When Will England Ever Win A World Cup?

[aussie_beater]

So deliberately slowing the over rate to prevent 2 batsmen who were hitting it all over the place from facing their full complement of overs is not cheating then?

No. Its called tactics/strategy.There was no deceit or fraud involved there.So stop calling it cheating....Geez !

No one is accusing England of cheating either.SA had a clear opportunity to win the match and were denied that by the rain rule.Same goes for the England-Pak match in that world cup and the India-Aus match as well.

As you are an England fan, your opinion of that match is biased which is normal.I think almost everyone else, other then Eng fans, who saw that match thought it was SA who should have won it.

[Edited on 9/16/02 by aussie_beater]

 

[onemangang]

I completely agree with Aussie-beater!

 

[marc71178]

No. Its called tactics/strategy.There was no deceit or fraud involved there.So stop calling it cheating....Geez !

Definition of cheat as per the Dictionary:

1. To deceive by trickery; swindle:
2. To deprive by trickery; defraud:
3. To mislead; fool:
4. To elude; escape:
5. To act dishonestly; practice fraud.
6. To violate rules deliberately, as in a game:
7. (Informal.) To be ***ually unfaithful:

Now to me, Their actions satisfy 1, 2, 5 and 6 of the above.

Face the facts, they were being hammered around so DELIBERATELY slowed the over rate down to prevent England gaining full advantage of their 50 overs. That to me isn't tactics or strategy, it's CHEATING. Same as all the bowlers who claim edges they know didn't happen - no other word for it but cheating.

At the end of the day, not a lot was said about it because they didn't win, but ad they done, are you saying England wouldn't have a right to feel aggreived?

 

[marc71178]

No one is accusing England of cheating either.SA had a clear opportunity to win the match and were denied that by the rain rule.Same goes for the England-Pak match in that world cup and the India-Aus match as well.

The Egland Pakistan is a different matter as the match was abandond owing to rain.

 

[marc71178]

As you are an England fan, your opinion of that match is biased which is normal.I think almost everyone else, other then Eng fans, who saw that match thought it was SA who should have won it.

Actually I remember very well listening to the game, and I thought how lucky England were (because at the time the missing 5 overs wasn't an issue) - it was only when I checked the scorecard to find out exactly what had happened that I realised the 5 overs had been lost. At that point I formed the eiw that SA couldn't moan too hardly after their "tactics" earlier in the day.

My other point also stands that the captaincy was poor by SA in deciding to field first when they knew the weather was forecast to be bad and that the rain rule penalised the team batting second a great deal.

 

[aussie_beater]

Definition of cheat as per the Dictionary:

1. To deceive by trickery; swindle:
2. To deprive by trickery; defraud:
3. To mislead; fool:
4. To elude; escape:
5. To act dishonestly; practice fraud.
6. To violate rules deliberately, as in a game:
7. (Informal.) To be ***ually unfaithful:

Now to me, Their actions satisfy 1, 2, 5 and 6 of the above.

None of it was trickery or fraud or deceit because England knew all along that the over rate was slow and there was no way that the full quota of overs could have been bowled.It was not that something got revealed suddenly to them.Your argument reeks of bias and irrational rant.Its the most outrageous thing that I have heard about that match.England trying to act as the victims.....Laughable to say the least !! Get your bearings and talk sense, pal.

Face the facts, they were being hammered around so DELIBERATELY slowed the over rate down to prevent England gaining full advantage of their 50 overs. That to me isn't tactics or strategy, it's CHEATING.

I have seen that match live from start to finish.The over rate was slow and it was obvious that the full quota of overs were never going to be bowled.The England players realised this and stepped up the tempo a little bit towards the end.To call it trickery and that SA pulled a fast one on them is outrageous to say the least.

At the end of the day, not a lot was said about it because they didn't win, but ad they done, are you saying England wouldn't have a right to feel aggreived?

Don't try to put stupid hypotheses.See what happened as a fact and comment on that.I don't give a rat's whisker about what would or could have happened.What happened was very straight forward.SA lost the match that they did not deserve to lose due to some stupid rain rule.And your idiotic arguments aren't gonna convince anybody that England was the victim in all these.Save it, dude.

I don't know if there is any SA fan here.I would really like to hear their viewpoint.

[Edited on 9/17/02 by aussie_beater]

 

[marc71178]

Definition of cheat as per the Dictionary:

1. To deceive by trickery; swindle:
2. To deprive by trickery; defraud:
3. To mislead; fool:
4. To elude; escape:
5. To act dishonestly; practice fraud.
6. To violate rules deliberately, as in a game:
7. (Informal.) To be ***ually unfaithful:

Now to me, Their actions satisfy 1, 2, 5 and 6 of the above.

None of it was trickery or fraud or deceit because England knew all along that the over rate was slow and there was no way that the full quota of overs could have been bowled.It was not that something got revealed suddenly to them.Your argument reeks of bias and irrational rant.Its the most outrageous thing that I have heard about that match.England trying to act as the victims.....Laughable to say the least !! Get your bearings and talk sense, pal.

Erm South Africa decided to use that policy, which, no matter which way you look at it, was illegal. Inthat case I have less sympathy for them than if they'd played to the rules and been hit by the rain.

