the game off was the right move as their batsmen had been on the receiving end of several very poor umpiring decisions.
Having said that, the Aussies’ final score of 222 was highly competitive & would have tested the Sri Lankans in variable conditions. I thought when the Aussies’ innings finished that they were right in the game.
Yet another view is that these cricketers are professional & unless heavy rain was falling, the game should have continued. The umpires for example, seemed too eager to give the batsmen the opportunity to come off. If Sri Lanka had known this is how it was going to end, they might have done things differently.
Unfortunately, administrators can be all too precious in these situations.
In all the pros & cons, I believe the most important voice was that of the head groundsman, in this case Tom Parker. If he said “no go” then that’s good enough for me.
January 21st 2013 @ 10:17am
Hazey the Bear said | January 21st 2013 @ 10:17am | Report comment
Hey sheek,
I agree that 222 was competitive, and (for the sake of argument) had it been clear that the game would not have had a chance to continue after the rain, I don’t think the Sri Lankans would have been too upset. After all, they were chasing 222 on a tough-ish track…they had to survive a pumped up Starc for ten overs of that as well!
But…once there was talk of the Duckworth-Lewis, all of a sudden their eyes would have lightened up. 130-140 off 25 with all ten wickets? Whoo hoo!
I think if there were no rain, it would have been a far more competitive, and fair, match than if had they played with reduced overs.
But as you say, it’s not up to us, it’s up to him – He knows his stuff.
January 21st 2013 @ 11:22am
Wotdoo said | January 21st 2013 @ 11:22am | Report comment
Does the DL system not change as the team batting looses wickets or am I imagining that.
January 21st 2013 @ 11:31am
mds1970 said | January 21st 2013 @ 11:31am | Report comment
Yes it does. Every time a wicket falls, the par score increases.
January 21st 2013 @ 4:08pm
Rabbits said | January 21st 2013 @ 4:08pm | Report comment
Don’t think Starc would have been that sharp after spending 18 overs at the crease making a half century. That takes something out of a bowler, unless you regard him as an all-rounder, I think he would’ve struggled a bit.
January 21st 2013 @ 9:28am
Rabbitz said | January 21st 2013 @ 9:28am | Report comment
Cricket is an outdoor game. Part of playing outdoors is dealing with the weather. Changing field conditions are part of that – it doesn’t need to be a “level playing field” adapting to the conditions is part of the game.
If Park Cricketers can continue, why can’t well-paid professionals?
Was Tom Parker more worried about the game, the players or his grass?
January 21st 2013 @ 9:28am
Tristan Rayner said | January 21st 2013 @ 9:28am | Report comment
Here’s the official explanation, which is definitely unusual:
“The SCG curator Tom Parker commented that the unusual problem tonight was that the rain was so light it sat on top of the grass like a heavy dew and did not sink into the soil.
“There was no wind or sun to dry the surface despite ground staff using wide ranging measures to dry the grass. The high humidity also continued to produce heavy dew,” he said.
The ground remained unplayable given consideration to the time required to complete the match. A minimum of 20 overs per side is required to constitute a match subject to the innings not being completed earlier.”
January 21st 2013 @ 9:34am
MadMonk said | January 21st 2013 @ 9:34am | Report comment
And how does any of that make it dangerous to play?
January 21st 2013 @ 9:59am
Brett McKay said | January 21st 2013 @ 9:59am | Report comment
Because the surface would’ve been like a skating rink, Monk. Players would’ve been losing their footing everywhere, because when it’s dewy like that, spikes can often just slide through the grass with no resistance.
And if the bowlers then started dragging that moisture onto the pitch area, making that slippery as well, then it certainly becomes dangerous..
January 21st 2013 @ 10:29am
Atawhai Drive said | January 21st 2013 @ 10:29am | Report comment
And if a fielder or bowler had suffered one of those acronymic joint injuries, there would now be a furious debate about incompetent administrators not exercising a duty of care towards the players.
Like everyone else who was not actually out on the ground, I have no idea just how greasy the conditions were. But it does appear that more comprehensive (and expensive) ground-drying technology should be available for big matches.
