Cricket stuff that doesn't deserve its own thread

[Burgey]

This junk though

From the moment they arrived, it felt like all of Australia was intent on destabilising their progress. Sniffer dogs met them at the airport, putting noses out of joint - and the team were shunted from the warmth of Cairns to the colder Tasmania, before being dumped into the cauldron-esque WACA for the opening Test.

Touring side having to tour different parts of a country larger than a tea towel shocker. Details at six.

 

[honestbharani]

This junk though



Touring side having to tour different parts of a country larger than a tea towel shocker. Details at six.

Are you sure sniffer dogs were used when NZ or England teams toured?

 

[Burgey]

I mean, it would actually make sense if you first read the article but lack of knowledge has never stopped you from passing plainly wrong comments before....

I have read the article. It's based on nothing but supposition and inferences as to motives of people not quoted. If you call that evidence of a conspiracy then I've got a bridge down the road I can sell you.

 

[honestbharani]

I have read the article. It's based on nothing but supposition and inferences as to motives of people not quoted. If you call that evidence of a conspiracy then I've got a bridge down the road I can sell you.

Lol... it has more basis than Darrell Hair's calls that series.

 

[Burgey]

I mean, it would actually make sense if you first read the article but lack of knowledge has never stopped you from passing plainly wrong comments before....

Mate, until relatively recently if you returned to Australia from overseas as a citizen the cabin crew would go through the plane spraying toxic pesticide over everyone. Not every hardship is evidence of persecution, much as you would like it to be so.

 

[Burgey]

Lol... it has more basis than Darrell Hair's calls that series.

See, no substantive response to what I said at all. Because there isn't any.

You can say Hair made wrong calls for whatever reason, but to argue there was a conspiracy involving CA to somehow persecute a side the hosts would have beaten 3-0 if the visitors had fielded 15 players is laughable. There was just no reason to do it. FMD you'd want Murali bowling from both ends in Aus. He averaged 70 with the ball here.

It's also noteworthy the umpire who said the ball in Perth had been tampered with was that renowned Australian white nationalist Khizar Hayat. The match referee who said it had been tampered with was a Kiwi.

If the ICC had told SL Murali's action had been reported pre-tour, this would and could have been completely avoided, and the game would have been much better for it. Instead, it came to all that.

 

[OverratedSanity]

Hair did nothing wrong tbh.

Murali wasn't a chucker, but as per the rules at the time the only real way to make these marginal decisions was for the umpires to have a look and do that.

The still far from perfect but fairer and more scientific approach we have now was basically down to Hair doing that. How many Hafeezes and Lawsons do you reckon we would've got if everyone was too scared to do anything about it? I reckon Aaron Bird would've done well enough in Tests to get mentioned in the ATG thread tbh.

Emerson obviously just a **** though.

If Hair was egged on by senior ACB executives as is the implication in this article and several before, then I'd argue he did do something wrong. He can say he came to the decision on his own rather than being influenced by the other team but it's still a bad look.

 

[Spark]

Its like saying someone breaking a law through a loophole should be credited for the law later being strengthened.

People say this all the time tbh. Particularly when it's not law laws but, like, rules in sports and games - the people abusing the loophole are the ones who get publicly credited for pushing the powers that be to fix the rule.

 

[Spark]

Are you sure sniffer dogs were used when NZ or England teams toured?

Sniffer dogs are used on ~everyone who enter the country. It's standard practice when going through customs here. That line there is definitely 100% persecution complex, there's nothing remotely remarkable about sniffer dogs at airports here.

They're good dogs tbh. Used to be beagles, now labs. They have a good time.

 

[Starfighter]

I've just read the article. A lot of words, but short on substance. Trying to link disparate threads into a conspiracy rather than the parsimonious explanation that people took issue with Murali's action because of what it looks like upon immediate viewing. According to the line of argument, Geoff Griffin shouldn't have been called in 1960 because he was a young precious talent as well.

 

[Burgey]

Indeed they're very strict on letting any produce in through customs. It's because on this great island continent we have a unique ecosystem worth protecting. FMD you get off a plane in Qld from Sydney carrying an apple they make you throw it in a bio-hazards bin.

Which I suppose just goes to show Australians aren't only racist conspirators, they're also Malus Domestica-ists.

