Railways shuts out SAI-NCOE (Bhopal); Navy outwits IOC
Railways scored a comfortable 5-2 victory over SAI-NCOE (Bhopal) in a Pool-A match, while Navy shocked former champion IOC 3-2 in an exciting Pool-B tie.
Undoubtedly, Navy has been the standout team in the tournament. The young team has shown remarkable ability to outpace its opponent in every match. With some outstanding players such as strikers K. Selvaraj and Ajinkya Jadhav and midfielder Navin Kerketta, Navy has set an example for others to follow for the right mix of defence and offence.
Hitting back
After a goalless first two quarters, IOC opened the account towards the end of the third when Olympian V.R. Raghunath converted a penalty corner. Then, in a matter of six minutes, Navy showcased its attacking might by scoring three goals from which the former champion never recovered.
K. Selvaraj was the star of the match as he scored a brace. First, he scored by deflecting a shot from a penalty corner taken by Sanjit Toppo and then netted a rebound from the 'keeper Pankaj Rajak.
Requiring a victory to make it to the playoffs, NCOE never really showed the stomach for a win as Railways literally closed out the match in the first two quarters by slotting in four goals. Former International Gursahibjit Singh was again the torchbearer for his team with a hat-trick.
Friday is a rest day.
The results: Pool-A: Indian Railways 5 (Gursahibjit Singh 7, 28 & 59, Darshan Gawkar 21, Shivam Anand 26) bt NCOE Bhopal 2 (Mohit Karma 32, Munish Malik 37).
Pool-B: Navy 3 (K. Selvaraj 49 & 55, Ashish Topno 54) bt IOC 2 (V. R. Raghunath 45, Gurjinder Singh 60).
Points table (read as team, played, won, draw, loss, points):Pool-A: Railways, 4, 4, 0, 0, 12; Army, 4, 2, 0, 2, 6; HUTN, 4, 1, 2, 1, 5; SAI NCOE (Bhopal) 4, 1, 1, 2, 4; Maharashtra, 4, 0, 1, 3, 1.
Pool-B: Navy, 4, 4, 0, 0, 12; IOC, 4, 3, 0, 1, 9; Karnataka, 4, 1, 1, 2, 4; Malaysian National junior team, 4, 1, 1, 2, 4; CBDT, 4, 0, 0, 4, 0.
Semifinal line-up: Railways vs IOC; Navy vs Army.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Time of India
3 hours ago
- Time of India
The Pataudi Trophy has a new name, but we should remember what he stood for
'What's in a name?' asks the Bard, dismissively. 'What things are called is unspeakably more important than what they are,' counters Nietzsche, while not disputing the sweet smell of a rose by another name. Nietzsche was not talking about cricket, but he had a point. Consider the Pataudi Trophy, awarded to the victor of India-England Test series contested in England. Starting this summer, the winner will receive the Tendulkar-Anderson Trophy. But why not the Anderson-Tendulkar Trophy? Robotic alphabetic convention can neatly sidestep national pride issues, as with the Border-Gavaskar Trophy. Presumably, the ECB recognised where power resides and compromised. Vastly different from the height of the Empire in 1932, which is when our story unfolds. Iftikhar Ali Khan was the eighth Nawab of Pataudi, now part of buzzy Gurgaon. Pataudi was a poly-athlete who made his mark at Oxford—he read history at Balliol—by clocking 100 metres in under 10 seconds when that meant something. He went on to earn Blues for hockey and cricket. Pataudi had attitude to complement his talent. In the 1931 annual Varsity Match at Lord's, Alan Ratcliffe scored an impressive 201 for Cambridge in the first innings. 