Australian captain Michael Clarke rushed to defend the reputation of Phil Hughes after Sir Ian Botham accused him of cheating when he claimed a catch with England opener Alastair Cook on 99 in the fifth Ashes Test.
Replays showed Cook’s nudge from the bowling of spinner Michael Beer had bounced before Hughes scooped it up at short leg, prompting Botham to unleash.
“Terrible. Cheating. How much do you want it to bounce into your hands?” Botham said on Sky Sports commentary into Britain.
“He (Hughes) knows he hasn’t caught it. There’s no appeal. Someone else says something and then he goes up.”
However Clarke insisted Hughes was no cheat, and had asked the question about the catch because he was unsure whether the reflex take was fair.
“That’s a bit harsh. I can guarantee one thing, Phillip Hughes is not a cheat, that’s for sure. He’s a wonderful young guy,” Clarke said after play.
“The end result was spot on, Hughesy wasn’t sure, (Brad) Haddin wasn’t sure, we made it clear to the umpires, the umpires referred the catch, checked it.
“I haven’t seen the replay but it must have come up clear that the ball bounced, so it was the right result. That’s a bit harsh for Ian to say that about Phillip, he’s not that sort of guy.”
However Clarke admitted there may be a negative perception of Hughes’ actions, throwing his hands skywards in appeal, as opposed to other examples of players looking unsure when they come up from a low catch.
“Hughesy certainly wasn’t 100 per cent sure and he made that quite obvious,” said Clarke.
“Hughesy has some sort of feel, Hadds can see the ball, nobody else can really see that. I think the result is spot-on. We got the right answer.”
Cook went on to 189 to maintain his remarkable series, but there was further discord when Ian Bell was given out caught behind on 67 and referred the decision.
Video evidence suggested an edge but “hotspot” technology did not, leaving Bell at the crease to be the subject of concerted booing for the remainder of his 115.
“I don’t think Ian Bell is a cheat at all,” said Clarke.
“We thought there was an inside edge. We appealed that, it was referred. Technology says with the result that Ian didn’t hit the ball. I certainly don’t think Ian is a cheat.
“It’s the same for both teams and I actually said that out there to Bell as well. I said, ‘I do think especially hotspot is inconsistent’. But it’s the same for both teams.
“So I’m sure there’s been plenty of cases when we’ve been batting and the same thing’s happened, so it’s just about accepting the decision and getting on with it.
“Hopefully the same thing happens to us tomorrow when we’ve got the bat in our hand.”
Clarke said he remained an advocate of umpire decision reviews, but urged the ICC to make the system mandatory for all series, bypassing the roadblock of Indian opposition to it.
Koops
Guest
" i know where your Grandmother does her shopping" ? or perhaps "your an arrogant tosser Beefy", .. "No you are Chappelli". or perhaps "hey ... that's my taxi".
Ads
Guest
to richard loe, and umage and mealamu. i could go on.... Easy on the moral high ground there
Ads
Guest
Not moving the goal posts at all. Your argument seemed to (falsely) revolve around the point that all indiscression in rugby was around contest for possession and was therefore ok, as it was part of the contest. I gave you examples of cases where there is no contest for possession, and hence these professional fouls are equally against the spirit of fair play that a false appeal are. It is quite ridiculous to assume that rugby players never infringe intentionally in violation of the ethos of the game. Again, nearly all professional sportspeople will do what they think they can get away with. Botham's comments are mindless.
Ads
Guest
I did play both and admittedly wasn't particularly good at either. The reason I used Mccaw is because my argument is around professional sportspeople playing against the ethos of the game (via professional fouls, false appeals, etc). This applies in all sports, and by your definition is cheating. To criticise one "cheat" means you need to criticise them all. Your reluctance to admit this is the basis of my point
Lee
Guest
Does anyone know what was actually said in thay scuffle? What brought it on?
Colin N
Guest
Quite and the condemnation from the Aussie press and fans of Strauss was hugely over the top, much like the condemnation of Hughes.
