Bracewell was the 'man' in the Kiwis Win

It's not often these days that sensational wins occur in first class cricket. But here we are with the New Zealand Kiwis flying high, and glorious in great style, to disable the high riding Australians and confound them with a stunning defeat after 26 years on home soil by beating them by seven runs in the Second Test at the Hobart Oval to square the Two-Test series.

This sensational win was made possible by some intelligent, well controlled seam and swing bowling by 21-year Doug Bracewell who had the remarkable figures....take a deep breath... 6 for 40 in the Aussie second innings.

Before going on to comment on the game, I would be failing in my duty if I don't have my say on the travesty of justice inflicted on Bracewell by the public who phoned-in and voted Australian century-maker Doug Warner as the man of the match.

The voters would have been swayed towards voting Warner wanting to show their misguided patriotism.

The non-voting of Bracewell will go down as a grave injustice when some critic sits down to penning a book on the injustices in the history of the game of cricket. Accepted that opener Warner carved out an unbeaten century in only his second Test and remained unbeaten. That century would have been appreciated and the award he won would not have caused heart burn had Australia won the match.

To everyone, there was no doubt that Doug Bracewell was the 'man'. Had the voters who phoned in watched the poor approach of Warner they would have had a change of heart. Warner was in fine form and he could easily have won his country the game had he not only used his bat, but more importantly his head.

When the last man Nathan Lyon walked in, all what Warner had to do was, in cricketing parlance to 'farm' the strike. But what did Warner do? Most times first ball of the over he would scamper a single and leave Lyon at the mercy of the rampaging Kiwi pacemen and allowed to sink or swim.

Had he batted with more responsibility he could have taken his team home and to a series victory. As for New Zealand led by Ross Taylor it was a victory to savour. From the moment Aussie skipper Greg Chappell got his brother Trevor to bowl an underarm ball in a one-day game nearly three decades ago, animosity in sport between these two countries were implanted and that is how it still remains.

So when Bracewell knocked back the stumps of Lyon to signal a heart stopping seven-run victory all hell broke loose not only on the field with players embracing and hugging each other, but all New Zealand going crazy back home.

Euphoria that was only second to the All Blacks World Cup win. TV stations,Radio and the newspapers hailed their cricketers and showered praise on the players for this remarkable victory which was richly deserved and which left the Aussie cricketers licking their wounds and their game in tatters.

The knee-jerk reaction by cricket writing Australian critics in any defeat is to immediately call for the head of former Australian captain Ricky Ponting. Ponting is only one man in an eleven man team. Had Warner batted sensibly, victory for the Aussies was there for the asking. Had he not been selfish and shielded last man Lyon, he could have won the match and saved the blushes of the Australian team and non-performers, the experienced Ponting, Michael Clarke and Michael Hussey. Warner showed poor temperament.

When will they learn?

When will, especially the International Cricket Council, the Australian Cricket Board and the New Zealand Cricket Board ever learn that there is no big deal in playing two Test matches.

Australia have now played two Test series against South Africa and New Zealand and drawn both. Illogical. That is the best way to describe a Two-Test series played between two countries. When will they ever learn? But the comedy is that while Australia, South Africa and New Zealand play Two Tests, South Africa hosts Sri Lanka to Three Tests.

Going by the form shown by Sri Lanka, unless the unforeseen happens the Tests, we could have early finishes which would not be good for cricket.

Why no Arjuna Ranatunga?

With Thilanga Sumathipala and Upali Dharmadasa making their intentions clear in contesting the Sri Lanka Cricket elections and releasing their visions for the betterment of the game, an often asked question is: why is not Arjuna Ranatunga joining in the fray?

Ranatunga contested the 2004 SLC elections, the last time it was held and made an impression although not winning.

With the solutions that he has propounded for all ills that ails the players, the game and the administration, one can speculate that if he fields a formidable team, there should be no reason why he cannot get elected to the exalted post of Chairman of Sri Lanka Cricket.

Ranatunga has the credentials to contest the elections. With his clever, intelligent and dynamic leadership he won for the country the elusive World Cup in 1995/96.

Memorable victory

This memorable victory gave the player, the game, the administration and the country a never before enjoyed status. And that victory was savoured because it was against the Australians. He had a stint as chairman of the Interim Committee. But that short stint was not time enough for him to play an innings of worth. There is still time for him to rethink, form a formidable team and have a fling.

Ranatunga, popularly known as 'Captain Cool', a label that I stuck on him for his cool and cunning manner in which he lured his opponents to their destruction in achieving victory, has what it takes to give Sumathipala and Dharmadasa a good sprint. It is better late than never it is said for Ranatunga to don pads and face an election. And there is no reason why he should not score and win. Give it a try Arjuna, the game needs your dash and daring.

[email protected]