'A fine innings, but I can go one better,' said the Nawab. He did. An unbeaten 238 which Wisden called 'majestic' while noting Pataudi's 'perfect judgement and timing.' After scoring 1307 runs for Oxford at a Bradmanesque average of 93, the 22-year-old Pataudi made his England debut against Australia, playing his first Test at Sydney in early 1933. He batted at Number 4 and scored 102. According to Wisden, he played with 'quiet authority' and his innings was 'one of the best seen by an English batsman in Australia that winter.' In a team that included all-time greats Sutcliffe and Hammond. After the match, Pataudi asked Aussie umpire George Hele for a bail as a keepsake. Hele did better and offered him a match ball. The grateful Nawab presented Hele with a gold wristwatch. Noblesse oblige. But the Sydney Test was historic for a different reason. For the first time, MCC captain Douglas Jardine deployed his controversial 'Bodyline' strategy. Led by Bradman, the Aussies had won the Ashes in 1930, with the great one scoring two double centuries and a triple hundred. The English were unaccustomed and sore losers. To combat the greatest run machine in history, Jardine, the patrician from Winchester and Oxford and captain of the MCC, became a thuggish street fighter. Worse, he deployed Harold Larwood, his strike bowler and a coal miner's son, to do his dirty work. Since they couldn't get him out, England decided to intimidate Bradman by bowling at his body—in an era without helmets—with a packed leg side field. Aussie wicketkeeper Bert Oldfield suffered a cracked skull. Captain Bill Woodfull was hit above the heart but refused to retaliate. 'There are two teams out there. One is playing cricket. The other is not,' he famously said. Bradman ducked into a short ball and was bowled off his body at Melbourne, but scored an unbeaten century in the second innings and averaged 57 for the series anyway. Hammond was privately critical but did not raise his voice. Gubby Allen refused to bowl at the body, but the 'Englishman' who confronted Jardine most directly was our man from Gurgaon. He refused to field at leg slip and did not join team huddles when Aussie wickets fell. 'I see His Highness is a conscientious objector,' quipped Jardine, mockingly. Jardine did not eject Allen, who was as much establishment as he was, but turned his ire on Pataudi, who was not just colourful but, in the eyes of the Bombay-born Jardine, coloured. He dropped Pataudi. At the end of the tour, the Nawab had this to say about his captain. 'I am told he has his good points. In three months, I have yet to see them.' Shamefully, the MCC made Larwood the scapegoat and demanded he apologise. Larwood refused, saying he merely followed orders. He never played for England again. Ironically, he emigrated to Australia where Jardine remains the most vilified Englishman. Bradman, of course, kept on doing Bradman things. The rule changes following Bodyline survive. Only two fielders can be behind square on the leg side and onfield umpires can intervene to prevent dangerous bowling. As for our hero, he captained India against England at Lord's in 1946 and became the only player to represent both England and India. But at this point he was 36, and past his prime. His legacy was proudly maintained by the dashing 'Tiger' Pataudi. Like his father, Tiger was a middle-order batsman—evidently, nobility favours batting over bowling—who led India to its first overseas Test victory. There is no record of Tiger presenting gold watches to umpires, but, remarkably, he played 46 Tests after losing his right eye in a car accident at age 21. Tendulkar and Anderson are names writ large in record books and will never be forgotten. But the Pataudi name stands for something that, in the words of Nietzsche, is 'unspeakably important'. We should remember it. Facebook Twitter Linkedin Email Disclaimer Views expressed above are the author's own.
