Tardy over rates in the Ashes

[Slow Love™]

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, 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....

I agree.

FWIW, I consider Ganguly (over-rates aside) to be in the mould of Ian Chappell. Hell, he did his share of time-wasting, too.

The claims of Asian bias in some ways are very perplexing, particularly when you look at various disciplinary inconsistencies over the years - both as to how they're charged, and what the penalties are. I find it hard to believe on that count.

But further from this, there has been a re-configuration of interests within the ICC. Partly by the introduction of new test-playing countries, but also because of the changing world. South Africa and Zimbabwe for example, used to cater to "white" interests, and for obvious reasons, this has dramatically changed. And then, in addition to this, there's the realisation of the extraordinary power of television/sponsorship etc, in highly populated countries.

In a way, the cries of Asian bias mimic other realms of public life - like for example, those that cry that black people/women etc now have all the power, and that the pendulum has swung too far the other way - traditional complaints tied to more equitible circumstances for those with previously limited power. Dunno - it's all a bit depressing in a way though, to think that all these interests in world cricket are still so tied to ethnicity and culture. It was interesting to hear though (even if it was only rumor) that there was a group of member representatives prepared to vote against Zimbabwe's test status during Australia's last tour that apparently included South Africa and India. Don't know if it was true though.

Mind you, I still think the organization, at least in terms of it's public heirarchy, largely sucks.

 

[Slow Love™]

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 ?

Well, I've had the "touring Zimbabwe" debate multiple times, so I won't repeat myself.... BUT:

When somebody says "well, what's going on in Zimbabwe is outrageous, but I don't see the point in boycotting Zimbabwe" or, "I don't think a cricket tour specifically will make a difference", OK, that's a point of view (even if it's one I disagree with).

But the ICC has gone further than that. They have assured us that there is nothing wrong with Zimbabwe cricket, and that the ZCU is not being operated by Mugabe's stooges with a specific political agenda, when it is obvious to ALL of us that this isn't true.

To be honest though, I think that some of the motivation for the criticism of these countries isn't really about hypocrisy so much. I think there's far too much of a joy at the colonial powers getting their comeuppance (the schadenfreude I mentioned earlier). I could be wrong though. Yes, it would be far more desirable for the countries not wanting to tour not hosting Zimbabwe in the first place. However, it would be even more desirable if all the countries on the ICC would express the same reservations about Zimbabwe and it's cricket.

IMO.

 

[Anil]

I agree.

FWIW, I consider Ganguly (over-rates aside) to be in the mould of Ian Chappell. Hell, he did his share of time-wasting, too.

The claims of Asian bias in some ways are very perplexing, particularly when you look at various disciplinary inconsistencies over the years - both as to how they're charged, and what the penalties are. I find it hard to believe on that count.

But further from this, there has been a re-configuration of interests within the ICC. Partly by the introduction of new test-playing countries, but also because of the changing world. South Africa and Zimbabwe for example, used to cater to "white" interests, and for obvious reasons, this has dramatically changed. And then, in addition to this, there's the realisation of the extraordinary power of television/sponsorship etc, in highly populated countries.

In a way, the cries of Asian bias mimic other realms of public life - like for example, those that cry that black people/women etc now have all the power, and that the pendulum has swung too far the other way - traditional complaints tied to more equitible circumstances for those with previously limited power. Dunno - it's all a bit depressing in a way though, to think that all these interests in world cricket are still so tied to ethnicity and culture. It was interesting to hear though (even if it was only rumor) that there was a group of member representatives prepared to vote against Zimbabwe's test status during Australia's last tour that apparently included South Africa and India. Don't know if it was true though.

Mind you, I still think the organization, at least in terms of it's public heirarchy, largely sucks.

yeah you've got that right....the europeans who were used to holding sway suddenly find asians at the helm and having a big say in cricketing affairs and they are distinctly uncomfortable with that and that expresses itself in outpourings about asian bias...

 

[C_C]

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.

Incorrect.
The limits set cannot be due to pure arm-speeds.
For one, Murali is on record to generate a higher arm speed than McGrath. So why should his armspeed be restricted ?
For two, bowlers have different armspeeds for different balls and it is too complex to monitor.
An offcutter is of different armspeed than a bouncer. Same with a floater and a big ripper.
When everyone flexes, victimising Murali is WRONG.

 

[C_C]

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.

England were not threatened unfairly. I have no problems if England refuses to HOST AND VISIT zimbabwe.
But is simply smacks of hypcorasy to invite zimbabwe for cricket and generate $$ but not do the same back for zimbabwe.
And the last comparison is complete tosh ? Pray tell how ?
If wide rumour-mongering from disgruntled media outlets and one man's confession to have tampered with the ball in FIRST CLASS matches is enough to extend it towards the whole team and in all forms of sport, then wide rumour-mongering and one man's doping incident is enough to extend doping accusations towards the whole team.
Thats being fair, wouldnt you say ?

 

[C_C]

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.

