Tardy over rates in the Ashes

[C_C]

The ICC has a history of stuffing England as much as they possibly can and has an obvious Asian bias - the ICC themselves have pretty much admitted to this.

Yeah, which is why the ICC's predecessor promptly changed the rules when Sonny Ramadhin and Alf Valentine bamboozled the english batsmen in THAT tour of England.
Which is why when Lillee and Thommo sent bouncers after bouncers that sailed miles over the batsmen's head, it was okay and 'proper aggro' but when the WI did the very same thing with a higher level of success, it was suddenly 'unfair' and banned.
Which is why when Hall elbows Youhana and they have words, both are fined but when Matty has some words with Jones because of Jones's needling, nobody gets fined.
I suppose that is why ICC and Wisden and various other ango-based cricket authorities engage in smear-campaign against Dalmiya, despite the fact that Dalmiya vaulted cricket into a global sport and showed those sorry sods in Lords how to actually make cricket a financially lucrative sport.
Yes, asian bias indeed.

 

[Anil]

i have heard lots of claims of asian bias on icc's part, does anyone have any concrete examples like what cc provided for the opposite view? i would be interested to know how that impression came about...??

 

[Scaly piscine]

I meant a recent history, who gives a crap about 70 years ago - look at the way England were threatened over playing Zimbabwe. Or the way a certain country has repeatedly gotten away with tampering with the ball.

 

[archie mac]

i have heard lots of claims of asian bias on icc's part, does anyone have any concrete examples like what cc provided for the opposite view? i would be interested to know how that impression came about...??

What examples? They changed the bouncer rule, long after the WI fast bowling dominance had began to wane.

What law was changed to stop 'those little pals of mine' (more info please).

And dare I mention it, they bent over backwards to allow Murali to keep bowling. Also when a certain fast bowler was suspended for chucking, he was allowed to keep playing in the ODI.

 

[C_C]

I meant a recent history, who gives a crap about 70 years ago - look at the way England were threatened over playing Zimbabwe. Or the way a certain country has repeatedly gotten away with tampering with the ball.

Well if you dont give a crap of what happened 70 years ago, why do you give a crap over what happened 10 years ago ?
And England were threatened over playing Zimbabwe and legitimately so.
As per ball tampering, oh please. Saying that a 'certain nation has gotten away with tampering the ball' is like saying 'a certain nation has gotten away with extensive steroid and doping abuse'.

 

[Shane Warne]

Also when a certain fast bowler was suspended for chucking, he was allowed to keep playing in the ODI.

Who was that again?

 

[C_C]

What examples? They changed the bouncer rule, long after the WI fast bowling dominance had began to wane.

What law was changed to stop 'those little pals of mine' (more info please).

And dare I mention it, they bent over backwards to allow Murali to keep bowling. Also when a certain fast bowler was suspended for chucking, he was allowed to keep playing in the ODI.

Yes, indeed. Marshall, Ambrose, Walsh, Bishop(Mk-I) and Patterson were all 'waning prowess of WI pace bowling'.
While they are regarded to be a slightly inferior bunch in terms of quality to Croft-Holding-Garner-Marshall-Roberts, they were still very much capable of pinging away the batsman and in those days, Pakistan was the only one who could challenge them in terms of bowling prowess.

As per what laws were changed, check the lbw law ammendment right after 'those lil pals of mine' terrorised the english batsmen.

And dare i mention it, ICC was pressurised to the hilt to ban Murali's legitimate bowling credentials.
And a certain blonde express bowler was never made to go through the biomechanists and various other process and has been never called by umpires for chucking when it is avidly clear that his bowling is no less 'suspect' than a certain long haired brown pace bowler.

 

[C_C]

Who was that again?

Akhtar.

 

[Shane Warne]

Akhtar.

Oh yah.

 

[Scaly piscine]

Well if you dont give a crap of what happened 70 years ago, why do you give a crap over what happened 10 years ago ?
And England were threatened over playing Zimbabwe and legitimately so.
As per ball tampering, oh please. Saying that a 'certain nation has gotten away with tampering the ball' is like saying 'a certain nation has gotten away with extensive steroid and doping abuse'.

