Which cricket player performs/performed best under pressure?

[Slow Love™]

Exactly 100% spot on the mark.

Thanks mate, I'm glad you agree. My father stopped following the cricket after the Cronje scandal. He just couldn't trust that it was real anymore. The matchfixing crisis was probably the worst thing that ever happened to the sport, and what Cronje (and some others) did had the potential to kill international cricket.

Anyhow, apologies to anybody irritated at the thread diverting off-topic. I've said all I'll say on it, unless somebody happens to make a new thread on the issue.

 

[Mr Casson]

Respect is something you earn. It is not a right, not even in death. I think that Cronje did many things worthy of respect, but he blew it with the match-fixing scandal and will get no respect from me. He was scum.

 

[Mr. P]

id also like to say that at least 9/10th of the people in the world today would, if a bookie offered them a very large sum of money to fix one series, take up the offer without hesitation. you and i might not though......

Thank you. Whenever I read your posts, it makes me realise how lucky I am.

Poor bugger...you probably don't understand what im saying at the moment do you?

 

[tooextracool]

Just for a second, think through the ramifications of some of the things you're saying. The fact is that the majority of international cricketers WEREN'T involved in fixing matches or deliberately underperforming, and if you believe otherwise, we might as well not follow the sport.

thats a very naive way of looking at it, just because there are no facts to prove it conclusively enough, it doesnt mean that we can safely say that people werent involved. certainly waugh and warne who have already admitted to have taken money to give bookies information on the pitch etc are quite likely to have, if what latif says is true most of the ***** were involved, we already know conclusively that jadeja, azhar and prabhakar were all involved. many others have been investigated but due to lack of enough evidence no one has been nailed.

We might as well stop arguing over who's better than who, and who's average is better than this player or that player, because none of it would friggin' matter.

no because
a) it was running wild in the 90s, i highly doubt that there was any match fixing before the 80s.
b) it was not as severe around the world as it was in the sub continent. it was also a lot more severe in ODIs than it was in test cricket. i highly doubt that too many tests that were played outside the sub continent were fixed. IMO every ODI match in sharjah in the 90s can be suspected given that it was really the home for the activity. the big tournaments-world cups, icc championships had a few games fixed, many times they were inconsequential though(like pakistan losing to b'desh in 99).

Also, you present Cronje as willingly "paying the price" for his "mistake" (the reality is that there wasn't one singular mistake or moment of weakness - there were a litany of systematic abuses of power). Let's be honest about this guy - after resisting Ali Bacher's attempts to include more black players in the side, he picked the two non-white players in his team at the time, Gibbs and Williams, to recruit to underperform for money. He threatened to sue journalists who alleged he was taking money from Indian bookies. When confronted by irrefutable evidence of his crimes, he told half the truth. He sought immunity from prosecution in exchange for testimony. After being next to useless in this regard (and having the immunity deal withdrawn), he then sought to sell his tell-all story, all juicy details included, to the highest-bidding publisher. As for doing his time, after 18 months out of the game he had the gall to request his life ban be overturned. This isn't a guy saying "I've done wrong, let me serve my penance." If anything, he appeared to see himself as a tragic victim of circumstance, and he presented as if his penalty was far too severe.

all of which were done to cover up the sole mistake he made, certainly all of that counts as the same mistake. i certainly dont know where you get the idea about him willingly involving the non-white players in the event.

I don't have any love for Salim Malik either - but at least that man isn't worshipped in the absurd manner in which Cronje is. Interestingly, in the context of this thread, the president of the Free State board had warned the UCB before he was made captain of the South African team that Cronje was "susceptible under pressure to a degree of irrational behaviour that would not be compatible with the profile required of our national captain". Maybe he was right.

IMO malik has been a lot more involved in match fixing than cronje could even have dreamt off. regardless even despite all of that i still consider malik a very good player, because i can look beyond his mistakes and look at his cricketing ability.

 

[tooextracool]

Thank you. Whenever I read your posts, it makes me realise how lucky I am.

Poor bugger...you probably don't understand what im saying at the moment do you?

im sure you are extremely lucky to be lying in your own pool of ignorance, certainly anyone who cant come to his own opinion but relies solely on what commentators and other people believe must be.

 

[LongHopCassidy]

I don't think making a conscious decision to disgrace the game of cricket is a "mistake".

 

[Pratters]

I don't think making a conscious decision to disgrace the game of cricket is a "mistake".

But that does not mean people can make stupid comments about his death.

 

[LongHopCassidy]

I was just contradicting TEC, which is getting to be a habit.

