&w=3840&q=100)
Former England cricketer supports Shubman Gill as he slams Zak Crawley for Lord's episode: 'This was particularly poor'
Former England cricketer Mark Ramprakash has sided with Indian captain Shubman Gill after his aggressive behaviour against Zak Crawley on Day 3 of the Lord's Test was questioned by experts and fans. Gill was seen throwing expletives at Crawley as the opener tried to delay the Jasprit Bumrah over.
With very little time left, India were hoping to bowl at least two overs, but Crawley's time-wasting tactics limited them to a single over. That Crawley vs Gill spat changed the complexion of the whole match as both sides became more aggressive in their approach before India lost the match by a narrow margin of 22 runs, going down 2-1 in the five-match series.
STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD
Also Read | Manchester weather forecast: Rain could spoil Shubman Gill-led India's party at Old Trafford
On the eve of the fourth Test in Manchester, Gill , explaining that he had good reasons to lose his patience on that evening at Lord's.
Mark Ramprakash sides with Gill in battle vs Crawley
Former England batter Mark Ramprakash, in his Guardian column, slammed Crawley for his antics and also criticised the umpires for losing control of the match
'Batters at the end of a long day are always prone to pulling away or tying up a shoelace, but this was particularly poor and it really exposed the umpires, who throughout the match seemed most intent on keeping quiet and not getting involved,' Ramprakash wrote.
'On the Saturday, I watched England bowl for an hour, by the end of which they were four overs behind the rate, at which point they had the most leisurely drinks break. It seemed to take forever as the players milled around, had a chat, and sat down for a bit. There was no urgency at all, and the umpires just let it carry on,' he added.
Also Read | Anjum Chopra exclusive on Shubman Gill's captaincy and Lord's Test defeat
Ramprakash also reflected on Gill's behaviour, saying that while he didn't like what he saw, it gave a glimpse of how united Team India were.
'Many people would say Crawley was just being professional, doing whatever it took to help his side, and if the umpires weren't bothered, then carry on. But I thought he pushed things too far and what can happen then, and did happen, is the opposition taking umbrage and discipline started breaking down," Ramprakash wrote.
STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD
'Shubman Gill, the India captain, got quite animated, and to be honest, I didn't know he had that in him. Importantly, he was backed up by the rest of his players – it is in moments such as this that you see how together a team are. While I was not a fan of what happened, Gill saw his team were right there with him and showed real togetherness,' he added.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
NDTV
18 minutes ago
- NDTV
Ajinkya Rahane Points Out Big Concern For India Ahead Of 5th Test: 'Not Getting...'
Former captain Ajinkya Rahane believes that while the Indian batting unit has sung in harmony, the bowling department remains a "concern" ahead of the fifth Test against England in the Anderson-Tendulkar Trophy at The Oval, scheduled to begin on Thursday. After the conclusion of the four Tests, India remains alive, trailing 1-2 as both teams return to London for one last contest of the five-match series. In the series opener at Headingley and the third Test at Lord's, India were outbowled by the hosts, leading to their downfall. India forced a draw at Old Trafford in Manchester to stay hot on England's heels as the gruelling series heads towards its conclusion. Rahane identified one aspect that India will be keeping a close eye on its bowling unit. "The India team is playing well, and the batting unit has been fantastic. What concerns the Indian team is the bowling department. A couple of bowlers are bowling well, but they are not getting the support," Rahane said on his YouTube channel. India's prolific batting performance resonates in the stellar batting display throughout the series. After Washington Sundar hammered his maiden Test hundred in the drawn fourth game, India's tally of individual centuries in the series to 11, equalling their all-time record set against West Indies at home in 1978-79. The batting extravaganza began in Leeds, where, despite losing the opening Test, India showcased their batting might with five individual hundreds in the match. Young Yashasvi Jaiswal made a composed 101, and captain Shubman Gill registered his first ton of the series with a majestic 147. Vice-captain Rishabh Pant dazzled with 134 in the first innings and followed it up with another hundred, 118 in the second innings. KL Rahul, too, stamped his authority with a fluent 137. The second Test in Birmingham belonged entirely to Shubman Gill, who batted like a man on a mission. He hammered 269 in the first innings and followed it up with 161 in the second, as India roared back to level the series 1-1. In the third Test at Lord's, it was KL Rahul once again showing his class with a gritty 100, but India fell short and slipped behind in the series 2-1. Then came the Manchester Test, where India's resilience was on display. Gill brought up his fourth century of the series, scoring 103 under pressure. On the final day, Ravindra Jadeja smashed an unbeaten 107, and Washington Sundar calmly brought up his maiden century with 101 not out. The duo's unbroken 203-run stand helped India save the match and keep the series alive going into the final Test. Meanwhile, with England's benign conditions heavily favouring the batters, the bowling units are separated by the barest of margins. While India has scythed 65 wickets in four Tests, England has returned with 70. The difference of five scalps echoes in India's 2-1 lead.
