Latest news with #Sportstar
NDTV
3 hours ago
- Sport
- NDTV
Sunil Gavaskar Brutally Mocks Ben Stokes Over Ravindra Jadeja Handshake Row: "Talk Is Cheap..."
Legendary India batter Sunil Gavaskar has fired fresh shots at Ben Stokes and the England team, following the aftermath of the handshake controversy that unfolded during Day 5 of the 4th Test in Manchester last week. After India batted more than five sessions to take England's win out of the equation, Stokes tried to persuade Ravindra Jadeja to shake hands and call it a draw, but the latter refused to do so, triggering the former and his teammates. Stokes also taunted Jadeja and Washington Sundar if they will score their centuries against part-timers Harry Brook and Joe Root. Now, Gavaskar has called out Stokes and his men over their hypocrisy, recalling an incident from the Edgbaston Test, which India won earlier this month. "At one of the media conferences after the defeat in the second Test in Birmingham, some England players, trying to be funny, asked why India set them a target of over 600. They even went so far as to say that India were scared they'd chase anything above 450. The fact is, when they were on a high from scoring piles of runs on flat tracks and fast outfields in Pakistan, they even boasted ahead of the India tour last year that they could chase down 600. Well, talk is cheap, and when given the chance to put their money where their mouth is by chasing over 600 in Birmingham, they ended up losing by 336 runs. Yes, they didn't even get to 300 while boasting of chasing over 600," Gavaskar wrote in his column for Sportstar. Gavaskar insisted that scoring a Test century is not easy, and had he been the captain of India, he would've asked the batters to play out the remaining overs. "They made sarcastic remarks about the batters, who were in their 80s, getting to their centuries off the bowling of a batter. What they overlooked was the hard work and resilience the batters had shown against frontline bowlers for over four hours to reach the 80s. If they wanted a hundred for their efforts, England should have denied them with proper bowlers rather than whining about them getting there against Harry Brook. A Test century isn't easy and doesn't come every match, so the batters were fully entitled to bat on and reach their personal landmarks - which they eventually did. If I were the captain, I'd have told them to keep batting and play out the remaining overs, tiring out the fielders even more - especially after the shenanigans by the English players once their offer was declined," he added.
Hindustan Times
a day ago
- Sport
- Hindustan Times
'Talk is cheap. If England put their money where their mouth is…': Gavaskar wouldn't have spared Stokes if he were Gill
Sunil Gavaskar is absolutely livid with England's conduct against India during the closing stages of the 4th Test at Manchester. The legendary batter did not take kindly to Ben Stokes' shenanigans aimed at stopping Ravindra Jadeja and Washington Sundar from getting to their respective centuries, when, despite 15 overs left in the day, the England captain attempted to call off the match as no other result, barring a draw, was possible. Ben Stokes, left, and his tactics did not impress Sunil Gavaskar(AFP) Stokes offered a handshake, but when Jadeja and Sundar turned it down, England and their captain acted like a bunch of crybabies, taunting Jadeja with needless sledging and finger-pointing. That was still acceptable, but what happened afterwards left a sour taste in the mouth. Stokes handed the ball to Harry Brook, who then bowled lollipop deliveries as gifts, and when Jadeja and Sundar completed centuries, none of the English players applauded. Stokes and England's act invoked a strong reaction out of Gavaskar, who decided to teach Gavaskar a few lessons on how cricket works. Also Read: Draw was the goal, not hundred: Steyn slams Jadeja, Sundar for handshake snub; backs Stokes in 'gentlemanly' debate "Towards the end of the Test, a few grumpy English players were unhappy that the batters at the crease, Ravindra Jadeja and Washington Sundar, declined the offer to end the day's play when England captain Ben Stokes proposed it at the start of the final hour. Instead, they opted to bat on and complete their hundreds. The England players felt that, since there was no chance of a result, the Indians should have accepted the offer to conclude proceedings. They seemed to forget that two teams are playing out there, and if one decides to continue, the other simply has to accept it," Gavaskar wrote in his column for Sportstar. "They made sarcastic remarks about the batters, who were in their 80s, getting to their centuries off the bowling of a batter. What they overlooked was the hard work and resilience the batters had shown against frontline bowlers for over four hours to reach the 80s. If they wanted a hundred for their efforts, England should have denied them with proper bowlers rather than whining about them getting there against Harry Brook. A Test century isn't easy and doesn't come every match, so the batters were fully entitled to bat on and reach their personal landmarks – which they eventually did. If I were the captain, I'd have told them to keep batting and play out the remaining overs, tiring out the fielders even more – especially after the shenanigans by the English players once their offer was declined." 'Talk is cheap' Gavaskar then reiterated his point, which he made while speaking on the Sony Sports Network, exposing England's hypocrisy. He picked an example of post-match scenes from the 2nd Test at Birmingham, which India won by a huge margin, to explain all that's wrong with this England Test team. "At one of the media conferences after the defeat in the second Test in Birmingham, some England players, trying to be funny, asked why India set them a target of over 600. They even went so far as to say that India were scared they'd chase anything above 450. The fact is, when they were on a high from scoring piles of runs on flat tracks and fast outfields in Pakistan, they even boasted ahead of the India tour last year that they could chase down 600. Well, talk is cheap, and when given the chance to put their money where their mouth is by chasing over 600 in Birmingham, they ended up losing by 336 runs. Yes, they didn't even get to 300 while boasting of chasing over 600," added Gavaskar.
