Motor racing-Scarred Norris has a nose for success
SPA-FRANCORCHAMPS, Belgium, July 24 (Reuters) - Formula One title contender Lando Norris is scarred by success. He also has a nose for it.
The McLaren driver now sports two scars on his nose, each a memento of a career milestone, and the Briton is not altogether unhappy about it.
The first cut was acquired in Amsterdam last year on a broken glass while on a party weekend, days before he took his breakthrough maiden career F1 victory in Miami.
The second injury came at Silverstone this month while he was celebrating a first home win in front of fans at the British Grand Prix and a mesh fence partially collapsed and a photographer fell on him.
"It's healing nicely now," Norris, laughing, told reporters when asked at the Belgian Grand Prix about the latest facial injury. "I got a more professional repair on this one.
"But both are great memories of mine. So if I ever want to look in the mirror and think of something great, I just look at my nose. It was a little shame because at that moment I wanted to stand on the pit straight and all the fans were there, so I missed out a little bit on a nice moment. My nose is unlucky at the moment."
Norris is second in the championship at the midpoint, eight points adrift of Australian teammate Oscar Piastri. He has won four times this season, including the showcase Monaco Grand Prix. (Reporting by Alan Baldwin, editing by Mitch Phillips)
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
&w=3840&q=100)
First Post
6 minutes ago
- First Post
New Team India's Test tour of England: The things done right and the lessons that should be learnt
India's tour of England will be remembered as a success, but beneath the celebrations lies the awareness of a missed chance, a golden opportunity to win an away series in England for the first time since 2007. For this new-look Indian team, it's both a moment of pride and a prompt for introspection and growth. read more It was a memorable series for a new-look Team India, but they return with the feeling of what more it could have been. Images: Reuters/AP On Day five of the fourth Test match at Old Trafford, when Ben Stokes wanted to shake Ravindra Jadeja and Washington Sundar's hands to declare the Test a draw officially, the two Indian batters refused, because they, very rightly, wanted to complete their individual centuries. That was a bold call. But then, Jadeja was seen throwing his hands up in the air and also heard on the stump mic saying to Stokes – 'I can't do anything.' And then, while pointing at the Indian dressing room, it looked like he said something that sounded along the lines of – 'the captain and coach will decide.' If that is indeed what he said, then that was not bold, assertive, or a mark of confidence. We know for a fact that Shubman Gill and the team management had left the decision to either walk off or bat on entirely to the two batters out in the middle. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD And that potential dichotomy that we witnessed, in the space of a few minutes, that strange mix, of being bold and also otherwise, sums up India's 5-Test tour of England this time. A tour on which they were really bold at times and almost had the series in the bag by the time the third Test finished, but also a tour on which they could have been somewhat bolder – with their execution of certain plans and their selection calls in particular. It was a tour after all on which they couldn't get their playing combination just right, one in which dropped catches played a big role, but definitely also one where certain playing XI slots were cemented and one in which India's never-say attitude on foreign shores – a priceless quality that has been associated with the team from around 2018 or so and thanks largely to their fast bowling prowess - once again came to the fore. At the end of it all, the series might have been drawn 2-2, but the way it finished, with India drawing the 'undrawable' Test at Old Trafford and then clinching their smallest ever margin of victory by runs in a Test match at the Oval (6 runs, beating the previous record of 13 runs vs Australia at the Wankhede in 2004), it sure felt like a series triumph. India could have and realistically should have won the series, but they also didn't lose it. And winning the last Test by the skin of their teeth will give them the confidence and momentum that this new Team India needs. Also Read | Test cricket touches hearts in ways white-ball formats can't, but are administrators watching? Some pieces did fall in place perfectly and have established templates that will definitely be followed in the future. KL Rahul as confirmed opener is one of them. A proponent of the classic languid style of Test batsmanship, Rahul might have gone into the series as the most experienced Indian batter, but how he would cope with opening the innings on a regular basis in English conditions was something even the most seasoned experts were not entirely sure of. Rahul is a highly intelligent cricketer. His stoic façade and often reserved approach to things might give those who tend to judge books by their covers the impression that he is not cut out to be assertive. His decision to politely decline captaincy of his new IPL team – the Delhi Capitals – might have added to that myth, but that's exactly what it is – a myth. