As expected, Michael Clarke also defended Hughes, but I wouldn’t expect anything else as he is his captain.
At the moment though I wouldn’t take much notice of anything coming out of Clarke’s mouth. Judging by his remark that he still thinks Australia can win the test, he is clearly deluded at the moment.
In fairness to Clarke though, he did defend Ian Bell’s referral.
I don’t buy all this PC bullcrap though, I know what I saw and I agree with Botham, which is something I can rarely claim.
First, Hughes goes up as if too say ‘Oooh, how close was that’? And then he chucks the ball up in the air and starts to celebrate.
Thats not the actions of a man who has just said ‘I’m not sure if I caught that ump, you’d better refer it’.
It was very poor.
As was Michael Clarke’s handling of the incident. I don’t for a moment expect to see him hang Hughes out to dry, of course that would be wrong. But what I would expect from him, is some sort of recognition that his players are expected to behave in a manner that dosen’t bring his teams reputation into question.
To read his quotes that “Brad Haddin saw the ball clearly but wasn’t sure,” dosen’t make sense. He also claimed that “we made that quite clear to the umpires” (that they weren’t sure if it had carried). Can’t say that is how I saw it.
A day on and I’m glad to see Botham isn’t backing down on his view, I don’t often agree with him these days, but at least he stands by his beliefs and tells it like it is.
Another incident I feel the need to comment on, is the stick Ian Bell has been getting. I don’t want to sound like I’m just defending the English here, but what did Bell do wrong?
Only an idiot would call for a review if he had knowingly hit the ball. Do the Aussies really think that Bell has become that full of himself that he would call a review if he knew he hit it? Come on!
According to snicko, he looked to be out. If the technology fails or the way the system is interpretated is wrong, then that isn’t Bell’s fault.
Yes, Bell was probably out, he got lucky. But he didn’t try and pull a fast one in my view. But just to add to that, one piece of technology contradicted the other, so which one takes priority? I don’t know.
I know that the snicko evidence only came to light a few minutes later, when it was too late to influence the decision. It’s one for ICC to sort out I’m afraid.
If the Aussie fans want to pick up on people not walking, then why are they not asking why Ponting didn’t walk when he edged down the leg side to Prior earlier in the series? He stood there and waited for an England review, was there any real difference?
Yes there was, Ponting knew dam well he had hit the ball.