You're missing the point that I'm not talking about the consequence of the decision but the mind set behind it. Could someone please explain the thought process behind the decision making process? We live in an age where umpires talk about consistency of their decision all the time. Exactly how were they consistent last evening?
But since I'm in the mood, let's talk about the consequences as well. True, the top order had collapsed well before the lights had turned bad. But there was absolutely no change in light (and I cannot but underscore this point) from Rafique's dismissal and the time when light was offered to the Indian batsmen. had light been offered to the Bangladeshi batsmen at that point, the chances of us scoring over 200, which is more of a psychological advantage, would have been far greater.
Even if play had continued, faching Mash and Taposh would have been a handful for the Indians in the murky light. My question is, our tailenders faced the Indian quickies in the same light; why cant our quickies have a go at them in the same conditions?Absolutely stupid decision.Had the umpires done the same things to the Indians, Gavaskar would have droped his pants and gone for Aleem Dar's jugular. And god knows what Saurav babu would have done.
Seriously, the Bangladesh management need to bring this up in the team report.
|