Collymuddled at The Oval
WICKET! Elliott 28 run out 44th over: New Zealand 220-8 (Mills 8) Oh my... what's just happened? Extraordinary scenes at The Oval. England may have taken the crucial wicket of Elliott here, with a runout. The thing is that Elliott had been knocked to the turf by Ryan Sidebottom as he went for a run. He's down injured at the moment. And England have run him out while he was lying flat on the turf after he'd been shoulder-barged to earth by Sidebottom. Bizarre scenes. England were very, very hesitant about making that appeal, they even conferred with the umpires about it afterwards. On the balcony New Zealand are disgusted, and Scott Styris is spitting curses at all and sundry. (Andy Bull in The Guardian's brilliant over-by-over online commentary.)
It hasn't been a great week for Anglo-Aotearoa sporting relations has it? The rain robbing at Bristol, the sex scandal at the Hilton - and now this.
The Shaky Isles underwent a metamorphosis and became the Unshaking Isles - handshakes were few and far between after we squeaked home off the last ball in an absolute textbook thriller at The Oval. A torrent of emotion was unleashed on the balcony of the New Zealand dressing room - great to see the passion erupt at last on this tour. The latest news of course is that "the fiery aftermath has been quelled" but the whole incident raises a host of interesting issues.
First of all, we need to rename it "The Paul Collingwood Incident" - not The Grant Elliott Incident. Elliott was merely the tackled batsman, Ryan Sidebottom the bowler/openside flanker, Ian Bell the swooping fieldsman, and Kevin Pietersen the bail whipper-offer - all were mere bit-part players in this controversial cricketing episode. The runout played out, and then the umpire put the option to Collingwood to call back Elliott - an option which he declined.
A contrite Collingwood later confessed his sins to Michael Atherton in the post-match captains' chat, whimpering about how hard it all was in the heat of the battle. Look, good on the bloke for having the intestinal fortitude to admit he made a mistake, but it also shows the man's true colours. When the pressure comes on, it is the reaction of people under pressure that demonstrates their mettle. Collingwood came up short. He alone must be held culpable for the actions of the England team - the Spirit of Cricket obligations sit squarely on the shoulders of the captain.
He also had the guts to head up to the New Zealand dressing-room and face up to his actions, getting locked out the first time but having another crack later on. He and Daniel Vettori kissed and made up following their interrogations at the microphone of Athers. This effectively nipped the incident in the bud, although you would be mad not to be on the couch watching the final ODI at Lord's on Saturday night.
Had Collingwood stubbornly refused to accept that what he did was outside the spirit (even if it was inside the laws - I believe Sidebottom was trying to get the ball, not the batsman) of cricket, and not fronted up, this incident had the potential to stew away for weeks, months, years - even decades.
Inevitably, as with any remotely controversial incident in New Zealand cricket, comparisons have been made with the underarm. Ian Smith started on about it in the Sky Sport commentary box - and Vettori confessed that even the madcap Kiwi coach had muttered about it up in the pavilion. But this was different in at least one crucial regard: we won. Justice was served. Had Mark Gillespie been run out by Swann, as he should have been, there could well have been effigies of Paul Collingwood incinerated on Courtenay Place and in Cathedral Square. Vigilante violence against redheads would have exploded and New Zealand as a country would have been screaming out for a Muldoonesque anti-English comment from our league-loving Prime Minister.
Down the line, even Collingwood himself might be thankful that Swann's eager fielding and Stuart Broad's luckless backing up inadvertently conspired to gift New Zealand the winning run.
Comparisons have also been made with Brendon McCullum's runout of Muttiah Muralitharan a couple of years ago. Kumar Sangakkara flicked one off his hip to bring up his ton, Murali ran through for the single and plopped his bat down, before returning to give Sangakkara a cuddle, before the ball was dead. McCullum assumed he was taking a second run, and ran him out. I agree that it was a very aggressive move for New Zealand captain Stephen Fleming not to recall Murali, and was arguably a contravention of the spirit of cricket. However, let's also remember that it was also pretty dumb. In this morning's case, unlike Murali, Elliott was not at fault. He was not being stupid or naive, he was injured and had been flattened, and unlike the Sri Lankan he could not be accused of failing to value his wicket sufficiently.
