Deliberately losing a match

[Dhoni_fan]

I agree with Micheal Slater, if you go down the route of trying to lose games to fix who you will play in the latter rounds you are really throwing the game into chaos.

The Australia's attitude always was simple, if we are the best team then we win every game that we play and we will lift the cup.

That is the attitude I want to see from my team, try and win every match you play not worry about permutations, if you start getting too cute like that it probably will bite you.

 

[NUFAN]

If you are purposely trying to avoid a certain team in the quarter finals you really don't have a chance of winning the Cup.

I'm completely against it, but I have no problems with a team trying a few different combinations when a position in the top 4 is guaranteed.

 

[PhoenixFire]

I think it should be allowed, if that's what the question is asking. I mean, if the intention is to make it so you have a better chance of winning the tournament as a whole, then fair enough. I don't like the idea of it and it'd be very messy to try and police, but I don't really have much of a problem with it.

 

[honestbharani]

Pretty much agree with Brumby. Give players a rest, try a different batting order or a new field setting. But try and win. Always.

AWTA, and Brumby I guess

 

[slugger]

this strategy if you did want to use "it" is only possible really in a large round robin fromat. Goes to show you that teams placed in groips of 4 like the 07 version had no leway for such incidents whether contrived or not.

 

[irottev]

It's brought up in most of them. I'm just speaking out with what everyone is thinking about the loss. Yes, it undermines NZ's performance but at the end of the day i'm not gonna talk up the NZ side without good reason.

 

[salman85]

No.Everyone is not thinking that way.Only you are.There is not been a single poster on this forum who has brought up matchfixing,and i'm sure no sane mind outside this forum would bring up match fixing either.

If you bring it up then you are the opposite of sane,and that is not very good for your existence as a living being.

 

[Smudge]

And it is also far from appropriate to be making libellous accusations on a public forum.

 

[Adamc]

No.Everyone is not thinking that way.Only you are.There is not been a single poster on this forum who has brought up matchfixing,and i'm sure no sane mind outside this forum would bring up match fixing either.

If you bring it up then you are the opposite of sane,and that is not very good for your existence as a living being.

Notwithstanding the valid point Voltman made (and really, if there is genuine concern over the legal ramifications of such posts then the mods should be all over this) it's not exactly 'insane' to suggest the possibility of spot-fixing or match-fixing given that several Pakistani cricketers have been found to have committed those very offences. There's no need however to make the same point multiple times in multiple threads.

 

[silentstriker]

Agree with PEWS, deliberately losing is anathema to sport. It was an unedifying enough spectacle to see Steve Waugh deliberately scoring slowly against the Windies in 1999 in an attempt to manipulate who advanced with Oz to the Super 6 stage.

I wouldn't have any problem with a team rotating their squad though, as in fact the Dutch football team did versus Romania in the example salman gave.

You know, I am very gung-ho about this usually but I'm not sure. I mean, aren't your helping your team more by positioning yourself better in the tournament?

It does leave a bad taste when you think about people deliberately throwing a match but if it's done for purely positioning purposes, I'm not so sure if it's a big deal. But I can understand why people would think it is.

On a similar note - there was a story about an Indian touring team of the west indies in the 60s (?? I'll try to find exact source) who had a tour match and deliberately played a spinner badly (didn't score any runs vs him) to try to get him picked for the Test matches. It worked, and they got him. Do you guys think that is unethical?

 

[Jono]

I'd have no problems with it if the captain said it upfront.

 

[benchmark00]

Didn't New Zealand do this in a tri series in Australia in the 90's?

 

[Prince EWS]

Didn't New Zealand do this in a tri series in Australia in the 90's?

That was a bit different. They did it make sure that they themselves qualified for the final. IIRC, had they won they wouldn't have due to the inconsistent way equal positions were tie-broke depending on whether it was two or three teams on the same points.

But yeah, similar thing.

 

[benchmark00]

That was a bit different. They did it make sure that they themselves qualified for the final. IIRC, had they won they wouldn't have due to the inconsistent way equal positions were tie-broke depending on whether it was two or three teams on the same points.

But yeah, similar thing.

itstl, I remember it as NZ losing to SA because they were more comfortable facing them in the final than Australia.

But my memory is hazy due to many years of heavy drinking and a high meat/low salad diet tbf.

 

[Prince EWS]

itstl, I remember it as NZ losing to SA because they were more comfortable facing them in the final than Australia.

But my memory is hazy due to many years of heavy drinking and a high meat/low salad diet tbf.

I looked it up, and what they did was deliberately give South Africa a bonus point. If all three finished on the same points then it'd go to NRR which New Zealand would finish third on, but the bonus pointed allowed South Africa to finish top by themselves, and New Zealand and Australia finished equal second - the tie-breaker in this instance being head-to-head (rather than NRR) which favoured NZ over Australia.

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.

 

[benchmark00]

Yeah, the article then goes on to say though:

Shortly after the controversial result, rib enthusiast Robert Cribb started commissioning the 2011 Cricket Web Forumer World Cup, a project which is still yet to bear fruit.

Controversial ind33d.

 

[Spark]

Yeah, the article then goes on to say though:



Controversial ind33d.

 

[Engle]

Besides positioning purposes, a team may decide not to win a match for other reasons, e.g

Stabilize partnerships - whereby the players don't attempt to chase, but settle into building partnerships

Or conduct experiments - open with a spinner and see how this pans out

Or build depth - give inexperienced players a chance

Or time your peak - lose now, win later

If you know you're into the next round, you might as well try to prepare for the big Q'final matches

 

[Blaze 18]

Yeah, the article then goes on to say though:



Controversial ind33d.

Quality.

 

[vcs]

Besides positioning purposes, a team may decide not to win a match for other reasons, e.g

Stabilize partnerships - whereby the players don't attempt to chase, but settle into building partnerships

Or conduct experiments - open with a spinner and see how this pans out

Or build depth - give inexperienced players a chance

Or time your peak - lose now, win later

If you know you're into the next round, you might as well try to prepare for the big Q'final matches

Eh? The point of conducting those experiments is with the hope that they succeed...