NDTV
18 minutes ago
- NDTV
Washington Sundar's Father Blasts BCCI Selectors Day After Match-Saving Ton vs England: "My Son Gets Dropped..."
Washington Sundar played a key role in India drawing the fourth Test of the Anderson-Tendulkar Trophy against England that ended on Sunday. India faced huge deficit of 311 runs after England scored 669 in the first innings. But thanks to tons from No. 5 Sundar (101*), No. 6 Ravindra Jadeja (107*), captain Shubman Gill (103) and a gritty 90 from KL Rahul, India kept the series alive with one Test to go. India trail England 1-2 after the first four Tests. After his son's fabulous display, Washington Sundar's father M Sundar ripped into the BCCI selectors for not giving him regular chances. Spin allrounder Sundar made his international debut 2017, and since then the 25-year-old has played 12 Tests, 23 ODIs and 54 T20Is. "Washington has been doing very well consistently. However, people tend to avoid and forget his performances. Other players get regular chances, only my son doesn't get them. Washington should consistently bat at number five like he did in the second innings of the fourth Test and get five to ten straight chances. My son was surprisingly not picked for the first Test against England," the cricketer's father M Sundar told TOI. "My son gets dropped even if he fails in just one or two matches. It is not fair. Washington scored an unbeaten 85 on a rank turner in Chennai against England back in 2021 and 96* against the same opposition in Ahmedabad during the same year. He would have been dropped even if those two knocks had ended up in centuries. Has this kind of an approach been maintained for any other Indian cricketer? He has become very strong after all this and the result is the performance which people are witnessing now," he added. Sundar's father went on to tell the publication about his son's achievement at the 2018 Nidahas Trophy, where he was the top wicket-taker with eight scalps. "My son was very economical despite it being his first overseas tour. He was dropped for 11 straight matches by RCB in the next edition of the IPL, despite his quality performances. Can you imagine his mentality? Washington scored a 14-ball 40 in his first match for SRH during the IPL 2022 season. He was sent at number six in the next match," he said. "Even his current team (GT) don't give him regular chances. He showcased his calibre in the IPL 2025 Eliminator against Mumbai Indians (MI), smashing 48 off 24 balls. Look at the way Yashasvi Jaiswal has been backed by RR. Washington hasn't been able to enjoy a consistent run even in case of domestic cricket."
The Hindu
25 minutes ago
- The Hindu
From the archives: When Zaheer Abbas-led Pakistan walked off the field in Bengaluru as Gavaskar neared his 28th Test ton
England captain Ben Stokes, seeing the fourth Test at Manchester heading to a sure draw, decided to extend an invitation to draw the match to give his bowlers some added rest. India had Ravindra Jadeja and Washington Sundar on strike, both inching closer to their individual centuries. The Indian management decided to hold off on accepting the draw to allow the duo to register their hundreds, which sparked a wave of displeasure and chatter from the England players. The incident has sparked off a raging 'spirit of cricket' debate. As history shows, this wasn't the first time a game headed for a draw featured a player eyeing a milestone and an unhappy opponent as a consequence. In 1983, during the first Test between India and Pakistan in Bangalore, skipper Zaheer Abbas walked off with his players before the scheduled end when 20 overs of play were still left. Here's the story by R. Mohan as published in Sportstar in 1983: The spirit takes a hard dent Was the spirit of the game forsaken by Zaheer Abbas and company when they walked out of the first Test? Could the spirit of the law been a better guide than the cold letter of the law proved to be? Were the umpires totally right in forcing the extension of play? Was a batsman's personal landmark more important than the need to look at the state of the match as a whole when deciding on cessation of play? These and many other questions can be asked. The answers will be unclear even on a thorough reading of the rules governing cricket. Since there was no provision in the playing conditions regarding the mandatory overs period, the umpires had no option but to rely on the laws of cricket alone. The first class game is run on this principle in India. Never has a match been called off before the scheduled close on the final day even if both captains wished not to carry on till close in matches in which the possibility of carrying the game to its final conclusion did not exist. Gavaskar and Gaekwad waiting for play to resume after their opponents, Pakistan, walking off the pitch en mass. | Photo Credit: SPORTSTAR ARCHIVES Sunil Gavaskar once declared against England in Kanpur so that there was no need to play the last three overs. Stalemate: Based on the broad principle, the umpires ran the game till 4 