Fairly obvious why 10 years ago is far more relevant than 70 years ago. England were unfairly threatened and were the scapegoat for the ICC's awful handling of Zimbabwe. And that last comparison is complete tosh.

 

[Scaly piscine]

And dare i mention it, ICC was pressurised to the hilt to ban Murali's legitimate bowling credentials.

They're only 'legitimate' because the ICC decided to scrap any sort of stepped limit for different bowling speeds - the limits should have been related to arm speeds, but this would have made it very difficult to keep Murali 'legitimate' and for the rules to have any credibility at the same time - so they sacrificed credibility in the end.

 

[Dasa]

They're only 'legitimate' because the ICC decided to scrap any sort of stepped limit for different bowling speeds - the limits should have been related to arm speeds, but this would have made it very difficult to keep Murali 'legitimate' and for the rules to have any credibility at the same time - so they sacrificed credibility in the end.

What are you on about? Arm speeds? I think you'd find Murali's arm speed would be up there with someone like McGrath, so your point is irrelevant.
I think it's obvious that historically, the ICC has had a bias against Asian (or non-white) nations - it makes sense, it was formed out of an imperialist organisation and would naturally be expected to have a bias, not that it's right, of course.

 

[archie mac]

Yes, indeed. Marshall, Ambrose, Walsh, Bishop(Mk-I) and Patterson were all 'waning prowess of WI pace bowling'.
While they are regarded to be a slightly inferior bunch in terms of quality to Croft-Holding-Garner-Marshall-Roberts, they were still very much capable of pinging away the batsman and in those days, Pakistan was the only one who could challenge them in terms of bowling prowess.

As per what laws were changed, check the lbw law ammendment right after 'those lil pals of mine' terrorised the english batsmen.

And dare i mention it, ICC was pressurised to the hilt to ban Murali's legitimate bowling credentials.
And a certain blonde express bowler was never made to go through the biomechanists and various other process and has been never called by umpires for chucking when it is avidly clear that his bowling is no less 'suspect' than a certain long haired brown pace bowler.

I think it was towards the end of that great bowlers career (Marshall) at the moment I would say the law would effect England and Australia most.

What change was made to the LBW law? I remember a major one in the mid 30s but not until they changed the law to not offering a stroke to a ball pitched out side off, can I think of another major change? This latest law would have helped those two great bowlers, and would have stopped May and Cowdrey padding up outside off stump, during their famous stand.

Lets not open out wounds re-does he or does he not chuck. I have other examples, as I am sure you have. I think they make rule changes to try and help Cricket. They just don't always get them right.

 

[Sanz]

I meant a recent history, who gives a crap about 70 years ago

1965 wasn't 70 years ago.

look at the way England were threatened over playing Zimbabwe.

Didn't know Zimbabwe were an Asian Country. Thanks for the Geography Lesson.

Or the way a certain country has repeatedly gotten away with tampering with the ball.

ahh when they did it, it was ball tampering, when you do it is 'Reverse Swing' . As far as I know I once saw an english Captain tampering with the ball at the Mecca of Cricket and he got away with it. .

 

[vic_orthdox]

Tit.

Tat.

Let's keep it away from this, shall we?

 

[Slow Love™]

i have heard lots of claims of asian bias on icc's part, does anyone have any concrete examples like what cc provided for the opposite view? i would be interested to know how that impression came about...??

Firstly from the hooplah about Murali's action and their failure to "stamp him out of the game". I consider this a completely illegitimate criticism though, and I think it's superior technology that has led us to question the chucking issue so extensively (the discovery that just about every bowler in the game has some degree of straightening of the arm, for a start).

The other source for the impression comes from the lips of Ehsan Mani, when he said "The ICC IS Asia". Which was a very poor comment and speaks volumes for his poor attitude concerning Zimbabwe. The reason this is relevant is because the Asian countries see no problem with touring Zimbabwe, and the split in attitudes on this has led to some schadenfreude directed towards the non-Asian countries that express reservations about going there.