 

[Slow Love™]

tec - Much of your last post is a dramatic shift from your statements that "9 out of 10 people" would fix a match if offered enough money, and "more than half" of cricketers have been involved, to "some were", which I believe we both already knew (in fact, in this latest reply you seem to be trying to underplay the extent of match-fixing in comparison to your earlier claims). But this, I'll respond to:

all of which were done to cover up the sole mistake he made, certainly all of that counts as the same mistake. i certainly dont know where you get the idea about him willingly involving the non-white players in the event.

I suggest you read what I wrote again - it most certainly is NOT all the "same mistake", nor is all of what he did part of covering up that one mistake. What a feeble argument. And at all times he had the option of coming clean. and later on, having enough contrition to accept the penalty for his actions.

Williams and Gibbs were the two non-white players in the side for the match against India, and they were the two players offered payment by Cronje to underperform in that game. It's very simple. He took advantage of two young, inexperienced players both of whom would be extremely unlikely to challenge his authority.

And as far as recognizing his cricket ability goes, I think what I reacted to here was the fact that the poll seemed to be concerning a player's character, rather than how gifted or skilled a batsman or bowler he was. That a guy like Cronje - who was evasive, corrupt and lied repeatedly when under pressure, whose performances are suspect, and who once threw a stump through an opposing team's dressing room door when a close one got away - was grouped in this poll seemed outrageous to me.

 

[Langeveldt]

Well Hansie was one of my favourite players of all time and when the scandal rocked the cricket world (it all came to light on my birthday ) I couldnt quite believe what I was hearing.. I still didnt believe any of it until he testified at the King commision..

Still, he got what he deserved. He should never have been allowed near international cricket again and to the ICC's credit, they banished him for good, and he was rightly ridiculed in the cricket world... Gibbs served his time as well, and I think he has learnt from it..

I don't pretend that I do have a fair opinion of Hansie because I was so fond of him beforehand... But to give the guy credit he knew that he had a debt that he had to repay to cricket, and he would have to spend the rest of his life doing it.. He did a lot of good work in the townships in the time leading up to his death, and it was a shame he couldn't have carried it on.

Anyway soon I will be learning to fly at the airstrip in the Eastern Cape that claimed one of my hero's lives.. I don't think its going to be particularly easy to live with.. RIP Hansie

 

[tooextracool]

tec - Much of your last post is a dramatic shift from your statements that "9 out of 10 people" would fix a match if offered enough money, and "more than half" of cricketers have been involved, to "some were", which I believe we both already knew (in fact, in this latest reply you seem to be trying to underplay the extent of match-fixing in comparison to your earlier claims). But this, I'll respond to:

actually i said at least half, not more than half which quite a major difference. and no i havent tried to underplay the extent because i do believe that about half the players who played around that time were involved.

I suggest you read what I wrote again - it most certainly is NOT all the "same mistake", nor is all of what he did part of covering up that one mistake. What a feeble argument. And at all times he had the option of coming clean. and later on, having enough contrition to accept the penalty for his actions.

lets examine them shall we?
"He threatened to sue journalists who alleged he was taking money from Indian bookies."
sounds like he was trying to cover it up
"When confronted by irrefutable evidence of his crimes, he told half the truth."
again its the same incident and again he did everything possible to protect his reputation about the same mistake.
"He sought immunity from prosecution in exchange for testimony. After being next to useless in this regard (and having the immunity deal withdrawn), he then sought to sell his tell-all story, all juicy details included, to the highest-bidding publisher."
once again the very same mistake this time he told it all.
obviously anyone who commits one mistake is going to try to back that mistake up, i dont think anyone would just give away all the information as soon as hes suspected.
as far as the ' he had the option of coming clean is concerned' he did exactly that didnt he? i mean theres no reason why he should come clean unless theres conclusive evidence to support that because his reputation would go down the drain anyways.

Williams and Gibbs were the two non-white players in the side for the match against India, and they were the two players offered payment by Cronje to underperform in that game. It's very simple. He took advantage of two young, inexperienced players both of whom would be extremely unlikely to challenge his authority.

this is one of the most ridiculous statments ive ever heard, just because there happened to be 2 non-white players who were involved, it doesnt by any means make your theory in any way right. as far as gibbs being inexperienced is concerned, well he only played 4 years of international cricket before that didnt he?
and im guessing boje is non-white too? or was it just coincidence that he managed to become involved.
how can you be so sure that the players involved werent actually involved because they wanted to rather than being told to by cronje?
and as far as im concerned, about half that side was involved in the whole scandal, kallis too was suspected and investigate. of course the fact that only one of them was caught means that he must be completely disgraced and made jokes about despite the fact that hes probably offered more to cricket than williams and gibbs have. and of course players like gibbs who were known to be involved are still respected.