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD KL Rahul made 532 runs in five Tests vs England. Image: Reuters Rahul is not an in-your-face kind of cricketer. He will not charge down the track in a Test match to deposit a fast bowler's delivery over the ropes only to prove a point, but what he will give you is solidity and maturity. And that's what you need at the top of the order. The way he tackled different match scenarios in the series this time, with the bat, spoke volumes about the analytical cricket brain that he possesses. Becoming the first Indian opener in 46 years to accumulate over 500 runs in an away Test series is a statistic that sums up his contribution and also the fact that India have their two new fixed Test openers. Rahul's opening partner, meanwhile, showed us that he has grown tougher mentally. Despite having a rather see-saw series, with the bat and dropping catches which had a big role to play in India losing the Leeds Test, Yashasvi Jaiswal knew the one thing he had to focus on the most was opening the innings for India. He began and ended the series with centuries (101 & 118 – was dropped thrice in his second innings at the Oval) and finished with an average of over 41. He also had scores of 87 and 58, but also two ducks and other scores of 4, 28, 13 and 2. Former India captain Rohit Sharma asked Jaiswal to – 'hang in there and bat long' and though he did manage to do that on a few occasions, the southpaw will be striving for more consistency, especially now that he has the perfect partner at the other end, in Rahul. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD But don't let what was a topsy-turvy kind of series for the youngster take anything away from your appraisal of his gumption, something that has seen him already notch up 6 centuries and 12 fifties in 24 Tests. Yashasvi had already managed to cement his place as a confirmed Test opener well before this series began, but on this tour of England, he showed us once again the temperament that sets him apart and one that belies his very young age (23). Before this series began, I was convinced that it would be baptism by fire for new Test captain, Shubman Gill. And that's exactly what it was. The good news for him and for Indian cricket overall is that he has shown signs of settling into what is probably the most high-pressure job in international cricket. The best thing that Gill did in this series (something he has managed to do earlier as well, especially in the IPL with the Gujarat Titans) was to separate his two roles of skipper and batter. While analysing a series that had a very, very long list of talking points, let us not forget that Shubman, while captaining the India team in what was his first Test captaincy assignment, finished as the highest run-getter of the series, with 754 runs in 10 innings. That's an average of almost 76, with four centuries. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD In a series in which the legendary Joe Root climbed up to number two on the list of batters with most Test runs, behind only Sachin Tendulkar, Shubman out-scored the former England captain by 217 runs, albeit having played one inning more (Root played 9 innings). While there were several questions asked about his captaincy, especially his tactical acumen, the fact of the matter is that he has managed to deliver a 2-2 series scoreline. Yes, technically India should have had the series in the bag, maybe as early as the Lord's Test itself, but Shubman the captain has more ticks against his name than crosses at the moment, thanks to the final series scoreline. Shubman Gill's outburst against Zak Crawley at Lord's was a rare sighting. Image: PTI It's not easy being a 25-year-old Test captain and Shubman has shown that he is open to ideas on the field, especially when he realises that certain plans are not working. Like we saw on a few occasions in this series, the likes of Rahul and vice-captain Pant will have to play big supporting roles as Shubman finds his feet as Test captain. The main lesson he needs to learn, though, is not to change himself and his temperament radically so as to try and meet other people's standards of a good captain and appease the critics. Some are born to lead, some figure it out, while others fizzle out. Shubman will know that it's the second category that he would want to belong to. As the skipper himself said after the Oval Test – 'I have more clarity where personally I need to work on as a captain.' STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD Though the India Player of the Series Award was given to Shubman, I felt Mohammed Siraj should have (also) been considered, maybe as a joint-recipient (unless the rules state that the opposition coach can name only one player as Player of the