-
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.
Martin Crowe attacks officials, chuckers & Bangladesh/Zimbabwe
- Thread starter James
- Start date
vic_orthdox
Global Moderator
*sticks fingers in ears*
Lalalalalalalalalalalala....*take breath* lalalalalalalalalala
*throws phone at Murali*
/Crowe
Lalalalalalalalalalalala....*take breath* lalalalalalalalalala
*throws phone at Murali*
/Crowe
FaaipDeOiad
Hall of Fame Member
Haha yeah, that was my first thought too. The rest of it I'd heard before.Jono said:
vic_orthdox
Global Moderator
Old fashioned Supertest, a la Packer years.Jono said:
Goughy
Hall of Fame Member
The 2 innings thing has been mooted for a long time and it actually carries a degree of merit.
The first reason is based on the fact that ODIs are hard for TV companies to schedule for as the length of time they last is unpredictable. A team, in their innings, can get bowled out cheaply leaving a crowd wanting more cricket and the TV people putting on subsitute programs and having a loss in ad revenue.
2 Innings of 25 overs would break the game up and make it last an approximate time every time.
The 2nd reason is due to the fact that early morning dew or batting under lights (depending on the start time) can carry advantages and disadvantages to the captains. Often the toss is very important. Spliting time under the different conditions would make the toss less of an advantage and puts more onus on the players ability. The advantages of the toss would not be eradicated but reduced.
There are 2 ways of doing it. An innings can continue in the second innings where it left of after the first or their could be 2 completely seperate innings where the openers start each on and players can bat in both.
It is something to be thought about.
I actually dont think it was a bad interview and he has some thoughtful opinions.
The first reason is based on the fact that ODIs are hard for TV companies to schedule for as the length of time they last is unpredictable. A team, in their innings, can get bowled out cheaply leaving a crowd wanting more cricket and the TV people putting on subsitute programs and having a loss in ad revenue.
2 Innings of 25 overs would break the game up and make it last an approximate time every time.
The 2nd reason is due to the fact that early morning dew or batting under lights (depending on the start time) can carry advantages and disadvantages to the captains. Often the toss is very important. Spliting time under the different conditions would make the toss less of an advantage and puts more onus on the players ability. The advantages of the toss would not be eradicated but reduced.
There are 2 ways of doing it. An innings can continue in the second innings where it left of after the first or their could be 2 completely seperate innings where the openers start each on and players can bat in both.
It is something to be thought about.
I actually dont think it was a bad interview and he has some thoughtful opinions.
Last edited:
thedarkmullet
School Boy/Girl Captain
Crowe was the one behind cricket max in NZ wasnt he?
From memory it was 2 innings of ten overs each, same aim as 20/20. Also had a few gimmicks such as the 'max zone', at either end of the ground was a special area where all runs were doubled: 12 runs for a six, 8 for a four, not sure whether it applied to non-boundaries tho.
From memory it was 2 innings of ten overs each, same aim as 20/20. Also had a few gimmicks such as the 'max zone', at either end of the ground was a special area where all runs were doubled: 12 runs for a six, 8 for a four, not sure whether it applied to non-boundaries tho.
Jono
Virat Kohli (c)
But once again, a team wouldn't have to las$t 50 overs, so we would be deprived of a variety of ODI knocks, because there would be less "batting for 35 overs or so on a bowler friendly wicket" ala Michael Bevan and grinding out some runs whilst ensuring you don't throw your wicket away. Instead a team, and hence a batsman, would only need to survive for 25 overs on both occasions. It takes away from the game.Goughy said:
I have no intentions of making this a 20/20 argument by the way, but I find the length of a ODI being 50 overs perfect enough to strike a balance between valuing the 10 wickets of a team, and limiting the amount of overs they have. I acknowledge your points though.
EDIT: Sorry I somehow missed that bit where you suggested "continuing the innings from overs 25-50 where they left off." Interesting.
Last edited:
Martin is angry I think !!!!! Any ways I guess he forgot to include the gentlemen who use performance enhancing drugs to play . I guess they are worse than Bangalis and Zims. And yes Zim (If had no internal problems) did contribute and as far as Bangladesh is concerned then "Worst higher level cricket related decisions".
And chuk thing .Why not throw a bowler out right in the first match so that he developes his action in a positive way and why de-grading him after he has come into rythm and starts taking wickets at a regular and super pace. Well I agree to a certain degree that Murali had a suspicious action earlier on in his career and ironicaly he was noticed after when he was at peek of his career and if you will see Murali bowling in 92 and now ,then you will see a lot of difference . He has positively modified his action and now if the degree law has been made then why being mad at the man once again .
Martin was a good batsman . And he did contribute a lot to the game but why is he so angry . Why ..
And chuk thing .Why not throw a bowler out right in the first match so that he developes his action in a positive way and why de-grading him after he has come into rythm and starts taking wickets at a regular and super pace. Well I agree to a certain degree that Murali had a suspicious action earlier on in his career and ironicaly he was noticed after when he was at peek of his career and if you will see Murali bowling in 92 and now ,then you will see a lot of difference . He has positively modified his action and now if the degree law has been made then why being mad at the man once again .
Martin was a good batsman . And he did contribute a lot to the game but why is he so angry . Why ..
Last edited:
Langeveldt
Soutie
It's like cricinfo just interviewed me, yet covered it up with "Martin Crowe" to make it look better.. Onya Crowers
Legglancer
State Regular
Maybe we should ban all bowlers then ....perhaps bowl underarm and Sarwan only yo bowl overarm 
Dumb Jackass !!!
Dumb Jackass !!!
Jono
Virat Kohli (c)
Serious question Richard, and this doesn't have to turn into a Murali chucking debate.Langeveldt said:
I've read many times you defend Hansie Cronje and mention him still being a SA hero, or something along those lines. Yet you criticise Murali? The difference between someone who deliberaltely fixed matches compared to a player who tries his butt off, and no matter which way you look at his bowling action and whether he should be playing cricket, is doing so 'innocently.'
This isn't a Hansie bashing comment either, because I loved him as a player, was my favourite SA player before the match fixing came out.
Smudge
Hall of Fame Member
It also originally started with four stumps at each end. However, to Hogan's credit, he did use the free hit after a wide and no ball. Any ball that entered the max zone would be double runs (so a single would be given as 2), and originally you could not be caught in the max zone, although that was changed at the request of the ICC.thedarkmullet said:
SJS
Hall of Fame Member
Putting the issue in perspective
1. Martin Crowe is not the only one who is angry at the 'chucking' issue. There are zillions who are mad at this.
2. Its not about Murali or any one bowler, its about the law defining a legal/illegal delivery
3. Because someone has been doing something for years and has not been checked/corrected/caught-out/barred is not a valid reason for making it legal. If that is the case we are never going to get rid of illegal encroachers on public property in India, for example
4. The fact that the law allows certain type of bowling in matches is fine and reason enough to allow these bowlers to play. The argument is about the change in the law itself and there is nothing wrong in THAT being debated.
1. Martin Crowe is not the only one who is angry at the 'chucking' issue. There are zillions who are mad at this.
2. Its not about Murali or any one bowler, its about the law defining a legal/illegal delivery
3. Because someone has been doing something for years and has not been checked/corrected/caught-out/barred is not a valid reason for making it legal. If that is the case we are never going to get rid of illegal encroachers on public property in India, for example
4. The fact that the law allows certain type of bowling in matches is fine and reason enough to allow these bowlers to play. The argument is about the change in the law itself and there is nothing wrong in THAT being debated.