And as far as recognizing his cricket ability goes, I think what I reacted to here was the fact that the poll seemed to be concerning a player's character, rather than how gifted or skilled a batsman or bowler he was.That a guy like Cronje - who was evasive, corrupt and lied repeatedly when under pressure, whose performances are suspect, and who once threw a stump through an opposing team's dressing room door when a close one got away - was grouped in this poll seemed outrageous to me.

actually the poll concerned who performed better under pressure in cricket not about their personal lives. it can be argued that even thorpe isnt exactly the best person under pressure in real life but does that mean he shouldnt be incuded in this poll despite winning so many games under pressure for england?? or even lara for that matter.
i mean if you can be that shallow to not be able to look beyond what happened in that 1 series between cronje and the bookies and think about the force he made SA cricket today, you might just realised how valuable he really was.
as far as throwing a stump through the dressing room is concerned, i havent heard of that one, regardless even if he did, im sure haydens classy act of breaking the glass of the window in the last ashes should also be considered.

 

[Slow Love™]

actually i said at least half, not more than half which quite a major difference. and no i havent tried to underplay the extent because i do believe that about half the players who played around that time were involved.

This is a great example of why these multiple quote/reply posts are so tedious, when you have to constantly deal with idiosyncratic, made-up "important" distinctions and hair-splitting like "actually i said at least half, not more than half which quite a major difference". It tends to just go on and on until one party can't be bothered anymore. So I'll try and cut to the chase and finalise my point.

I understand what you're saying in regards to someone like Thorpe, with personal marriage problems, but it's really not at all comparable to someone like Cronje, who's frailties, weaknesses and criminal acts were INTRINSICALLY related to cricket, and his performance within the sport. Nevertheless, I can at least see what you're trying to argue, and I guess it'll come down to a difference of opinion.

However, your defence of Cronje's crimes, IMO, is ridiculous. I suspect that very few would accept your line of argument that it's all part of one mistake or one moment of ill-judgement. He was a repeat offender, who disgraced the game and exploited young cricketers by abusing his power as captain and by taking advantage of their vulnerability via inexperience and/or their position in the team (and in Gibbs case particularly, his irrational hero worship of Cronje, which continues to this day). By your logic, a serial burglar has only made one mistake and every robbery or criminal act subsequent to their first is all "part of the same mistake".

And as for not coming clean until there's conclusive evidence against him, I find it significant that you are bleeding any sense of morals, sincerity or accountability out of the equation, and only considering the reputation he had to protect, at all costs. He made a number of choices, not one - and he is responsible for not coming clean every time he chose not to (BTW, the King Commission was certain that he wasn't being entirely honest, and this is why his immunity deal was withdrawn), and appealing his life ban directly demonstrates a lack of appropriate contrition for his acts.

But to go on and on, and round and round, will only be repeating myself.

 

[tooextracool]

This is a great example of why these multiple quote/reply posts are so tedious, when you have to constantly deal with idiosyncratic, made-up "important" distinctions and hair-splitting like "actually i said at least half, not more than half which quite a major difference". It tends to just go on and on until one party can't be bothered anymore. So I'll try and cut to the chase and finalise my point.

I understand what you're saying in regards to someone like Thorpe, with personal marriage problems, but it's really not at all comparable to someone like Cronje, who's frailties, weaknesses and criminal acts were INTRINSICALLY related to cricket, and his performance within the sport. Nevertheless, I can at least see what you're trying to argue, and I guess it'll come down to a difference of opinion.

neither of which had anything related to the poll at hand which was talking about which player handles pressure on the cricket field the best, whether or not cronje couldnt handle the pressure of the field is irrelevent to the poll, even if it was related to cricket.

However, your defence of Cronje's crimes, IMO, is ridiculous. I suspect that very few would accept your line of argument that it's all part of one mistake or one moment of ill-judgement. He was a repeat offender, who disgraced the game and exploited young cricketers by abusing his power as captain and by taking advantage of their vulnerability via inexperience and/or their position in the team (and in Gibbs case particularly, his irrational hero worship of Cronje, which continues to this day). By your logic, a serial burglar has only made one mistake and every robbery or criminal act subsequent to their first is all "part of the same mistake".

there is a serious difference, cronje did not in the sense fix more games, he simply did whatever was required to protect people from knowing about the first crime, which puts it all down as 1 crime. if a burglar robbed someone and then refused to come clean until the evidence was completely against him, i would say exactly the same.

