**Official** New Zealand in England

[silentstriker]

Because people like to think that the "spirit of the game" still exists and that it would be bad sportsmanship.

Haha righto. In between the bottle caps, bumpcatchers, racist blathering, ludicrous appeals and generally complete moronic behavior, I'm glad some people still operate under this illusion.

 

[Richard]

You honestly believe that a four game penalty will hopefully stop captains from slow over-rates in the long run ?, Seems a touch naive to me.

If it doesn't, then clearly we need to have something even more draconian.

Ten-game bans maybe?

 

[Richard]

My doctor has advised me to put Richard on ignore until my skull fracture has healed properly but... I ... Just... Cannae... DO IT!?!

God help RichyRichDickinson if he ever faces the Heathster in the nets when he's pumped and ready!!

Given ol' Heathy is far more prone to boast about his batting than I am - I think it'd be him strapping the pads on in such an eventuality.

 

[Richard]

Haha righto. In between the bottle caps, bumpcatchers, racist blathering, ludicrous appeals and generally complete moronic behavior, I'm glad some people still operate under this illusion.

So every single person ever to play in the last 40 years (or whatever) has exhibited this?

 

[profernity]

If it doesn't, then clearly we need to have something even more draconian.

Ten-game bans maybe?

Offending team starts with a one wicket deficit in the next match.

I'm only half joking.

 

[Prince EWS]

IBTW, aimed @ Rich E - while cricket fans obviously appreciate the game going on as long as possible, it's potentially a disaster for TV stations who have to adjust their schedules. And given that the game in every country is totally dependent on TV stations to balance the books, it makes rather a lot of sense to do everything you can to make it a two-way relationship, with both parties doing their utmost to help t'other.

Well why don't we just extend the scheduled time allotted for an ODI then? With all these cases of slow over-rates, the time allotted obviously doesn't reflect the normal time required to get through all the overs.

I really hate seeing "over-rate" cricket with bowlers -,sometimes not even the bowlers the captains would have on otherwise - trying hard to race through overs to fit in with the schedule. It adds an unattractive, totally unnecessary variable to proceedings.

They may be able to get through the overs in that time if they put in extra effort to do so, but I really think captains have enough on their plates without worrying about such trivial matters. If TV schedules are the problem here, cricket merely needs to be given a larger window to allow for games which run "over time".

 

[Pup Clarke]

If it doesn't, then clearly we need to have something even more draconian.

Ten-game bans maybe?

Would I be stupid enough to suggest that even after a ban of how many matches cricketers won't try to "cheat" or "con" to gain an advantage?. If they knew they wouldn't get caught I'm sure some would try it especially if they are known as offenders (eg Shahid Afridi scuffing up the pitch)

How do we know players won't try these tactics again?

 

[Pup Clarke]

It does still exist, and always will - and those who don't believe in adhering to it have no right to be playing the game IMO. Sportsmanship > winning. It'll always enhance your legacy far more to do both than one without the other.

AWTA with what you are saying as when I play cricket I feel like you that sportmanship>winning but as I say it's naive to suggest that the minds of international cricketers work this way.

 

[silentstriker]

So every single person ever to play in the last 40 years (or whatever) has exhibited this?

Enough have to render the whole idea impotent.

 

[Richard]

AWTA with what you are saying as when I play cricket I feel like you that sportmanship>winning but as I say it's naive to suggest that the minds of international cricketers work this way.

Oh, it'd be naive to suggest they all work that way, but we've seen more than enough evidence in recent times that there are still plenty that do. That simply needs to be encouraged.

 

[Richard]

Enough have to render the whole idea impotent.

Not even close. It'd need every single person to play, and watch, the game to exhibit disdain for the idea to become impotent.

 

[Richard]

Would I be stupid enough to suggest that even after a ban of how many matches cricketers won't try to "cheat" or "con" to gain an advantage?. If they knew they wouldn't get caught I'm sure some would try it especially if they are known as offenders (eg Shahid Afridi scuffing up the pitch)

How do we know players won't try these tactics again?

Oh, if they think they can get away with it, certainly I'm sure people will continue to try and cheat. But you can only ever ban those you catch and put in place measures that catch as many cheaters as it's possible to catch. No more can be done.

 

[Richard]

Well why don't we just extend the scheduled time allotted for an ODI then? With all these cases of slow over-rates, the time allotted obviously doesn't reflect the normal time required to get through all the overs.