 

[TheJediBrah]

The breaking and making of Murali

An extract from a new book on Sri Lankan cricket looks at the chucking witch hunt the team endured on their 1995-96 tour of Australia

www.espncricinfo.com

The planned witch hunt by CA and other goons.... Very interesting read.

This is peak 2022 journalism

 

[OverratedSanity]

I've just read the article. A lot on words, but short on substance. Trying to link disparate threads into a conspiracy rather than the parsimonious explanation that people took issue with Murali's action because of what it looks like upon immediate viewing. According to the line of argument, Geoff Griffin shouldn't have been called in 1960 because he was a young precious talent as well.

What about Craddock's article that was quoted here. That's always been the dodgy part of the chucking controversy.

 

[Starfighter]

What about Craddock's article that was quoted here. That's always been the dodgy part of the chucking controversy.

These kinds of discussions have always occurred around suspect bowlers, going right back to bowlers like Crossland and Nash in the 1880s.

 

[OverratedSanity]

These kinds of discussions have always occurred around suspect bowlers, going right back to bowlers like Crossland and Nash in the 1880s.

Between board executives and umpires? Interesting.

If they meet the cricket authorities and raise their concerns there, that's fine. The opposition team's executives saying that to umpires directly is incredibly strange imo, regardless of whether it's happened before.

 

[Burgey]

What about Craddock's article that was quoted here. That's always been the dodgy part of the chucking controversy.

I think one of the worst things about the whole episode was the lack of action by the ICC when his action was first reported in the months before SL arrived here. Like, they didn't even tell SL it had happened.

That's properly ****ed up imo because it probably led to some umpire frustration as well as meaning when he was called, SL was blindsided. Just dire administration. If the ICC had dealt with it, he could well have been referred off to UWA on the quiet and cleared before any kerfuffle even happened.

Then again, without the kerfuffle, do they even bring the testing regime in? Were they all just hoping it would go away ffs?

 

[Starfighter]

Between board executives and umpires? Interesting.

If they meet the cricket authorities and raise their concerns there, that's fine. The opposition team's executives saying that to umpires directly is incredibly strange imo, regardless of whether it's happened before.

It's not strange though. It's got a long precedent. In the example I gave teams were actually refusing or threatening to refuse to play matches against bowlers they considered throwers.

 

[Spark]

Between board executives and umpires? Interesting.

If they meet the cricket authorities and raise their concerns there, that's fine. The opposition team's executives saying that to umpires directly is incredibly strange imo, regardless of whether it's happened before.

Starfighter will know a lot more to me but until recently I think cricket board executives around the world presumed themselves to have a much greater ability (and right) to, shall we say, get involved in the details of the game than would be considered remotely proper today. Modern views around propriety and appropriateness are exactly that, modern.

It's not too dissimilar to the way board executives will meddle with selection and pitches, which still sometimes happen. Some cricket administrators have an extremely broad definition of the word "administration", and this was much more common in the past.

 

[Starfighter]

Starfighter will know a lot more to me but until recently I think cricket board executives around the world presumed themselves to have a much greater ability (and right) to, shall we say, get involved in the details of the game than would be considered remotely proper today. Modern views around propriety and appropriateness are exactly that, modern.

It's not too dissimilar to the way board executives will meddle with selection and pitches.

I wouldn't say I necessarily know more than you on that, but I think the bolded likely has a lot of truth to it.

Certainly very far back cricket administration was very much the domain of single powerful figures who often exerted influence outside whatever position they held, like Lord Hawke.

 

[OverratedSanity]

This bit is 100% true though, wish more casual fans understood it.

"Chucking" was becoming an increasingly contentious issue - strangely, often couched in moralistic terms. For many, it was a scourge on cricket, a repugnant canker that must be removed. The chucker was a dirty cheat - even today, few acts on the cricket field are accompanied by such a grave sense of wrongdoing. Yet, as Ian Peebles pointed out in his 1968 book on the subject: "Surely the essence of sharp practice of cheating is the covert and deliberate disregard or breaking of a rule or agreement. The suspect bowler subjects himself to the judgement of the umpires and up to eighty thousand people. He makes no attempt to conceal anything, in the confidence that, in his own judgement, he is in no way infringing the letter or spirit of the law."

Probably the only argument against this would be long sleeves?