And as for not coming clean until there's conclusive evidence against him, I find it significant that you are bleeding any sense of morals, sincerity or accountability out of the equation, and only considering the reputation he had to protect, at all costs. He made a number of choices, not one - and he is responsible for not coming clean every time he chose not to (BTW, the King Commission was certain that he wasn't being entirely honest, and this is why his immunity deal was withdrawn), and appealing his life ban directly demonstrates a lack of appropriate contrition for his acts.

i havent said that what cronje did wasnt a serious crime, neither have i said that the crime should be condoned. i simply dont believe that anyone should ignore all that hes offered to the game prior to that by simply calling him fixer, especially when there have been several others at the time who have gotten away. as far as the appealing the life ban is concerned, one must remember that cronje wanted to contest the ban so that he was able to coach young players, if offering to do something for you country is a crime then please tell me what isnt?

 

[cricket player]

No worries, apology accepted..

after everything i have seen i must say people don't like sub_contininet(thas how you spell it) player's' i voted for inzy because at the world cup final 1992 he smashed england all over the place' And he also batted well againt's india in the samsung cup making 2 centurie's when it was needed' no to mention that he is also a captain so it will be more pressure on him to perform well' i see most people are voting for michel bevan' he come's at the end and make a half centurie' And people think that the half centurie is good enough to beat inzy in that catigory" i must say that every one has failed the smart choice contest'

 

[Langeveldt]

after everything i have seen i must say people don't like sub_contininet(thas how you spell it) player's' i voted for inzy because at the world cup final 1992 he smashed england all over the place' And he also batted well againt's india in the samsung cup making 2 centurie's when it was needed' no to mention that he is also a captain so it will be more pressure on him to perform well' i see most people are voting for michel bevan' he come's at the end and make a half centurie' And people think that the half centurie is good enough to beat inzy in that catigory" i must say that every one has failed the smart choice contest'

Most rubbish post ive seen for a long time... Bevan's scoring a "half century" as you so put it has helped Australia win countless games.. He is one of the most skilled exponents of batting in the one day game and his method of conducting a run chase has been a joy to watch on many an occasion.. Im sure if he was from the "sub_contininet" your "smart choice contest" might be slightly different..

 

[Slow Love™]

there is a serious difference, cronje did not in the sense fix more games, he simply did whatever was required to protect people from knowing about the first crime, which puts it all down as 1 crime. if a burglar robbed someone and then refused to come clean until the evidence was completely against him, i would say exactly the same.

But this is NOT how it happened. How many times do I have to say the words "repeat offender" for this point to get through to you? According to his own confessions, Cronje was in bookmaker's pockets since '96. He was paid $US50,000 that year - through '97 he was paid $80,000 by Mukesh Gupta for match information. In 1997-99, he received at least three bribes and numerous gifts from bookmakers. In 2000, he took 50,000 rand to contrive a result in the rain-affected fifth test against England (which he achieved, by arranging a double innings forfeit).

All this before the Gibbs/Henry incident, which is just the one he was originally caught for.

Your grouping of all these offences into one crime makes NO SENSE. Not that the constant mistruths and evasions he committed after the 2000 Indian one-day series in order to cover up his crimes does either.

And as for contesting the ban, tough cheese, Hansie. The ban was for a friggin' reason, and he should have respected that. He was exactly the type of guy that needed to be kept AWAY from young cricketers. Don't be so disingenuous with this "if offering to do something for your country is a crime then please tell me what isnt?" rubbish.

 

[cricket player]

But this is NOT how it happened. How many times do I have to say the words "repeat offender" for this point to get through to you? According to his own confessions, Cronje was in bookmaker's pockets since '96. He was paid $US50,000 that year - through '97 he was paid $80,000 by Mukesh Gupta for match information. In 1997-99, he received at least three bribes and numerous gifts from bookmakers. In 2000, he took 50,000 rand to contrive a result in the rain-affected fifth test against England (which he achieved, by arranging a double innings forfeit).

All this before the Gibbs/Henry incident, which is just the one he was originally caught for.

Your grouping of all these offences into one crime makes NO SENSE. Not that the constant mistruths and evasions he committed after the 2000 Indian one-day series in order to cover up his crimes does either.

And as for contesting the ban, tough cheese, Hansie. The ban was for a friggin' reason, and he should have respected that. He was exactly the type of guy that needed to be kept AWAY from young cricketers. Don't be so disingenuous with this "if offering to do something for your country is a crime then please tell me what isnt?" rubbish.[/QUOTE



i heard cronje was a gangster' is that right" please answer this question eager to know the answer"

 

[Neil Pickup]

Please start writing in coherent sentences without random speechmarks splattered around...

 

[cricket player]

Please start writing in coherent sentences without random speechmarks splattered around...

why mate'

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

why mate'

Because bad writing gets Neil vehwy vehwy angwy.