I really hate seeing "over-rate" cricket with bowlers -,sometimes not even the bowlers the captains would have on otherwise - trying hard to race through overs to fit in with the schedule. It adds an unattractive, totally unnecessary variable to proceedings.

They may be able to get through the overs in that time if they put in extra effort to do so, but I really think captains have enough on their plates without worrying about such trivial matters. If TV schedules are the problem here, cricket merely needs to be given a larger window to allow for games which run "over time".

Yep, that'd be the ideal solution. Maybe over-rate expectations are unreasonable as things currently stand, and that's something that could be looked at. But there simply HAS to be some sort of cut-off time where someone is punished, severely, if they fail to adhere to it.

 

[Son Of Coco]

Haven't NZ and England been playing each other for almost six months? I'm surprised something hasn't kicked off sooner. They're probably just trying to piss each other off out of sheer boredom.

 

[silentstriker]

Not even close. It'd need every single person to play, and watch, the game to exhibit disdain for the idea to become impotent.

What can I say - I completely disagree. And that ignores the notion that even if it were being followed, that doesn't mean it should. One of the many debacles I'd get myself into if I were in charge of a cricket organization is to sack the captain if he lost a game on the basis of "sportsmanship".

 

[Richard]

Yeah, and you'd be in a tiny minority there. Possibly it's the Yank influence, but again possibly not, as I'm sure not all those in the US of A sport that sort of attitude.

In most of the rest of the countries of this Earth, fair play > winning. The US of A is an exception.

 

[Son Of Coco]

Elliot is at fault to an extent because it's up to him and him alone to avoid a collision.

But in the outcome where this incident's concerned neither player deliberately tried to run into the other player and neither player managed to avoid the collision (it was next to impossible for Elliot to avoid it without stopping completely) surely the right thing to do is acknowledge the incident and not have the batsman given out. I'm sure watching a replay would have lead Collingwood to do things completely differently at the time.

It's up to the batsman alone to a certain extent. If the bowler ran at the batsman and tackled him then I'm not sure you'd be able to stand behind the 'It's up to you to avoid a collision' argument. At some stage common sense would have to kick in.

 

[Scaly piscine]

That's the thing. I do believe he was trying to avoid Sidebottom, but chose the wrong direction to try and avoid him.

Well I don't think he made much of an effort as I say, ran as normal except for the last stride.

Putting another way I think he could have done a lot more to get out of the way than he did.

 

[Prince EWS]

Yeah, and you'd be in a tiny minority there. Possibly it's the Yank influence, but again possibly not, as I'm sure not all those in the US of A sport that sort of attitude.

In most of the rest of the countries of this Earth, fair play > winning. The US of A is an exception.

I disagree. At a professional level, of sports I've followed to a semi-serious degree, only cricket attempts to maintain this.

A few months ago in a thread here I tried to compare claiming a catch which has not carried to a number of different things in other sports. The conclusion I came to was that cricket was different at a fundamental level. Take rugby league for example - a sport created in England and not played at any serious level in America. Cheating is not only accepted but applauded: if you can get your hands in the ruck and rake out the ball without the referee noticing, you're a hero. If you can stand two metres offside in the ref's blind spot and put a massive hit on your opposing number, your fans will cheer your name and wax lyrical about the great play. This sport has nothing to do with America at all but holds the same values you claim are unique to the country.

The spirit of cricket is a concept unique in professional sport. Whether it should exist up for some debate, but it's not a case of only American sports not carrying it through. Personally, I like it - the spirit of cricket is one of the deepest roots into cricket's history and one of its longest lasting traditions - it's part of what makes the game what it is and the fact that it is survived up until now is a credit to the game and its followers. I do, however, think it is on its last legs as there are already several exceptions which are seemingly just accepted and that list seems to be slowly growing. AFAIC, not walking when you know you've hit it is against the spirit of cricket. I can understand why batsmen do not walk and I don't disrespect them for it - I don't even walk myself - but it doesn't fit in with those traditional set of values. By extension, appealing when a batsman does not work is against the spirit of cricket, as is even appealing for an lbw you wouldn't give out yourself (at an absolute stretch, admittedly). These morally questionable run outs and claimed catches are the next step up but they'll soon become the norm. At an age of fully professional sports with so very much at stake all the time, the spirit of cricket will take a back seat.

 

[The_Bunny]

Yeah, and you'd be in a tiny minority there. Possibly it's the Yank influence, but again possibly not, as I'm sure not all those in the US of A sport that sort of attitude.

In most of the rest of the countries of this Earth, fair play > winning. The US of A is an exception.

Haha your joking surely.