• Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.

    You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!

    If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.

*Official* Bangladesh in England

S

Shifter

School Boy/Girl Cricketer
Dasa said:
It's an advantage, but it's not unfair. People get injured, teams deal with it.
Click to expand...
It is unfair, that is unarguable. It should be obvious but I guess I'm the only one that sees the obvious that one side having more players breaks the balance of the game.

The only reason it exists in its state is no one has thought of a system that isn't open to abuse to replace injured players.

Beating England 11 v 10 is an entirely different scenario to beating England 11 v 11.

Bangladesh beat England with one more player, so they have only proved they can beat England with that advantage, they haven't proved they can beat England in an equal contest. Its that simple.
 
Kylez

Kylez

State Vice-Captain
Shifter said:
It is unfair, that is unarguable. It should be obvious but I guess I'm the only one that sees the obvious that one side having more players breaks the balance of the game.

The only reason it exists in its state is no one has thought of a system that isn't open to abuse to replace injured players.

Beating England 11 v 10 is an entirely different scenario to beating England 11 v 11.

Bangladesh beat England with one more player, so they have only proved they can beat England with that advantage, they haven't proved they can beat England in an equal contest. Its that simple.
Click to expand...
Didn't England beat Bangladesh in game 1 when they had two injured players? 9 vs 11?
 
Hurricane

Hurricane

Hall of Fame Member
Shifter said:
Your really trying to argue that 11 vs 10 is not an unfair advantage? I don't care if England aren't making excuses, facts are facts. Bangladesh did not beat England in a balanced/even/fair contest. It doesn't matter at all what Bangladesh scored. Whether England should beat Bangladesh even with a player down isn't the issue here.

Any team sport is meant to have equal players as having more players gives you an obvious advantage. I shouldn't have to spell this out.
Click to expand...
This is a point I think you have been making for a while I just found this thread by you
http://www.cricketweb.net/forum/cricket-chat/46877-injuries-sustained-during-match.html

where you explain that if I guy breaks his foot he should be replaced as it is unfair.

It is an interesting theory - and I will give it some thought. But until your rule comes into place then injuries are just part of the game for now. It is just bad luck that Bell broke his foot - fairness would imply that Bangers met him in a dark alley and broke it on purpose.

10 vs 11 would be unfair if the game started with England only having 10. If both teams start with the same number of players it is fair by the current rules.

Whether you think these rules are just or not is a different matter. And you have raised that in your thread you created. When I get the chance I will give your previous proposal some thought and make a reply to it. But my knee jerk reaction is that would be a strange rule. For example if Graham Smith gets his hand broken by Mitchell Johnson while batting and can't continue can the 12th man come in and continue his inning for him. Because an injury while batting should be the same thing as an injury while fielding.

But to be fair to your idea I will give it some thought.
 
S

Shifter

School Boy/Girl Cricketer
Kylez said:
Didn't England beat Bangladesh in game 1 when they had two injured players? 9 vs 11?
Click to expand...
When was this?

As for fairness, I don't see that Bangladesh has to do anything to make it unfair. I never said Bangladesh did anything unfair. I'm saying they benefited from a freak injury that resulted in an unfair situation.

Take this for example. Two people fighting with swords. One of the combatants sword breaks in a freak incident through no fault of his own and no deed of his opponent. To return the contest to a fair/balanced/even (whatever word you think best fits) state the man with the broken sword should be allowed to replace his sword with a new one. If this weren't allowed for whatever reason, then I think its reasonable to say its no longer a fair contest.

Obviously a cricketer is trickier to replace than a sword because in certain situations the replacement might be better suited to the match situation than the original player was, so the team replacing a player could then have an advantage.

If nothing else then I don't think wins where teams have had a numerical advantage should be recognised as being the same as normal wins.
 
Last edited:
_Ed_

_Ed_

Request Your Custom Title Now!
I think comparing one eleventh of a cricket team to a sword in a sword-fight is a bit of a stretch.
 
Spark

Spark

Global Moderator
Shifter said:
When was this?

As for fairness, I don't see that Bangladesh has to do anything to make it unfair. I never said Bangladesh did anything unfair. I'm saying they benefited from a freak injury that resulted in an unfair situation.

Take this for example. Two people fighting with swords. One of the combatants sword breaks in a freak incident through no fault of his own and no deed of his opponent. To return the contest to a fair/balanced/even (whatever word you think best fits) state the man with the broken sword should be allowed to replace his sword with a new one. If this weren't allowed for whatever reason, then I think its reasonable to say its no longer a fair contest.

Obviously a cricketer is trickier to replace than a sword because in certain situations the replacement might be better suited to the match situation than the original player was, so the team replacing a player could then have an advantage.