p.m. - on the final day of the Bangalore Test. If there was a mutual agreement on abandoning play at that point, the stumps would have been drawn and all the drama enacted would not have come about. Gavaskar insisted on his right to play on to a possible century. Zaheer was unwilling to oblige. The resumption of play was made possible by a plea from C. Nagaraj, Secretary, KSCA, to Zaheer Abbas. It was pointed out that a 'law and order' problem would crop up if the Pakistanis refused to come on to the field. In view of good relations existing between the teams, Abbas relented though he remained unconvinced about the need to go through all the 20 overs. The Test came to a close on Gavaskar completing a century and on what is presumed to be a mutual agreement on cessation. How else could the umpires have drawn the stumps with five ball still left to be bowled? That again raises a valid point. Should a Test match go on until the team batting in the mandatory overs period is satisfied? Is the spirit of the law served if that is allowed to happen? A close look at the letter of the law — Law 17 cessation of play — should .prove most interesting. Note 6 governing 'last hour of match — number of overs reads: The umpires shall indicate when one hour of playing time of the match remains according to the agreed hours of play. The next over after that moment shall be the first of a minimum of 20 six-ball overs, provided a result is not reached earlier or there is no interval or interruption of play. Where they erred: Everyone is aware that an interval for drinks was taken during the last hour. The law further reads 'if there is a later interval or interruption, a further deduction shall be made from the minimum number of overs which should have been bowled following the last resumption of play.' So the law was not fully complied with on the one clear count of the water break. To say the umpires were entirely right would, in fact, be wrong. However, a walkout, whatever the provocation whether Illingworth does not agree with the umpires' interpretation of intimidatory bowling or Gavaskar does not see eye to eye with an umpiring decision or Zaheer Abbas chooses to question the rules, is totally unjustified. The report was published in The Hindu on September 20, 1983 High drama marks Gavaskar's 28th Test century Sunil Gavaskar's 28th century in Test cricket came in controversial circumstances. What transpired on the final day of an otherwise inconsequential and indecisive Test was not quite cricket. Especially the fact that the Pakistanis walked off the field, refusing to continue beyond the scheduled close, though a fair bit of the 20 mandatory overs remained. The curtain came down on the Test, 46 minutes beyond the scheduled hour of 4p.m.. giving way to the feeling that all is well that ends well. Had there been an appeal for awarding the match when the visitors kept away for 27 minutes, the umpires would have had no choice but to go by the rule book and the ramifications could well be imagined. Still, there is no escaping the conclusion that there was no justification tor a walkout as staged by Pakistan led by Zaheer Abbas Zaheer Abbas' arguments were based on his county experience as well as the special regulations relating to Tests in most other countries by which play can be called off (by mutual consent between the captains only) after 10 overs in the last hour if there is no possibility of there being a result. It may be recalled that Mohinder Amamath and Kapil Dev completed their centuries in Pakistan and in the West Indies after insisting that play be carried on. However, the circumstances were different then in the sense that time remained before the scheduled close. Zaheer's men stand condemned on this count. The matter could easily have been resolved on the field, though finally the authority of the umpires would have to be accepted. Finally, it was accepted but the whole episode left a bad taste. Save for minor injuries to ground staff from chairs hurled on the ground and the minor embarrassment of Zaheer Abbas tossing a soft drink bottle back towards the crowd and seeing it smash harmlessly on the floor of the pavilion stand, the end was better than could have been expected. Especially for Gavaskar. The solution: The only way out is to arm umpires with greater powers regarding the last hour of the match. Either the teams should be given the option of leaving the field on mutual agreement after ten overs or the umpires should be left as the sole judges of whether a match needs to be taken to its final conclusion by extending play beyond the first 10 overs or beyond the scheduled close. There should be a clause inserted in the playing conditions for future series, specifying in detail the course of action umpires should take and the options left to the teams. Ideally, the umpires should be the sole judges of the state of the match and the need or otherwise of extending the match. The possibility of a decision being reached should be given precedence over such things as a batsman's century.