Series). The fact that Siraj finished as the highest wicket-taker, with 23 wickets, and bowled almost 186 overs (185.3 - the most in the series) with almost the same intensity behind every delivery and consistently hit good lengths and troubled the best of the English batters and helped India snatch victory from the jaws of defeat in the final Test to ensure the visitors didn't lose the series should have been enough perhaps for him to be picked by Brendon McCullum. In Pictures | Bumrah vs Siraj: Explore the journey of India's top two pacers after 41 Tests Bumrah played only three Tests and the supporting cast of fast bowlers wasn't consistent with their performances, and yet India managed to draw the series. A huge advertisement again of Siraj's growth as a Test match strike bowler and also a lot to think about for the management in terms of giving him and Bumrah the support they need in the fast-bowling department. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD It's an open secret that Washington Sundar is being groomed as the long-term replacement for Ravindra Jadeja. And, in that context, it was good to see the master and the apprentice bat together and bat well. This was also in many ways a rebirth series for Jadeja. It was wonderful to see a player who has been the Number 1 Test all-rounder for three years plus straight, put such a high price on his wicket in tough batting conditions. The fact that he is now the first Indian batter to score 500+ runs in a Test series, batting at Number 6 or lower (going past VVS Laxman's 474 vs WI in 2002) and that he remained unbeaten in four of his ten innings, with an average of 86, shows how successful a series he had with the willow and just why he is India's number 1 all-rounder pick. But the one question that will continue to be asked is – could the team management not have tried out a specialist bowler in place of Sundar, at least in the Oval Test, where the conditions clearly favoured the fast bowlers more? STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD The one question that simmered in me throughout this series was – why was the team management so intent on having batters till Number 8? I can, of course, understand having a certain batting cushion when playing abroad, but at the end of the day, if you don't take 20 wickets, you won't win a Test match. And with your premier strike bowler being able to play only three of the five scheduled Tests, giving someone like Mohammed Siraj, who once again bowled his heart out for almost 186 overs in the series, the support that he really needed at the other end has to be a big priority. Also Read | Opinion: Bumrah is rarest of rare, but it's time to discuss whether he can pick and choose Test matches True that the management might have thought that three fast bowlers would be enough, but that plan works only when you have three tried and tested match winners. With Mohammed Shami not in the picture currently, India doesn't have a third Test pacer of the quality of Bumrah and Siraj. A fourth specialist fast bowling option, therefore, would have increased the odds of taking opposition wickets. The biggest factor behind Siraj's improvement by leaps and bounds as a Test bowler is consistent selection in the playing XI. Jasprit Bumrah and Mohammed Siraj are currently India's two main pacers, especially on overseas tours. AFP The captain explained the decision of not playing a fourth fast bowler at the Oval and instead recalling Karun Nair as a tactical call, but with someone like Arshdeep Singh on the bench, who can produce different angles, perhaps the management could have given him a go? Prasidh Krishna did manage to redeem himself and he needs to work more on his consistency. With Mohammed Shami's return still up in the air, Bumrah and Siraj deserve consistent fast bowling partners such that the pressure on them is not unnatural. India haven't had a quality, Test wicket-taking left-arm seam option since the likes of Zaheer Khan and Irfan Pathan. So, when you have someone like Arshdeep in your squad, who has established himself as a wicket-taker in limited-overs cricket, shouldn't you unleash him on the opposition as quickly as possible? Instead, the management chose to play all-rounder Shardul Thakur in the Leeds Test, as the fourth seaming option, because he gave them a batting cushion. He contributed a total of 5 runs and 2 wickets. When the conditions are right, Shardul can produce innings that can shape the result of a match, absolutely, but in these conditions, wouldn't another out-and-out fast bowler, capable of generating more consistent speed and that too someone who can create different angles as compared to the other three, have been a more attacking option? Also, if the selectors are picking Abhimanyu Easwaran in a Test squad, he must be played and tried out. Otherwise, it's just plain unfair treatment to someone who has scored tons of runs in domestic cricket (over 7800 First Class runs with 27 centuries) and has consistently shown that he is worthy of a Test call-up. And then there's the Kuldeep