Chris K
Guest
nothing that andrew strauss hasn't done before in the last ashes series, though its amazing how we all forgot about that one especially botham not to mention all the others on here looking for any excuse to have a go at the aussie players character (not their playing abilities). http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uT53m7_nyQs&feature=related
johnyfairplay
Guest
beefy is a thug, don't understand why everyone gets so wound up about the tosser.
Viscount Crouchback
Guest
Let's be clear: Hughes did cheat. He clearly knew that he hadn't caught the ball - hence his initial disappointed reaction - but then he decided to chuck it up in the air and high five his team-mates anyway. It was quite wrong, but I prefer to put it down as a youthful indiscretion borne of a frazzled mind and a profound sense of disappointment. I think Botham's condemnation was a little over the top. It was a rum act but let's not trash the young fellow's character altogether. But let's be equally clear: Bell also cheated. Anyone who nicks and refuses to walk is cheating, in my opinion. It's even worse to nick, be given out, and then make a mockery of an excellent umpire by challenging his decision. However, for reasons that escape me, to nick and brazen it out is seen as acceptable in cricket, whereas to claim a dodgy catch is seen as beyond the pale. I don't quite understand the distinction myself. I thought Clarke's and Cook's post-match comments were excellent. For such an apparent oik, Clarke conducts himself very well. Perhaps people should worry less about his tattoos and girlfriend and transient poor form, and pay more attention to the splendidly dignified manner in which he conducts himself. He's certainly a big improvement on that old rogue Ponting.
jus de cochon
Guest
Hughes like any half descent sportsman knew the ball bounced before he caught it . Hes a cheat.
Long On
Guest
Neither deluded or dishonest, just not holier than thou. I do not blame Hughes or Strauss for their reactions just the annoying hypocrisy of the outraged reaction by the English. There is an awful righteousness about some of these comments damming Hughes. It would be wonderful if all those making those claims could be sure that they, in a similar situation, would be better than Hughes or Strauss. Since they, and no doubt you, will never be able to, then it is all just hypocrisy. Looking at past wrongs does not make anything right, but it does give you perspective. Judging you by your response you need a bit of perspective to help with your tendency to hypocrisy.
James
Guest
The English are ball tampering are they mate, difference is they keep hitting it, as for Hughes if he wasn't sure why was he dancing around calling him a cheat is going to far just stick to loser. -- Comment left via The Roar's iPhone app. Download The Roar's iPhone App in the App Store here.
Tui
Guest
Add Hughes to Slater vs India, Haddin vs NZ and Chappell's underarm I could go on and on and on...
Straight Bat
Guest
Either deluded or dishonest Long On. That bounced way in front of him and up into his hands. Two senses telling him that wasn't a legitimate catch. The only thing he wasn't sure about was whether he was going to get away with it or look foolish. He got that one wrong. It's also pointless quoting previous wrongs as if this makes anything right. That's a tit for tat argument that simply proves no one has the high ground.
Rhys
Guest
Didn't they already have another scuffle this tour in the carpark at the Adelaide Oval? Personally I'd like to see a steel caged death match to resolve these sorts of petty 30 year feuds.
Martin
Guest
Fair enough:)
plugger
Guest
I'm a ridiculous kind of guy. (he he he)
Martin
Guest
Ridiculous response.
plugger
Guest
No. I'd say they have legitimately cheated.
Param
Guest
Mate, cook said straight away in the press that hughes wasn't sure.why grill him then?at least he had the guts to say "not sure" when he himself was robbed by andrew Strauss at lords in ashes 2009 which led to him being dropped.I am sure botham remained quiet then taking the "inconclusive evidence" line. Andrew symonds case: mate, there's a huge difference between not walking (although I would wish there was honesty like 40 odd years ago, but cricket is commercial these days) when the umpire has given you not out (even sachin does that) than to challenge an umpire when you know you have hit it (you always know) just to take unfair advantage of technology. Aleem dar was well within his rights to not overturn his decision but he is a fair umpire and he said "if nothing shows up on technology,I won't give him out". Regarding ch9 commentators, I am so annoyed by their biased one eyed views except maybe Richie benaud and Ian chappel? The rest of thm wanna make me kill myself. PS:I am just an objective cricket fan and although I live in aus , I want the side playing better cricket to win.