News18
a day ago
- Sport
- News18
Sunil Gavaskar Takes Dig At Grumpy England For Manchester Farce: 'Those Days Are Gone'
Last Updated: England have been criticised for their shenanigans towards the end of the 4th Test after India refused the offer to end the Test prematurely. Batting legend Sunil Gavaskar has called out England for their 'grumpiness' after India turned down their offer to end the fifth day of the 4th Test play prematurely with the game heading towards a draw. Gavaskar reminded England that they cannot expect things to go their way all the time and complaint when they don't. 'Everything cannot be done according to what the England team wants. This is yet another example of that old syndrome: when we do it, it's right; when the opposition does the same, it's wrong. Those days are long gone, and no one, least of all the Indian team, is going to simply accept it," Gavaskar wrote in his column for Sportstar. Why Was Stokes Unhappy? India batters Ravindra Jadeja and Washington Sundar refused to end the game early and batted on to complete their centuries. England captain Ben Stokes was annoyed that the pair should have accepted their offer since they had already done the job of saving the Test. Gavaskar says if England didn't want Jadeja and Sundar to score centuries, they should have deployed 'proper bowlers' and not turn to part-timers to vent their frustrations. 'Towards the end of the Test, a few grumpy English players were unhappy that the batters at the crease…declined the offer to end the day's play…," Gavaskar wrote. 'The England players felt that, since there was no chance of a result, the Indians should have accepted the offer to conclude proceedings. They seemed to forget that two teams are playing out there, and if one decides to continue, the other simply has to accept it. 'What they overlooked was the hard work and resilience the batters had shown against frontline bowlers for over four hours to reach the 80s. England should have denied them with proper bowlers rather than whining about them getting there against Harry Brook. A Test century isn't easy and doesn't come every match, so the batters were fully entitled to bat on and reach their personal landmarks," he added. England's Shenanigans Gavaskar said if he were the India captain in Manchester, he would've asked his batters to continue batting till the end of the day's play in response to England's shenanigans. 'If I were the captain, I'd have told them to keep batting and play out the remaining overs, tiring out the fielders even more – especially after the shenanigans by the English players once their offer was declined," he wrote. 'The natural light was deteriorating, and the floodlights were on. Had Jofra Archer and Brydon Carse been given the ball, the umpires might have intervened and stopped play – so perhaps England missed a trick there," he added. view comments First Published: July 29, 2025, 09:31 IST Disclaimer: Comments reflect users' views, not News18's. Please keep discussions respectful and constructive. Abusive, defamatory, or illegal comments will be removed. News18 may disable any comment at its discretion. By posting, you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.
The Hindu
2 days ago
- Sport
- 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.
The Hindu
2 days ago
- Sport
- The Hindu
Injury behind her, Nikhat Zareen eyes third World Championship title
Having made it to the Indian team for the World Boxing Championships, Nikhat Zareen believes that she heads to Liverpool, England, with a renewed sense of belief in her ability to bag yet another medal on the global stage. 'I'm looking forward to being back on the international scene after a long time. Everyone wants me to perform well there, win a medal and make the country proud, but, obviously, more than them, I want to bring back that old Nikhat who used to win medals at the World Championship. I want to bring back that old Nikhat who has that hunger to win medals at the Worlds,' she told Sportstar. Nikhat will compete in her preferred 51kg category at the inaugural edition of the event, which is being conducted by World Boxing, the newly formed international governing body for the sport. ALSO READ | From chubby kid to champion: World Cup medallist Hitesh Gulia 'had no aim of making a career out of boxing' The 28-year-old returns to the Indian national setup for the first time since the 2024 Paris Olympics after impressing at the Elite Women's Boxing Tournament held here earlier this month. She, however, pulled out of the final citing injury. Self-belief A two-time gold medallist at the World Championships (Istanbul 2022 and New Delhi 2023), Nikhat reiterated that she is capable of putting bad form behind her and bringing glory to India once again. 'Sometimes it [defeat] happens. It was not in my destiny, maybe. I don't want to underestimate myself or say that I'm not good enough to win an Olympic medal. I will keep pushing myself no matter what. FILE PHOTO - Zareen Nikhat of Team India makes her way to the ring prior to her Women's 50kg preliminary round match against Yu Wu of Team China on day six of the Olympic Games Paris 2024 at North Paris Arena on August 01, 2024 in Paris, France. | Photo Credit: Getty Images 'Not everyone can win a world championship gold medal, not just once, but twice. I'm still that Nikhat who has the hunger to achieve and make the country proud. I'm happy that I'm finally back in the national team, the focus is now on just winning the medal,' she added. Injury comeback Nikhat dealt with a meniscus injury recently, which required a few months of rehab. While admitting that her recovery wasn't easy, she said that she focused on the larger goals to ensure she made a successful and quick comeback. 'The recovery wasn't easy, but I always kept myself strong, both physically and mentally. Whenever I felt like it [the comeback] is not going to happen or that it was becoming tougher every day, I always reminded myself about why I started on this path. This is not the end,' she stated. With the LA Olympics less than three years away, Nikhat emphasized that the disappointment in Paris has perhaps spurred her on further in her pursuit of her sport's biggest prize. 'My ultimate dream is to win an Olympic medal. I'm not gonna give up so easily.'