Yadav mystery. A left-arm wrist spinner bowler, who is an attacking, wicket-taking option, is not someone you keep on the bench through the series. Not only does it deflate the player's confidence, but it also boosts the opposition's belief in the theory that you are not prepared to try anything out of the box. Washington Sundar, the batter, delivered above and beyond what was expected of him, averaging almost 48 in the series, but he also bowled only 74.1 overs in 4 matches and took 7 wickets. Neither Arshdeep Singh nor Kuldeep Yadav was given a chance in England. Image: Reuters It felt like the team management was convinced that playing as many all-rounders as possible for more batting cushion was the way to go, regardless of the conditions on offer. Sundar did have an impact on the series, especially in the 'miracle at Manchester', but what about the likes of Shardul Thakur and Nitish Kumar Reddy, both of whom played two Tests each? Should Kuldeep have been tried out in place of either of them? Also, think about the message that Kuldeep's non-selection would have sent out. What the world saw was a team that, no matter what, wanted a batter at number 8. And that too didn't help at times, like in the Lord's Test where India failed to chase down a target of 193 and lost by 22 runs. As former India captain Anjum Chopra recently told me, 'Why are we counting Washington Sundar and Nitish Kumar Reddy as all-rounders only? They are all-rounders, yes, but they are (also) proper batters. With nine (8) batters, if you couldn't close down the game, that is your inability, not the opposition's brilliance.' So, lots to celebrate and also to think about for this new Team India. The best news is that this tour will be chalked down as an overall successful one, and rightly so. But somewhere within them, the Indian players and the coaches will know that it was also a lost opportunity to win a coveted away series in England for the first time since 2007 and, therefore, hopefully, an opportunity to put on their analyst caps and learn some very valuable lessons for the future.
Business Standard
36 minutes ago
- Business Standard
Chappell takes dig at England's Bazball: 'Reckless isn't positive cricket'
"Positive cricket doesn't mean reckless cricket," said Australian great Greg Chappell, lambasting England's 'Bazball' philosophy during the high-intensity drawn Test series against India. In his column for 'ESPNCricinfo', Chappell, while lavishing praise on the young Indian team for being fearless, criticised the Englishmen, particularly Harry Brook, for failing to read situations which required perseverance instead of flashy strokeplay. "England's own journey in this series presents a cautionary subplot - one embodied by the brilliant but mercurial Harry Brook, whose virtues I have extolled publicly before," Chappell, a former India head coach, said. "He has time, range, confidence, and that rare gift of making batting look effortless. But cricket, particularly Test cricket, is not just about shot-making. It's about judgement. About recognising when the moment demands attack - and when it demands restraint," he added. England were 301/3 in pursuit of 374 when the 26-year-old Brook's dismissal triggered a collapse on the fourth day of the fifth Test in London that the home side lost by six runs on Monday. With that result, India tied the series at 2-2. "Brook's dismissal at The Oval, with the game finely poised, was symptomatic of the conundrum that is facing the England setup. The "Bazball" philosophy - of fearless, attacking cricket - has revitalised their Test side. But it cannot become an excuse to avoid doing the hard yards. "...all England needed was for one batter to hold his nerve. To absorb pressure. Brook went for the glory shot - and perished," he pointed out. "There's nothing wrong with positivity. But positive cricket doesn't mean reckless cricket. It means confident, calculated risk-taking." Chappell said a more restrained approach in challenging match situations would help Brook establish himself as a worthy successor to Joe Root, England's most prolific run-getter. "Brook is emerging, and he will learn. But to become the match-winner England need, he must embrace the grind along with the glamour. Root didn't become England's most prolific batter by always playing pretty strokes. "He earned it with grit. Brook will need to do the same if he is to fulfil his vast potential," he said. Giving his overall assessment of the series, Chappell said the showdown will be long remembered for not just the result but also the "theatre" it created. The two teams engaged in on-field verbal altercations during the hard-fought contests, all of which lasted five days. There were also gladiatorial displays by the likes of Rishabh Pant and Chris Woakes who took the field despite serious injuries to help their respective team's cause. "The subplots. The redefinition of roles. Both sides were tested -- physically, tactically, emotionally. "But it was India who emerged as moral victors. They won clarity. Identity. Purpose," he said.