And one final thought: a dash of bedside reading for the English captain from Cricket - How to Play, published in 1955 for the MCC:
A cricketer should never forget that he is playing with, as well as against, the other team and that he is either their host or their guest. He should strive for all that he is worth to win or, if he cannot win, to avert defeat: but there is a price beyond which victory or the avoidance of defeat should never be bought. For in cricket, however hard it is played - and if it is worth playing at all, it is worth playing hard - the struggle and its result should never obscure the true ends for which it is played, recreation, good fellowship, the training of character, and above all the conviction which the game can bring that, through it and what it gives, life is indeed the more worth living.
Sponsored links
Newest First
Oldest First
The NZ players overreacted but I would have done the same so don't blame them. Technically Elliot was out but I don't think it's as simple a case as Sidebottom was going for the ball. Cricket as a game has rules but there are areas of grey around them, there is the spirit of the game to consider as well. The sensible outcome would be for the ball to be put down as a dot ball, the batsman not out and for the game to move on.
If we had lost, a lot more would have been made of it...
I think it was filthy! Collingwood definitely should have called him back. I don't blame Sidebottom, or Bell, or Pietersen. All of their actions were instinctive - even the appeal. Collingwood's decision was calculated - split second my behind.
For the record, I think our treatment of Murali in the game you mentioned was every bit as disgusting. I can understand McCullum whipping the bails off, and yes Murali was dumb, but he wasn't trying to score another run - Fleming should have called him back.
Paul: If he didn't do anything wrong then why did NZ get so fired up, and why did he go into the dressing room and apologise? It wasn't unlicky - Collingwood made a bad call.
Hey chap
While Murali's brain explosion was to blame in the first incident, on both occasions the fielding team captain made a conscious decision to play to the letter of the law, as opposed to in the spirit of the game. I don't think NZ can take the high ground this time.
What is wrong with New Zealand. I havent seen the incident but from what I have read it smacks of "cry babyness" When a batsman and bowler are both heading in the same direction a shoulder here or there is no big deal and in the spirit of the game. Elliot lost out in the physical battle therefore he loses his wicket. End of story. Harden up NZ. No wonder that the team you pump so much money and effort into called the All Blacks are a pathetic overhyped underacheiving counterfeit of a credible international sporting outfit.
I agree with Paul - totally a non-issue. If the ball went the other way, and Sidebottom toppled Elliot over - yes, but as it stands no problems
N in HK: Taking off my brown and tan eyepatch, I'd probably agree with that - although I think the Murali/Fleming incident was less black & white than The Collingwood Incident.
Jack Muir: If you haven't seen it, perhaps you'd like to get back to us when you have. Running between the wickets is not a physical battle between batsman and bowler - otherwise we'd be moving toward the batsman fighting his way through fieldsmen to get a run. I don't recall seeing the All Blacks playing last night - I was watching the cricket...
Sarelius: No issue with Sidebottom - Collingwood is the one who is in the gun here. He made an error of judgement and deserves to get some grief.
Robin Brooke apologisies for Fiji actions
Pattinson sex scenes 'disturbing'
King Kong ship meets watery grave
Jamie Lynn Spears, boyfriend split
Body found in plane's landing gear
Key confirms GST increase being considered
$41.5m dam tagged for Lee Valley
Herbal remedies can kill - expert
King Kong ship meets watery grave
Felled tree hits Auckland house
D'Urville oil prospector faces opposition
Disabled racer takes on big guns
Security chip that does encryption hacked
I've seen the incident and it's a total non-issue. There was nothing wrong with what Collingwood did/didn't do. It was awfully unlucky for Elliot but no controversy and it's overshadowed what was a fairly exciting game even though both teams batsmen couldn't take full advantage of the cracker pitch.