If nothing else then I don't think wins where teams have had a numerical advantage should be recognised as being the same as normal wins.
Click to expand...
That's... a terrible analogy.
 
honestbharani

honestbharani

Whatever it takes!!!
Shifter said:
Your really trying to argue that 11 vs 10 is not an unfair advantage? I don't care if England aren't making excuses, facts are facts. Bangladesh did not beat England in a balanced/even/fair contest. It doesn't matter at all what Bangladesh scored. Whether England should beat Bangladesh even with a player down isn't the issue here.

Any team sport is meant to have equal players as having more players gives you an obvious advantage. I shouldn't have to spell this out.
Click to expand...
why would England play BOTH Bell and Trott in an ODI side??


Congrats Bangers!!! Obviously had the advantage and ran with it!!! Well Done!!
 
S

Shifter

School Boy/Girl Cricketer
Why is it a terrible analogy? I was trying to point out that calling it an unfair situation is valid even when the concerned parties did nothing unfair to bring about that situation.

It wasn't meant to establish that losing one player is as devastating to your chances as losing a sword in a sword fight would be.

Even along those lines I feel people here underestimate the significance of losing even one player. Sure it was Bangladesh so its not as bad as it could of been against a tougher opponent but the strength of the opposition is irrelevant. Its hardly a rare feat for a single player to make a big difference in the outcome of a match. Morgan did it not long ago against Bangladesh where he took England from a precarious situation and turned it into a convincing win. Trott almost accomplished that feat (though not so convincingly) in this very match.

Whats terrible here is people blindly accepting that hey injuries happen and thems the rules so it must be OK.
 
Last edited:
S

Shifter

School Boy/Girl Cricketer
_Ed_ said:
It's equally common for a specialist batsman to be dismissed very cheaply.
Click to expand...
Yes it is, but at least that batsman had a chance to contribute to the team. I'm pretty sure we can agree that even if its not guaranteed that England would of won then at very least their chances of winning would be significantly increased had Bell been able to bat.

I don't see how wins like these can count as normal wins as there's a significant departure from the norm.
 
Jezroy

Jezroy

State Captain
Kylez said:
Didn't England beat Bangladesh in game 1 when they had two injured players? 9 vs 11?
Click to expand...
Exactly - are we now going to say that this game doesn't count? I don't think so.

Shifter, when NZ (I guess that is the team you support) beat Australia in Wgtn in an ODI this year, Bond got Ponting out caught off his helmet. Did that suddenly destroy the whole game and make it a cheap vistory for NZ that they didn't deserve? I think a player getting a bung decision from an umpire is more unfair than someone injuring themselves - at least Bell could hobble out to try and win the game - Ponting had to go to the dressing room, no return.
 
Jezroy

Jezroy

State Captain
Shifter said:
I don't see how wins like these can count as normal wins as there's a significant departure from the norm.
Click to expand...
It's not different from the norm. Every team knows that if you get a guy injured like that, then you are down that man for the rest of the game.

The main reasons I think that they still haven't brought in subs for injuries are to prevent people faking injuries, or heaven forbid people injuring/damaging themselves on purpose.
 
Athlai

Athlai

Not Terrible
I kind of agree with him in regards to Test cricket, but its all a part of the game. Bell injured himself in the field, it was hardly like he got injured outside of the game.
 
_Ed_

_Ed_

Request Your Custom Title Now!
Jezroy said:
The main reasons I think that they still haven't brought in subs for injuries are to prevent people faking injuries.
Click to expand...
Yep. Chris Martin would have a few "injuries" when NZ are closing in on a 4th innings target with just a couple of wickets in hand.
 
kingkallis

kingkallis

International Coach
stumpski said:
Yeah, Illingworth did his job there - important to maintain the Natural Order of Things. Bit disappointed in Colly tbh, I know there aren't many walkers these days but he is one you think of as a cricketer with a bit of integrity. Still, England beating the 9th best team for the 21st time on the bounce is more important I suppose.
Click to expand...
In last Ashes Colly walked @ the end of the day and I dont think there was an appeal from Siddle back then...

So yeah I too was dissapointed in Collingwood here!
 
D

DingDong

State Captain
well done banglas :)

winnning games against the top side in the world with 6 months to go for the world cup? shades of sri lanka in 1996? could bangla make a run at the 2011 wc????
 
Aritro

Aritro

International Regular
DingDong said:
well done banglas :)

winnning games against the top side in the world with 6 months to go for the world cup? shades of sri lanka in 1996? could bangla make a run at the 2011 wc????
Click to expand...
I can see us taking the cup...

Although we'll probably have to hand it back when then the authorities find out about it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Top