Err even if it was at the end of Marshall's career( it was late 80s when the change occured), ohw does it affect England and Australia the most ?
Who did England and Australia have back then apart from a long over the hill Botham, mediocre Fraser and wayward Malcolm ? Who did Australia have apart from some dogged bowlers like McDermott and Hughes ?
It affected West Indies the most- they had unquestionably the best pace attack - Curtley Ambrose and Ian Bishop in their prime, with Walsh maturing and Patrick Patterson, who was a sort of 'bouncer specialist'.
Only Pakistan can claim to've been affected anywhere as much as West Indies and definately not Australia and England.

As per regarding the law change, IIRC, they changed the law pertaining to deliveries pitching outside leg stump- before you could be out to that, after that, you couldnt be.

 

[archie mac]

Err even if it was at the end of Marshall's career( it was late 80s when the change occured), ohw does it affect England and Australia the most ?
Who did England and Australia have back then apart from a long over the hill Botham, mediocre Fraser and wayward Malcolm ? Who did Australia have apart from some dogged bowlers like McDermott and Hughes ?
It affected West Indies the most- they had unquestionably the best pace attack - Curtley Ambrose and Ian Bishop in their prime, with Walsh maturing and Patrick Patterson, who was a sort of 'bouncer specialist'.
Only Pakistan can claim to've been affected anywhere as much as West Indies and definately not Australia and England.

As per regarding the law change, IIRC, they changed the law pertaining to deliveries pitching outside leg stump- before you could be out to that, after that, you couldnt be.

I meant the Australian and England present sides. As at this moment in time they have the best fast bowling attacks. I was just making the point they have not changed the law to now help their own attacks.

I don't think batsman have ever been able to be dismissed for a ball pitching out side leg in the history of Test Cricket. I may be wrong but I can't remember ever reading that.

 

[Craig]

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.

Or could it be that Lee doesn't chuck?

Hey I never knew you were an expert on the subject (then you again you like to moan that anybody is black is always the unfair targeted party and your mate Sanz is no better).

IMO you are going on like a broken record.

 

[Scaly piscine]

England were not threatened unfairly. I have no problems if England refuses to HOST AND VISIT zimbabwe.
But is simply smacks of hypcorasy to invite zimbabwe for cricket and generate $$ but not do the same back for zimbabwe.
And the last comparison is complete tosh ? Pray tell how ?
If wide rumour-mongering from disgruntled media outlets and one man's confession to have tampered with the ball in FIRST CLASS matches is enough to extend it towards the whole team and in all forms of sport, then wide rumour-mongering and one man's doping incident is enough to extend doping accusations towards the whole team.
Thats being fair, wouldnt you say ?

If England hadn't invited Zimbabwe over at some point they'd have got threatened by the ICC for that as well. The threats also went well beyond compensation for the Zimbabwe side. Also the ball tampering was nothing to do with rumours, I remember the last tour this country made - they were shown picking the seam against England and it was all swept under the carpet.

 

[Scaly piscine]

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.

No, it isn't - Murali flexes more than McGrath.

 

[honestbharani]

No, it isn't - Murali flexes more than McGrath.

do u think the 3 degrees make a big difference?

 

[honestbharani]

Anyways, my position on this issue is that at various points there have been instances of the ICC being biased towards England/Australia/RSA and then there have been points when they have been biased towards the Asian countries. I don't think we can generalize it all. With most on field events, I think there is a pro-England/Aussie bias and with most off field events, there is a pro-Asian bias. And this is why the ICC, much like the BCCI, sucks.

 

[Sanz]

Or could it be that Lee doesn't chuck?

Hey I never knew you were an expert on the subject (then you again you like to moan that anybody is black is always the unfair targeted party and your mate Sanz is no better).

IMO you are going on like a broken record.

And you are actualy worse than scaly piscine. Truth hurts, doesn't it ??

 

[Scaly piscine]

And you are actualy worse than scaly piscine. Truth hurts, doesn't it ??

You're a true idiot, shame you haven't been banned *yet* (god knows you've tried by calling everyone a racist in off topic), but welcome to the ignore list.

 

[King_Ponting]

You're a true idiot, shame you haven't been banned *yet* (god knows you've tried by calling everyone a racist in off topic), but welcome to the ignore list.

good call mate, might have to do that myself.

 

[Scaly piscine]

do u think the 3 degrees make a big difference?

Yes I do, the way I see it is you have a certain amount of uncontrollable flex which is caused by the arm speed, so anything above this I'd say is controllable and something the bowlers should be looking to get rid of.

I've no idea whether that figure you quote is accurate by the way.

 

[luckyeddie]

do u think the 3 degrees make a big difference?

Made a hell of a difference.

Got to number 1 with "When will I see you again?"

 

[luckyeddie]

And you are actualy worse than scaly piscine. Truth hurts, doesn't it ??

Someone ban this clown.

 

[Sanz]

Someone ban this clown.

The only clown here is you.

 

[Sanz]

You're a true idiot, shame you haven't been banned *yet* (god knows you've tried by calling everyone a racist in off topic), but welcome to the ignore list.

I am not the one who keeps crying about ASIAN BIAS at every given opportunity. As for the Ignore List, all I can say is