January 21st 2013 @ 10:59am
Ian said | January 21st 2013 @ 10:59am | Report comment
Not entirely true, Brett. The ground is soft enough for spikes to have enough grip to prevent players from continually slipping and sliding. The ability of the spikes top grip, is not only dependent upon what’s on the surface, but how hard or soft the soil is.
A bit of saw dust, that has been used in the past, certainly could have helped the bowlers in their run-up. I’ve seen international matches played with heavier due than what was on the SCG last night!
They at least could have stared the match ans assessed it after a few overs, in spite of the possible risk of injury.
50 over cricket is already under pressure and decisions like this will only exacerbate the problem.
January 21st 2013 @ 11:51am
Brett McKay said | January 21st 2013 @ 11:51am | Report comment
Ian, I’m just telling you what I know to be true about playing cricket in dewy conditions. I wasn’t there last night to know for sure (as I suspect most of us also weren’t), but I have played in conditions like that where the umpires decided the field wasn’t fit to play on..
January 21st 2013 @ 12:02pm
Christo the Daddyo said | January 21st 2013 @ 12:02pm | Report comment
Brett, I drove past a suburban ground earlier in the day which had those conditions – light drizzle falling and low, dark clouds. Cricket was being played there. For some reason a few suburbs over at the SCG it was all too hard.
January 21st 2013 @ 1:21pm
Brett McKay said | January 21st 2013 @ 1:21pm | Report comment
Christo, I’m not defending the decision, just saying I understand why it was made. There’s a big difference between the surface of your average suburban ground and the pristine turf on the SCG..
January 21st 2013 @ 5:27pm
Davey said | January 21st 2013 @ 5:27pm | Report comment
Brett, just out of curiosity. Do you think that if they played in Sydney last friday when it was 44+ that it would be dangerous?
Would you like to see them stop the game because that can be a dangerous situation!
cheers
January 21st 2013 @ 6:25pm
Atawhai Drive said | January 21st 2013 @ 6:25pm | Report comment
Davey, if they had played last Friday, the Scrotometer readings would have been off the scale.
Right now I have Heineken Cup rugby on TV, Leicester v Toulouse, played in a snow blizzard. Scrotometer readings probably in the negative.
Eventually all venues hosting professional sport will be covered i.e. will have a roof. Until then, we have an unpredictable element to contend with. It’s called weather.
January 21st 2013 @ 7:28pm
Brett McKay said | January 21st 2013 @ 7:28pm | Report comment
Davey, there’s already playing conditions that allow for extra drinks breaks in hot weather, and no umpire would be game to refuse a player extra hydration on days like that. That said, if the umpires also decided that extreme heat was making it dangerous for the players, I can’t imagine there’s be too many arguments if they called a halt in play.
Let me be clear hear again, though, because responses to my posts are largely being misinterpreted as me defending the decision last night. The fact is that none of us know what the condition of the outfield was, and I’m fairly confident that none of us are one of the umpires or ground staff.
The point is that the umpires made the decision based on the info that the ground staff gave them, that being, that the conditions at the time were not aiding the drying or removal of the surface water. Based on that info, the umpires decided that the field was not fit for play, and abandoned the game.
In all my posts today, I am merely saying I understand that decision. If the conditions are not conducive to drying an outfield, then there really isn’t a lot that can be done to ensure anything even remotely close to a fair contest for both sides.
January 21st 2013 @ 11:16am
Matt said | January 21st 2013 @ 11:16am | Report comment
Again, just watched the EPL highlights. They’re playing in SNOW. Here in Australia they’re crying about 5mm of rain.
January 21st 2013 @ 11:51am
Brett McKay said | January 21st 2013 @ 11:51am | Report comment
Matt, football is a winter sport, it’s not a fair comparison..
January 21st 2013 @ 12:33pm
Matt said | January 21st 2013 @ 12:33pm | Report comment
“We can’t play because there’s some dew on the ground, cry cry”.
I don’t know what the solution is, but I know that it’s not stopping a game half way through pissing off everyone who paid a fair sum of money to watch a game they could have just watched on TV for free.
January 21st 2013 @ 7:35pm
sheek said | January 21st 2013 @ 7:35pm | Report comment
Brett,
I for one appreciate the thoughts of one based on practical experience. It should still count for something!
Thanks for sharing…..