Indian Express
3 hours ago
- Indian Express
Two American takes on Lord's Test: ‘One of favourite sporting occasions' and ‘Watching yeast rise while baking baguettes is more exciting'
The Lord's Test between England and India prompted comparisons to the 2005 Ashes-like vibe, but even as the country was soaking in the cricket summer that has gotten mighty exciting, an editorial in a newspaper drew out some passionate responses about what went down at the iconic stadium. The 15 July piece lauding the slow-burning drama of Lord's Test match, however started with the line, 'Never try to explain Test cricket to an American.' 'In sport, Americans value brevity, drama, a guaranteed resolution. Draws are anathema and ways must be found to avoid them. Two enterprising journalists once took Groucho Marx to an MCC game at Lord's and he pronounced it 'a wonderful cure for insomnia'' the Guardian wrote. There was further shade thrown when George Bernard Shaw was quoted in the editorial as saying: 'The English are not a very spiritual people, so they invented cricket to give them some idea of eternity.' However, letters to the editor, trickled in challenging the first line. One such, by Edward Collier of Cheltenham, Gloucestershire, narrated how an American lady was completely taken in bybthe sport. 'I took an American guest – it was her first cricket match – to Lord's for the third day of the recent Test match between England and India. In terms of the kind of 'excitement' that is the hallmark of T20 and the ghastly Hundred (explosive batting, athletic fielding), the day was somewhat lacking. At times, play was slow, almost becalmed,' he wrote. 'However, at the end of the day she pronounced that it had been one of her favourite sporting occasions, and despite leaving England the next day, she practically begged me to consider taking her again as a guest next year,' he continued. 'It turns out that generalising about a country or its people isn't quite the slam dunk (to borrow a phrase from one of her favourite sports) that your editorial seems to think it is,' he chastised. The Guardian in its letters section balanced it a tad, by publishing David Farrelly of Newport, Oregon, originally from Lamcashire, who reserved the twist in the tale for the last few lines. 'I have an American wife and we live in Newport, Oregon. (As a too-early aside, one of the few places much rainier than the Rossendale Valley from where I hark.) Your opening sentence summed it up,' he wrote. 'My wife has become a fan of cricket and understands the rules better than I – to the point of knowing that it's a five-point penalty if a ball hits a helmet laid on the ground.' So far, so fine. 'Nevertheless,' Farrelly continued, 'she could not understand the fascination of the last couple of sessions at Lord's and departed to the kitchen where she was making baguettes, her comment being that watching yeast rise is more exciting (not that the yeast itself rises).' The gentleman himself, though, had stayed smitten and even wept watching Mohammed Siraj sink to the ground. 'By contrast, I was enthralled and on the point of tears when it was over, watching Mohammed Siraj being consoled. This was one for Wisden. David Farrelly Newport, Oregon,' he wrote.
India Today
8 hours ago
- India Today
Why was Tammy Beaumont not given out Obstructing the Field in Lord's ODI: Explained
Tammy Beaumont was involved in a controversial moment during the second Women's ODI between India and England on Saturday, July 19, at Lord's. In the fifth over of England's run chase, Deepti Sharma bowled around the off stump, and Beaumont clipped the ball to mid-wicket, where Jemimah Rodrigues was reacted quickly, firing a sharp throw toward the striker's end. As the ball deflected off Beaumont's pad, she appeared to already be within her crease, moving her right leg forward. Though the throw didn't hit the stumps, wicketkeeper Richa Ghosh appealed for an Obstructing the Field VS IND-W 2ND ODI HIGHLIGHTS On-field umpires Rob White and Anna Harris conferred before referring the decision to the third umpire. After a close review, Jacqueline Williams ruled Beaumont not out, determining she was simply attempting to regain her the time, Beaumont was on 25 off 17 balls. She went on to score 34 from 35 deliveries, hitting five fours, before falling to Sneh Rana. England ultimately won the rain-curtailed match by eight wickets, chasing down 115 in just 21 overs to level the three-match series was Beaumont truly in the clear, or did she get a lucky break?Here's the MCC law on Obstructing the Field37.1 Out Obstructing the field37.1.1 Either batter is out Obstructing the field if, except in the circumstances of 37.2, and while the ball is in play, he/she wilfully attempts to obstruct or distract the fielding side by word or action. See also Law 34 (Hit the ball twice).37.1.2 The striker is out Obstructing the field if, except in the circumstances of 37.2, in the act of receiving a ball delivered by the bowler, he/she wilfully strikes the ball with a hand not holding the bat. This will apply whether it is the first strike or a second or subsequent strike. The act of receiving the ball shall extend both to playing at the ball and to striking the ball more than once in defence of his/her wicket.37.1.3 This Law will apply whether or not No ball is called.37.2 Not out Obstructing the fieldA batter shall not be out Obstructing the field if the obstruction or distraction is accidental,or the obstruction is in order to avoid injury,or in the case of the striker, he/she makes a second or subsequent strike to guard his/her wicket lawfully as in Law 34.3 (Ball lawfully struck more than once).- Ends
