• 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.

Murali's run out and the spirit of the game.

Were NZ right o run out Murali?


  • Total voters
    91

honestbharani

Whatever it takes!!!
KaZoH0lic said:
It depends what fanciful way you wish to describe 'sporting'. There were SIMPLE rules in place and Murali forgot them and as a result got out. That's all there is to it

Do you still consider a batsmen out if he takes a half-swing, cancels his stroke, but still the ball hits his bat? What, he didn't mean to hit it (just as Murali wasn't intending for a run)?

Sporting is playing inside the rules and winning. If these things should be 'sporting' and are a big problem, then they should be in the rules.
No, because he was still IN THE ACT of playing a stroke. It is obvious here that Murali WAS NOT still in the act of taking a run. And no, I don't whinge every time a batsman fails to walk after nicking it and the catch is taken just like I didn't exactly whinge when NZ did what they did. The point is, with a caught behind, you can always argue that the umpire is there to do a job and did it. Here, it was not the case.


BTW, Kazo, I would love to know what your opinion is of the infamous 'handled the ball' dismissal of Cullinan against the Windies. And that of Rich (Langeveldt).
 

honestbharani

Whatever it takes!!!
JF. said:
You are delusional if you think it's only Kiwis. Imran Khan has admitted to ball tampering, the bookies largely reside in India, former SL captain Ranatunga once refused to shake Mark Taylor's hand after a match in which there were several heated exchanges (a REAL case of poor sportsmanship if you ask me), England had their bowlers constantly leaving the field last year while they brought one of the country's best fielders on. Flintoff was seen on live tv chatting with Fletcher as they both looked at his laptop. I'm sure others can think of countless other incidents.

Welcome to modern cricket.
When did I say it was only the Kiwis. Teams have done it in the past and will continue to do so in the future. But no one does it as a planned tactic as many times as NZ have done in recent times. Ganguly did that to Steve Waugh in 2001 but I don't think he ever used that tactic again. But with Fleming, he has used that many a time. I am not ranking New Zealand as the worst at this, but I just made the point that, given the way they have played the game over the last 10 years or so, I won't really expect them to do the sporting thing when the opportunity is there. That's all.
 

archie mac

International Coach
JF. said:
You are deluding yourself if you think modern Test cricket is still just a "sport". Consider how much money some of these guys are on. Consider the amount of revenue it generates. Think about the sponsors .. etc....

It is a business and players are highly paid professionals.
English players have been pros for years (well over a 100) relying on cricket for their livelihood and they still managed to show good sportsmanship.

"They are on a lot of money and under a lot of pressure they can't be good sports". That is a cop out

And who would a sponsor rather be associated with a team that shows good sportsmanship but still wins. Or a team that uses 'sharp practice' and still wins?
 

Ikki

Hall of Fame Member
honestbharani said:
No, because he was still IN THE ACT of playing a stroke. It is obvious here that Murali WAS NOT still in the act of taking a run. And no, I don't whinge every time a batsman fails to walk after nicking it and the catch is taken just like I didn't exactly whinge when NZ did what they did. The point is, with a caught behind, you can always argue that the umpire is there to do a job and did it. Here, it was not the case.


BTW, Kazo, I would love to know what your opinion is of the infamous 'handled the ball' dismissal of Cullinan against the Windies. And that of Rich (Langeveldt).
You don't get it mate. This is cricket and it has rules. If you disagree with them make some inquiry (the player's in question should actually) into the need for these rules. He got out because he put himself into a position where he could and therefore SHOULD be tried to be gotten out.

Cullinan shouldn't have touched the ball. Simple rules ladies and gents, let's not kill ourselves over this one. If you don't get the rules then look them up. These players SHOULD know them because by god they're getting a crap-load of money to play the sport.
 

adharcric

International Coach
Just wondering, what happened to the argument that Murali and Sanga would've taken the extra runs had there been an overthrow? Did that die away or get accepted or what?
 

PhoenixFire

International Coach
I think that Sangakkara and Murali wou ldn't really have bothered with over-throws, because they would be too busy celebrating.​
 

PhoenixFire

International Coach
Don't worry, I wouldn't want your simple GM-OLAS brains overheating. Actually I would but that's not the point.
 

silentstriker

The Wheel is Forever
PhoenixFire said:
Don't worry, I wouldn't want your simple GM-OLAS brains overheating. Actually I would but that's not the point.
Shouldn't you be busy putting Trumper on level with Bradman or something?
 

PhoenixFire

International Coach
If I thought Trumper was anything greater than he really is, then I would have voted for him earlier than the 19th round.
 

silentstriker

The Wheel is Forever
PhoenixFire said:
If I thought Trumper was anything greater than he really is, then I would have voted for him earlier than the 19th round.
If you thought Trumper was as great as he really is, you wouldn't have voted for him until we got to round #75. ;)
 

Dick Rockett

International Vice-Captain
C_C said:
Err, if you've played cricket at any level higher than in your backyard, the above is simply not true. Close-in fielders must have spatial awareness and they demonstrate it every single day they are out in the middle.
Its utter BS to suggest that a wicketkeeper cannot tell the difference or sense that the guy is walking down the wicket rather than blitzing down it for a second run.
I don't care if McCallum or anyone swears that its impossible- they are simply being dishonest.
There you go again, telling people what they know or don't know.

Jeez, off the top of my head, so far you've made out that you're the world's foremost expert on ancient history, religion, Western racial attitudes, classical music, the Holocaust, being an international wicketkeeper, what level of cricket that CW posters have played, etc, etc, ad infinitum.

If you know such much about absolutely everything, why do you bother debating in these forums with a bunch of miscreants who are obviously nowhere your enormous intellect? More to the point, how do you even find the time to post when you must surely be spending every waking hour mopping up the last few morsels of human wisdom that you haven't already stored in that cavernous, ravenous, utterly insatiable and immaculate mind of yours?

On second thought - stay, O Great One. Share with us all that you know, so that we may someday become mere shadows of your towering, majestic, indomitable self. I prostrate myself at your feet, for only now do I see your splendour for all that it truly is.
 
Last edited:

Top