Hindustan Times
an hour ago
- Hindustan Times
Chris Woakes didn't want to face 90mph bouncer from Siraj, Prasidh with one hand; felt 'exposed' on Day 5 vs India
England all-rounder Chris Woakes had two sides debating against each other on Day 5 of the fifth Test against India. One was intrigued by what it would be like to score runs while batting one-handed, that too on the wrong side but the other was petrified. The thought of facing a 90 mph bouncer from Mohammed Siraj and Prasidh Krishna with his left arm inside a sling, tightly tucked under the sweaters. The second thought was a more realistic and natural one. England's Chris Woakes walks out to bat with a dislocated shoulder(Action Images via Reuters) This, however, did not stop Woakes from walking out to bat three days after being officially ruled out of the Test with a dislocated shoulder. The reason? England needed 17 runs to win with one wicket in hand. Woakes not coming to bat would have meant an Indian victory. Woakes would not have been able to sleep well without trying. He is a born fighter, after all. And the decision was taken on Day 4 itself when England were set a stiff target of 374. Woakes knew that he would definitely bat. The score wouldn't matter. England needed 35 runs with four wickets in hand before the start of Day 5. Jamie Overton started the day with back-to-back fours, raising hopes of an early England victory but as it has happened so often in the series, India struck back. An almost possessed Mohammed Siraj produced a spell for the ages to dismiss overnight batters Jamie Smith and Overton. Krishna cleaned up Josh Tongue from the other end. England were nine down with 17 runs still to go. In-walked Woakes, holding the bat in his right hand. His walk was not as ginger as Rishabh Pant's for obvious reasons. The Indian keeper had a fractured foot. The oval crowd gave Woakes a standing ovation. It was one of the most daring acts on the cricket field. He was putting his body on the line for his team. Woakes ran a couple of singles on the last ball of different overs to bring Gus Atkinson back on strike, and in between, he also managed to run a double. The grimace on his face each time his body took swift steps was narrating a thousand words but he kept going, helping England stay alive in the contest. His partnership with Atkinson added 10 runs to England's total and reignited their hope of a series win before Siraj, yes, he again, bowled a yorker from hell to rip out the off stump of Atkinson. India won by six runs to end the series 2-2. Woakes didn't face a ball. A big part of him thanked God that he didn't have to. 'It was bittersweet in the end,' Woakes to The Guardian of the fact that he did not face a ball. 'Part of me wondered what it might be like, to see if I could have defended the ball, seen out an over maybe, squeezed a run or carved a four. 'But the other side of it was: 'Thank God I didn't face a 90mph bouncer, one-handed, facing the wrong way around.' And I knew I was going to have to wear a few bouncers if I did get on strike. Those were the anxious feelings, really. You're still pretty exposed out there.' Just to cement the fact that Woakes is one of the most determined and courageous cricketers going around, if it wasn't already, he wanted to bat in England's first innings itself. Thankfully, England head coach Brendon McCullum ruled that out. It was during England's first innings that day, at four wickets down, when Woakes first approached Brendon McCullum to say he would be prepared to go out to bat if called upon. 'No chance, boss,' came the reply from the head coach. 'Park up and we'll see where we get to later in the match.'
