• Dear Guest, Please note that adult content is not permitted on this forum. We have had our Google ads disabled at times due to some posts that were found from some time ago. Please do not post adult content and if you see any already on the forum, please report the post so that we can deal with it. Adult content is allowed in the glory hole - you will have to request permission to access it. Thanks, scara

The Cricket Thread

StephenH said:
Just wasn't cricket was it? And I'm not joking.
Click to expand...

The thing is that it was cricket, trying to get a result, both sides could have lost or won and they took a chance. As long as I have been watching the game captains have sacrificed runs to encourage a declaration with a chance of a win, it wouldn't be right if only one team could benefit from the action.
 
Lost Mango said:
Have a soft spot for Somerset out of the 3 contenders so this is a little bias - but do feel the contrived finish of a declaration and a run chase dirties this slightly (obviously in a years time the record books won't care) but none of the other games throughout the season had such grandstand set ups to ensure a result. Why different standards for the last game?

If 2 football clubs went into the last game against each other both needing a win and agreed not to field defenders or some such contrivance there would be outrage.
Click to expand...

It was the correct decision. Middlesex skipper nailed it and I am a Surrey boy.
 
Lost Mango said:
No doubt.

Honestly - I'm not attacking Franklin or Lyth (?) or the fact for those 2 teams it was the right way to end the match or the season. Just it doesn't sit easily with me as "fair" or with the integrity of a league competition.
Click to expand...

Been going on for years and I remember Essex winning promotion in such circumstances, and they are my team, so when I say it doesn't sit well with me, i have benefited from it.

Its match fixing because you are manipulating the state of play to encourage a different result to the outcome that was coming. My argument is if you organically didnt do enough to win in 4 days then Somerset should have won the league, that is the long and short of it.
 
K.D.D.D.D.Soc said:
By that reason if a team throw their centrehalf upfield to try and snatch a winner and let one in and lose it's match fixing?
Click to expand...

That's an absolutely mental comparison. Thats not purposely manipulating the outcome.

If you can't win the game in 4 days why should you be allowed to manipulate the outcome of one game of a long season. Otherwise your saying its a one game shoot out at the end of the season.
 
Grays_1890 said:
That's an absolutely mental comparison. Thats not purposely manipulating the outcome.

If you can't win the game in 4 days why should you be allowed to manipulate the outcome of one game of a long season. Otherwise your saying its a one game shoot out at the end of the season.
Click to expand...


Only because it doesn't fit your opinion
 
The game is screwed anyway, how can a county not be able to play its test players even when England are not playing.
 
Grays_1890 said:
Been going on for years and I remember Essex winning promotion in such circumstances, and they are my team, so when I say it doesn't sit well with me, i have benefited from it.

Its match fixing because you are manipulating the state of play to encourage a different result to the outcome that was coming. My argument is if you organically didnt do enough to win in 4 days then Somerset should have won the league, that is the long and short of it.
Click to expand...
Can't agree about it being match fixing. Not like they colluded to get a result that benefits both. They both needed to win so did what was needed to force a result. I don't really see any harm with that.

Durham fined, relegated and point-stripped today. Lost the right to hosts Tests too. All for an ECB bail out. The Tests bit seems a bit odd, weren't they encouraged to get their ground to that standard?

Will be interesting to see how many weeks it takes them to overtake Derbyshire ;)
 
K.D.D.D.D.Soc said:
By that reason if a team throw their centrehalf upfield to try and snatch a winner and let one in and lose it's match fixing?
Click to expand...

Not at all. The comparison there would be if one team was allowed to take a goal lead (because that would give them the title on goals scored) and had agreed to then let the opponents have 20 minutes at the end of the game to see how many they can score (as they needed the win to overtake the other 2 teams).

Much more contrived than throwing a CB upfront.
 
I am not enjoying the dialogue in the case in Australia. Players being put in dock for bowling fast, sledging and bowling short balls...

Hughes died from a freak accident, even if a player said "I am going to kill you", bowled fast and short its not outside the context of the game....

I worry about the sport should these players not wanna play again or the game changes, its sad
 
I played up to the 80's and there was always a bit of p*** taking and winding up, but nothing nasty, but my son tells me in his league there are 2 or 3 teams that are known for unsportsmanship and trying physical intimidation. I find it a great shame as I enjoyed the social side of the game as much as the playing.
 
Grays_1890 said:
I am not enjoying the dialogue in the case in Australia. Players being put in dock for bowling fast, sledging and bowling short balls...

Hughes died from a freak accident, even if a player said "I am going to kill you", bowled fast and short its not outside the context of the game....

I worry about the sport should these players not wanna play again or the game changes, its sad
Click to expand...


They were not put in the dock like criminals It was an inquest paramedics, doctors, umpires, fielders, batsmen & the bowlers all gave evidence. They made some very valid points regarding medical care available at the ground & the state of the wicket at the SCG on the day. As for fast bowling no one is complaining about that. what they said was 9 bouncers in a row was way over top i tend to agree.

The family of Philip Hughes are upset that the players have lied about what was said to him on the field & the amount of bouncers he faced. They also understand that it was an accident & want rules put in place to make sure this never happens again to any cricketer.

Not one of the cricketers who played on the day have quit the game because of what happened.
 
It's a terrible accident and it seems nothing could have been done to save Phil Hughes once he had been struck. Unfortunately fast bowlers are big on machismo and short on brains and care little about their actions until something goes wrong. I believe that although the helmet has helped reduce injuries to batsmen it gives them a false sense of security and they don't always take the right evasive action.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back