January 21st 2013 @ 12:08pm
Red Kev said | January 21st 2013 @ 12:08pm | Report comment
There’s a fairly substantial difference between soccer boot tags and cricket boot spikes too
January 21st 2013 @ 12:37pm
Matt said | January 21st 2013 @ 12:37pm | Report comment
Probably. But has anyone ever sued because they had to play in snow?
Just get on with it. It’s the only popular sport which constantly cancels games half way through because it’s run by melodramatic teenage girls. To put this into perspective we’re talking about what, 5mm of rain? First world problems if ever I’ve seen them.
Thankfully I was too busy working yesterday to even watch the game, I probably caught 30 mins here and there total, so I didn’t miss out on much.
January 21st 2013 @ 1:23pm
Brett McKay said | January 21st 2013 @ 1:23pm | Report comment
Not to mention the difference between how well a football handles getting wet, and how how poorly a cricket ball does..
January 21st 2013 @ 12:20pm
MadMonk said | January 21st 2013 @ 12:20pm | Report comment
Brett, leaving aside your hyperbole. How would that be dangerous?
The player at most risk is the fast bowlers, if the Bowlers run ups and pitch were covered this should not be a problem.
The occasional fielder not being able to go sideways or turn and chase as quickly is hardly dangerous.
As for the risk of injury, how do football players of all code’s cope.
January 21st 2013 @ 1:28pm
Brett McKay said | January 21st 2013 @ 1:28pm | Report comment
Monk, what exactly was hyperbolic in my response?
If a player in trying to field the ball and loses his footing, there’s risk of all sorts of ligament damage while trying to regain balance, there would be risk of broken bones if a fall was heavy enough. If they lost their footing and slid into a fence?
It might all seem trivial to you, but what would you have been saying if another bowler, say, was seriously injured because of the wet surface last night? It’s all about duty of care, and safe workplace, etc.
And again, the comparisons to football are just not fair, you’re introducing sports into the argument that will always encounter wet weather. It’s why they wear the kind of footwear they do, and why football fields are generally softer (and with longer grass) than cricket.
January 21st 2013 @ 2:42pm
MadMonk said | January 21st 2013 @ 2:42pm | Report comment
Brett
Hyperbole, “like a skating rink”. (I’ve walked on wet grass and I have tried to walk on skating rinks.)
I won’t go through the rest, my point is unless cricket tries to expand the acceptable playing conditions it leaves itself open to ridicule.
You have 20,000 people who have paid a fair bit of money to watch. Administrators and match officials should work harder to make sure there is cricket to watch.
.
January 21st 2013 @ 2:57pm
Brett McKay said | January 21st 2013 @ 2:57pm | Report comment
Sure, but aren’t the 13 cricketers also entitled to a safe working environment?
And how could they have worked harder to dry the outfield? Everything they tried to do made no difference, and they only had about 20 more minutes after they made the call anyway.
January 21st 2013 @ 9:38am
Matt said | January 21st 2013 @ 9:38am | Report comment
They know other sports play in SNOW right? And that people paid a lot of money to watch half a game, good luck getting a lot of them to ever come back again.
January 21st 2013 @ 9:52am
Pope Paul VII said | January 21st 2013 @ 9:52am | Report comment
The outfielders should have been issued with footy bootys.
January 21st 2013 @ 2:17pm
Tlux said | January 21st 2013 @ 2:17pm | Report comment
Matt, cricket is a sport. Not sitcom with laugh track, or a rock concert with a 4 song encore.
Yes it can be entertaining, but ultimately the broadcasting of it on TV is due to it being a legitimate sport. Thats what people like about it. If they did go out back out last night to ‘put on a show’ then that would have been a disservice to the sport, because it would have been highly in Sri Lankas advantage. WWE ‘put on a show’.
Sports like football and rugby can be played in torrential rain because both teams are competing in the same conditions at the same time. In cricket, if one team bats in the dry, and the other in the rain, there is a massive difference. The ball loses all of its pace, giving a massive benefit to the batting side. The outfield becomes super quick as the ball skids along to the surface, making boundaries easier.
January 21st 2013 @ 11:12am
bilo said | January 21st 2013 @ 11:12am | Report comment
“the rain was so light it sat on top of the grass like a heavy dew”…So the rain was so “heavy” it was like heavy dew…um, does this mean play will now have to be called off if there is heavy dew?