37th Match - New Zealand v Bangladesh (13th March)

[Zinzan]

I know it's not in McCullum's blood to do so, but how much would we have to throw this game by to set up an Aussie-Saffer quarterfinal? We could open the bowling with Tom Latham and get him to bowl 100 consecutive front foot no-balls Robert Vance style. Let Bangladesh score 600 runs, and then every BC player knocks his own stumps over to get the team bowled out for 0.

I know this is tongue in cheek...but even if the scenario was more subtle than this and a narrow loss would achieve that, It would go against everything this McCullum-lead side stand for, integrity, pride & the momentum of winning. Not a chance in hell.

The famous NZ 'go-slow' tactics in their last game of the 2001/02 tri-series in Aus against SA to ensure their RR was bad enough to give SA an edge over Australia was quite different, since that was the difference between making the finals and not.

Such a farcical system thinking about it now.That was the series NZ had the edge on Aust, Aust on SA & SA on us ....

 

[Hurricane]

I know this is tongue in cheek...but even if the scenario was more subtle than this and a narrow loss would achieve that, It would go against everything this McCullum-lead side stand for, integrity, pride & the momentum of winning. Not a chance in hell.

The famous NZ 'go-slow' tactics in their last game of the 2001/02 tri-series in Aus against SA to ensure their RR was bad enough to give SA an edge over Australia was quite different, since that was the difference between making the finals and not.

Such a farcical system thinking about it now.That was the series NZ had the edge on Aust, Aust on SA & SA on us ....

Remind me of the exact scenario again pretty please, I have a different memory of it, but have only read about it so could be wrong.

 

[Zinzan]

I have a different memory of it, but have only read about it so could be wrong.

What was your memory of it?

 

[Hurricane]

What was your memory of it?

That the blackcaps were through to the finals already but we wanted to choose our opponent so we threw a game.

 

[NZTailender]

I thought it was the other way around. SA threw a match to get us into the finals?

Edit: no, much mistaken.

 

[Hurricane]

I thought it was the other way around. SA threw a match to get us into the finals?

Whatever it was the blackcaps were the people doing the questionable activity. Fleming doesn't think he did anything wrong and would do it again.

 

[Flem274*]

nah we threw it. you got bonus points for close losses or something and that meant we could manipulate who made the finals. fleming told parore and someone else (vettori?) to get the bonus point then throw the game, and to fleming's consternation they made it very obvious by blocking.

 

[Zinzan]

That the blackcaps were through to the finals already but we wanted to choose our opponent so we threw a game.

Nah, had it been a choice of who we played, we would have undoubtedly chosen Australia, since we had the wood on them that series.

I couldn't find the points table...but the Almanack report kind of explains it; ..To get in the finals, we either needed to beat SA, or lose quite a margin, had we only just lost by a few runs & Aust had beaten SA in the last game we wouldn't have qualified;

From Wisden...

At Perth, February 1 (day/night). South Africa won by 67 runs. South Africa 5 pts. Toss: New Zealand.

The side effects of the bonus-point system grossly distorted this match. A win would have guaranteed New Zealand entry to the final, but - extraordinarily - the second-best result for them was a defeat heavy enough to give South Africa a fifth point. What they wanted to avoid was a narrow defeat: no bonus point for South Africa would mean Australia needed only four points (a narrow win) in their last match to squeeze New Zealand out of the final, rather than five (a win plus a bonus point). Fleming followed the logical course unwaveringly: chasing 271, New Zealand went for the runs during the first 25 overs but took their foot off the throttle once they were reduced to 129 for five. A score of 216 or under would gift South Africa the bonus point, so the remaining batsmen blocked out the last 21 overs, adding just 73.

 

[Zinzan]

Whatever it was the blackcaps were the people doing the questionable activity. Fleming doesn't think he did anything wrong and would do it again.

Oh absolutely, it wasn't Fleming's fault at all, it was the fault of the organisers coming up with such a ludicrous system. Once he Fleming realised we were unlikely to win that game, ensuring our score remained below 216 was the best thing for the side.

Even the Aussie media didn't blame Flem for it in the aftermath.

 

[Zinzan]

Oh and I forgot that the last qualifying game - Aust vs SA, was similar...Even if they lost chasing Australia's 283, they needed to get to at least 226 (they got to 250) to ensure Aust didn't get a bonus point meaning they would play NZ in the final.

So it wasn't actually done and dusted after the NZ game...it was a combined effort from NZ & SA

 

[Flem274*]

like all good captains, fleming was prepared to lose to win.

 

[Dan]

Australia vs. West Indies in the 1999 World Cup also involved an intentional go-slow for qualifying shenanigans.

 

[Energetic]

Bangladesh should win. NZ are definitely over-hyped. Don't forget NZ will be back to square 1 post world cup when Vettori retires. You don't have any quality spinners to dominate Asian teams in Asian conditions.

 

[hendrix]

Bangladesh should win. NZ are definitely over-hyped. Don't forget NZ will be back to square 1 post world cup when Vettori retires. You don't have any quality spinners to dominate Asian teams in Asian conditions.

Vettori has barely played over the last couple of years and hasn't been a part of our Test or ODI improvement. He's squarely back to help us win the world cup and that's it.

 

[GGG]

Bangladesh should win. NZ are definitely over-hyped. Don't forget NZ will be back to square 1 post world cup when Vettori retires. You don't have any quality spinners to dominate Asian teams in Asian conditions.

So you are saying that Bangladesh should win for the first time against us outside Bangladesh in any form of the game?

 

[Fuller Pilch]

Bangladesh should win. NZ are definitely over-hyped. Don't forget NZ will be back to square 1 post world cup when Vettori retires. You don't have any quality spinners to dominate Asian teams in Asian conditions.

I think Bangladesh have a chance if they win the toss, bat and not lose too many wickets in the first 30 overs.

Not that I'm calling him a quality spinner, but it wasn't long ago that Mark Craig got a ten-fer to beat Pakistan by an innnings in the UAE.

I reckon Mitchell Santner (why are there so many Mitchells in Australasian cricket??!!) will be a pretty decent odi spinning allrounder btw.

Mitchell Santner | New Zealand Cricket | Cricket Players and Officials | ESPN Cricinfo

 

[silentstriker]

It all ended in tears though when the TCCB chucked them out of the tournament because it was against the spirit of the game. I'd hope the ICC would have guts to do the same to any team doing what you're proposing.

Nah. IMO it's fair game. I think they'd get a lot of flak for it if it backfires and they lose the QF, but if they want to go into the elimination stages with a loss and after doing that, I think that's fine.

 

[silentstriker]

Also, it's not even as bad as what happened in the 1982 WC with Algeria because NZ losing on purpose doesn't change who gets to play in the elimination stages - just the order.

 

[Fuller Pilch]

Also, it's not even as bad as what happened in the 1982 WC with Algeria because NZ losing on purpose doesn't change who gets to play in the elimination stages - just the order.

Considering that match fixing is probably the biggest blight on the game I think this talk is ridiculous. Hoping for rain in the South Africa-UAE game otoh is good thinking

 

[silentstriker]

Well honestly, I wouldn't call this match fixing (it is in the strictest sense, but I see them completely separately - since they would be looking out for their own long term interests in losing).


In any case, I don't think there's much chance of this at all. There would be too much of a furore for too little benefit. It's not a good idea to think that far ahead anyway, since one might lose anyway.