Dravid's dismissal by McCullum Analysis

Here is the video of Dravid caught by McCullum.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bFduX2uMH6o

Everyone praised the presence of mind of the wicket keeper to move sideways anticipating the sweep. But is it in accordance with the laws of the game??

As per law 40 : The Wicket keeper ( source : http://www.lords.org/laws-and-spirit/laws-of-cricket/laws/law-40-the-wicket-keeper,66,AR.html)

4. Movement by wicket-keeper :It is unfair if the wicket-keeper standing back makes a significant movement towards the wicket after the ball comes into play and before it reaches the striker. In the event of such unfair movement by the wicket-keeper, either umpire shall call and signal Dead ball. It will not be considered a significant movement if the wicket-keeper moves a few paces forward for a slower delivery.

Hence in this case McCullum didn't move towards the wicket but sideways before actually the striker played the ball, which in accordance to the law is right and hence Dravid is indeed out!!

However , considering that Wicket keeper does play the role of fielder too in some parts of the game the law 41: Fielder should also be applicable to the wicket keeper
7. Movement by fielders: Any significant movement by any fielder after the ball comes into play and before the ball reaches the striker is unfair. In the event of such unfair movement, either umpire shall call and signal Dead ball.

Hence according to this law what McCullum did is not right and Simon Taufel should have probably called it dead ball. But in the event of the interpreters of the law deeming wicket keeper is not a fielder then the law of the Wicket Keeper shall apply, Also if you see the video carefully its not only McCullam who moves but also the slip fielder Ross Taylor before Dravid actually plays the ball so as per the law shouldn't it be called dead?

However both the laws mentioned above gives quite a bit of room for the umpires to support in both cases when they apply the law and not. The term "significant movement" in the both the clauses are very ambiguous, what is significant to one umpire may not be significant to another. If I were the umpire , to me Ross Taylor's movement is significant. However by making the wording ambiguous and non-measurable the law gives the loop hole to umpires by telling they didn't deem the movement as a significant one!!

Movement of fielders in front of the wicket is truly distracting but should it be considered unfair for fielders behind the wicket too where the batsman is not actually distracted by the fielder?? This is different question all together. Consider this situation if by chance the ball popped out of McCullum's gloves and goes towards short fine-leg position wouldn't these two extra yards, that Ross taylor took before the ball reached the striker, help him take the catch easily? Wouldn't it provide the momentum to take a running catch?
The law doesn't descriminate between "front" fielder or "back" and rightly so.

At the end of the day I would consider Dravid was a touch unlucky.As a batsman I would , before taking strike see the position of all the fielders and for sure wouldn't attempt a paddle sweep if a leg slip was in place. Same would have been the case with Dravid too. He must have watched the fielders' position and seeing that there isn't a leg slip or leg gully in place attempted the paddle sweep only to find that McCullum has used the space given for wicket keeper to assume the position of a short leg slip and snapped the catch!

Totally Outclassed!!!

Well.. what am i doing.. If a week back you had asked what my plans were on 30th morning I would have said "Final Days play of Boxing day test" .. but it has eventually been ruled out.. the test ended in 4 days!!Aussies proved superior in all departments of the game!Atleast the score card suggests so. To me however it seemed that Indians did put up a decent fight.There were few key areas where Aussies proved way ahead of Indians.



"Running between the Wickets"..



Whenever pressure got mounted they eased things out by quick singles and rotating strike regularly.This is something that Indians need to work on. Rotation of strike!. It not only keeps the scoreboard moving but also unsettles the bowler. For every batsman the bowler needs to plan and when strike keeps rotating its difficult for the bowler to plan a wicket. For example Dravid's dismissal in both the innings were well planned. The reason Dravid went into his own shell and kept the strike, the bowler could plan and pace his wicket!! For a classy player who is nearing his 10k mark this is not something that speaks good of.



However on the whole the running needs to improve. Indian batsmen need to learn a lesson or two from their aussie counterparts.



Aussie openers have been one of their strengths. Had India made early inroads things would have been closer( Different?? I doubt). One of the major reasons for India's good show last time down under was the openers. Sehwag was going through form of his life and Akash chopra played a perfect second fiddle to see the new ball off. But here the Indian openers seem to be clueless and (whats worrying is) that too against a little second line aussie attack.



Sachin and Sourav's form is heartening to watch!Sachin showed his class and to me easily was the best innings of the match though didn't convert it into a big one.Laxman showed promise but needs to capitalize on the starts.



Indian bowling looks good.They did a great job of taking 17 wickets.Jumbo came up with yet another "five for" but yeah it didnt make a difference to the match's consequence!



Getting Ponting out twice, cheaply was a commendable effort. But as a cricket fan its disappointing to see such a great great player going out cheaply but as a Indian cricket fan I loved it!!!



Hayden's knock in first innings and Clarkes knock in second innings was good to watch.Jaques played decent knocks in both the innings.



There is some serious work ahead for Jumbo and boys. They need to pull up their socks a little faster.