None of this really substantiates an institutional "asian bias" though, and I don't think there's much of a basis on which to rest that claim. I guess you have a situation where the Asian countries have formed a bloc of similar interest, but of course, over many years, that's exactly what you had before amongst the (dominantly) white countries, so it's just an evening up of the scale. For the first time, they feel like they have some power in terms of global cricket negotiations. Why shouldn't they?

On the specific subject of this thread though - although Ganguly's whining is stupid, IMO, because he definitely most egregiously violates the over-rate stipulations and deliberately wastes time (and so deserves to be punished most severely), it IS the case that some of these tardy efforts by other captains aren't being punished perhaps as they should be, for consistency's sake. So let's be more consistent, match referees.

 

[Sanz]

look at the way England were threatened over playing Zimbabwe.

I thought England Invited Zimbabwe to play in Natwest Series, No ??

 

[Anil]

I think they make rule changes to try and help Cricket. They just don't always get them right.

sure, sure...it's always out of the goodness of their heart...are you really that naive or is it just more convenient to believe that? the classic example of a rule change to benefit the european nations was the change from grass hockey to astroturf hockey and changed rules to make the game more physical and less dependent on dribbling skills essentially to counter and negate indian(especially) and pakistani dominance in the sport...knowing very well that they would take a long time to conjure up the monetary resources to train and play consistently on astroturf and acquire the physical attributes to challenge super-fit european and australian teams....

 

[Anil]

Firstly from the hooplah about Murali's action and their failure to "stamp him out of the game". I consider this a completely illegitimate criticism though, and I think it's superior technology that has led us to question the chucking issue so extensively (the discovery that just about every bowler in the game has some degree of straightening of the arm, for a start).

The other source for the impression comes from the lips of Ehsan Mani, when he said "The ICC IS Asia". Which was a very poor comment and speaks volumes for his poor attitude concerning Zimbabwe. The reason this is relevant is because the Asian countries see no problem with touring Zimbabwe, and the split in attitudes on this has led to some schadenfreude directed towards the non-Asian countries that express reservations about going there.

None of this really substantiates an institutional "asian bias" though, and I don't think there's much of a basis on which to rest that claim. I guess you have a situation where the Asian countries have formed a bloc of similar interest, but of course, over many years, that's exactly what you had before amongst the (dominantly) white countries, so it's just an evening up of the scale. For the first time, they feel like they have some power in terms of global cricket negotiations. Why shouldn't they?

On the specific subject of this thread though - although Ganguly's whining is stupid, IMO, because he definitely most egregiously violates the over-rate stipulations and deliberately wastes time (and so deserves to be punished most severely), it IS the case that some of these tardy efforts by other captains aren't being punished perhaps as they should be, for consistency's sake. So let's be more consistent, match referees.

thanks for the balanced view, it's not that asian nations should be let off lightly for their offences, it's just that all cricketing nations should be treated the same, that's all...and the murali chucking debate just revealed that almost all bowlers chuck so there is really no evidence of any preferential treatment there....

i am no great admirer of ganguly but when he makes aggressive in-the-face comments or adopts that attitude, he is dismissed as an arrogant ***** but when steve waugh and key members of the aussie team makes snide remarks and insults their opponents prior to and during every series, it is given the fancy term "mental disintegration" and all of a sudden it is a legit technique used in cricket to gain ascendancy over the opposition....and this sort of attitude has umpteen examples in every facet of life, not just cricket....

 

[Sanz]

The other source for the impression comes from the lips of Ehsan Mani, when he said "The ICC IS Asia". Which was a very poor comment and speaks volumes for his poor attitude concerning Zimbabwe. The reason this is relevant is because the Asian countries see no problem with touring Zimbabwe, and the split in attitudes on this has led to some schadenfreude directed towards the non-Asian countries that express reservations about going there.

I really dont have a problem If England/NZ/Aus or for that matter any other country doesn't want to play Zimbabwe, What I despise is the hypocrisy some of the countries display. They invite Zimbabwe to play in their country, earn revenues but when it is their turn to oblige Zimbabwe with a reciprocatory tour, they start talking about Morality.

Indian board hasn't really done anything because Indian govt has still maintained diplomatic relations with Zimbabwe. Indian Goct doesn't think the situation is that worse (I disagree though) to boycott Zim. So Why single out cricket tours ?