 

[marc71178]

Don't try to put stupid hypotheses.See what happened as a fact and comment on that.I don't give a rat's whisker about what would or could have happened.What happened was very straight forward.SA lost the match that they did not deserve to lose due to some stupid rain rule.And your idiotic arguments aren't gonna convince anybody that England was the victim in all these.Save it, dude.

What makes you so sure they didn't deserve to lose.

I state again that 23 off 13 balls is not an easy ask under that pressure.

I also note you haven't countered my comments regarding poor captaincy - why's that?

 

[henochschon]

The proteas were indeed cheated of a final birth in the '92 WC. In the match against England, SA required 22 off 13 balls, that is less than 2 runs per ball.SA had 4 wkts in hand and the batters on pitch were McMillan and Richardson, both were batting very well in that match.Unfortunately Rain disrupted the match and the dumb rules left the Africans to score 22 runs of a single ball!

As for pressure, well it wasn't just on Proteas , it was on England too.I would say that SA would had made it to the finals ,indeed SA would have been a better finalists.

 

[marc71178]

Doesn't change the fact that they chose to bat second, and knew what the rules were before the game started, and also knew that rain was likely at some point in the game.

 

[aussie_beater]

What makes you so sure they didn't deserve to lose.

Nothing is sure in cricket.But the target was very much within striking distance.Any ODI watcher knows that much.The target was 22 off 13 balls which was quite achievable given the way McMillan and Richardson were batting at that point.They were in complete control of the situation.

I state again that 23 off 13 balls is not an easy ask under that pressure.

No one is saying it was an easy task.But scoring 22 of 13 balls is not considered any great shakes in ODIs.I guess you know that much about ODIs.An SA win looked pretty much a possibility if you were watching the match that day.And suddenly everything was over.

I also note you haven't countered my comments regarding poor captaincy - why's that?

Yes maybe that was not a good decision, but again this rain rule was so new that captains were not really used to it and had not made adjustments in their thought process to take it into consideration at every stage of a game.It happened throughout that world cup.The point is that SA had made up for most of any disadvantage that they may have faced due to putting England in first, but could not have anticipated what happened later.

If you know the history of Duckworth Lewis rule being the universal rain rule now, you would know that one of the main reasons for it was the SA defeat in WC'92.Every sane person in the world agrees to that, except perhaps some deluded English fans.

 

[aussie_beater]

Doesn't change the fact that they chose to bat second, and knew what the rules were before the game started, and also knew that rain was likely at some point in the game.

And nothing changes the fact that SA lost the game not to the English but to the rain rule.

[Edited on 9/17/02 by aussie_beater]

 

[henochschon]

Doesn't change the fact that they chose to bat second, and knew what the rules were before the game started, and also knew that rain was likely at some point in the game.

Proteas wanted to chase,had England won the toss they would have probably batted second too.All the teams must have been aware of the rule but must not have realised would would the dumb rules would lead to.

22 runs of 13 balls were certainly possible, especially when two set batters were on the wkt, SA were indeed unfortunate in that match

 

[Anil]

If the current rules were in place at the time, it probably would have been an easy England victory. Under the rules which actually existed, SA had a fair chance to win which was denied them by the rain rule. Slow over rates was not a tactic employed only by SA, several other teams have used it when it suited them. If that can be termed cheating, most of the teams have been guilty of it in one game or the other, either in tests or one dayers or both.

[Edited on 9/17/02 by anilramavarma]

 

[marc71178]

Proteas wanted to chase,had England won the toss they would have probably batted second too.All the teams must have been aware of the rule but must not have realised would would the dumb rules would lead to.

But they were aware of the ramifications by the semi-final stage - as proven by the unluck Indian defeat in the group stages.

 

[marc71178]

And nothing changes the fact that SA lost the game not to the English but to the rain rule.

And that statement cannot be 100% true because we do not know what would have happened had they had the extra 2 overs - it is nowhere near guaranteed that either team would have won it from that position.

 

[marc71178]

If you know the history of Duckworth Lewis rule being the universal rain rule now, you would know that one of the main reasons for it was the SA defeat in WC'92.Every sane person in the world agrees to that, except perhaps some deluded English fans.

I know that, and have never disputed the fact that the rain rule was stupid, I was merely pointing out that the South African's could not feel that sorry for themselves owing to other incidents in that game.

 

[aussie_beater]

And nothing changes the fact that SA lost the game not to the English but to the rain rule.

And that statement cannot be 100% true because we do not know what would have happened had they had the extra 2 overs - it is nowhere near guaranteed that either team would have won it from that position.

Nothing in cricket can be 100 % true till the event is played out.The unfortunate thing about that match was that it was not cricket that determined the winner but some extraneous elements.That's why we are talking about it even today after ten long years.

 

[Neil Pickup]

And as such you cannot say

"SA were denied victory"

However you can say

"SA were denied the chance to go for a victory in what would have been a very tense and exciting final two overs of the match."

Anyone fancy finding some D/L tables and working out who would have won?

 

[aussie_beater]

And as such you cannot say

"SA were denied victory"

And I did not ever say that in this whole thread.

I said "SA had a clear opportunity to win the match and were denied that byt the rain rule" See the difference ?? I am referring to the opportunity being denied and not the victory.

However you can say

"SA were denied the chance to go for a victory in what would have been a very tense and exciting final two overs of the match."

That's what everyone's(except some deluded Eng fans) been saying here.


[Edited on 9/17/02 by aussie_beater]