Which was worse

[wpdavid]

Just because something is within the rules doesn't make it right and all who were involved in this incident fully deserved to be censured - as for Greg Chappell much as I disliked the bloke who scored so many runs against England I think he's been unfairly villified for his incident

Not convinced that Greg Chappell was unfairly treated, tbh. All he took was a load of criticism wasn't it? It's not as if he was fined, banned, or had the result reversed iirc.

I remember the Somerset declaration all too well. And the reaction of my Somerset mates at uni who thought that Rose was well within his rights and that the county were unfairly treated. Perhaps they hold different views now.

I rather like the comment by a rugby union official who, seeing a bloke about to take a penalty building a small pile of mud to tee off his kick, trotted over and kicked the pile down. When the player complained that there was nothing in the rules to say he couldn't use a 'tee' like that, the referee replied that there was nothing saying he could either, so the player should just get on with it. No doubt he wouldn't get away with that nowadays, more's the pity.

 

[Jono]

Yep I'm sure the spirit of the game was the priority of Ponting and the Australian dressing room when they were below the over rate.

 

[Furball]

Just because something is within the rules doesn't make it right and all who were involved in this incident fully deserved to be censured - as for Greg Chappell much as I disliked the bloke who scored so many runs against England I think he's been unfairly villified for his incident

I'm not suggesting for a minute that Chappell or Rose were right in doing what they did - but they weren't acting outside the laws of the game, merely exploiting the rules so that their teams could gain.

 

[fredfertang]

I don't think Chappell was wrong to be honest - and Rose doesn't deserve to cop all the flak for the declaration business - as soon as he suggested it the stuffed shirts should have said they'd be kicked out but, unlike Chappell, he was biting the hand that paid his wages

 

[BoyBrumby]

Would unhesitatingly say Ponting's was worse. Chappell was at least making sure his team won, notwithstanding the spirit of the game; Ponting's actions were craven in their self-interest and actively harmed his team's chances.

 

[Top_Cat]

I remember a lot of fuss in the UK over the WI over-rates. LLoyd's defence at the time was that it ensured the games went the distance insetad of being over in four days, but that doesn't really stack up when you think about how his four-man pace attack might have fared bowling another 30 overs between them each day. Not that Lloyd has ever admitted to anything being wrong during his tenure, of course

At the time, sure. But now, it seems people fondly remember the WI team as the pinnacle of gentlemanly play with the pace attack all smiles, bowling flowers and farting rainbows. Over time, their less than sportsmanlike play has largely been forgotten if not forgiven.

 

[fredfertang]

At the time, sure. But now, it seems people fondly remember the WI team as the pinnacle of gentlemanly play with the pace attack all smiles, bowling flowers and farting rainbows. Over time, their less than sportsmanlike play has largely been forgotten if not forgiven.

There are a number of factors that contribute to that not least the high regard that most have for the individuals concerned particularly Marshall and Holding but the other quicks as well. Secondly all of them to some extent, but particularly Marshall again, Roberts, Daniel, Walsh, Ambrose and Garner (as well as Lloyd of course) gave loyal service to English counties over long periods. Thirdly the way the WIndies have fallen from grace inevitably creates the rose tinted spectacles effect and lastly, whatever else can be said, they might have only bowled 14 overs an hour but it was thrilling stuff

 

[morgieb]

Chappeli quite easily for mine. Ponting's decision was just ******** captaincy, whereas Chappelli's incident was cheating.

 

[andyc]

Chappeli quite easily for mine. Ponting's decision was just ******** captaincy, whereas Chappelli's incident was cheating.

How was it cheating when it was entirely within the laws of the game?

 

[Flem274*]

What kind of **** uses it though? Everyone knew how cricket was played, and exploiting such an idiotic loophole was wrong. Man up and bowl it overarm. Six to win off one ball.

 

[G.I.Joe]

What kind of **** uses it though? Everyone knew how cricket was played, and exploiting such an idiotic loophole was wrong. Man up and bowl it overarm. Six to win off one ball.

Word has it that the NZ batsman was going for a glory shot.

 

[Prince EWS]

Would unhesitatingly say Ponting's was worse. Chappell was at least making sure his team won, notwithstanding the spirit of the game; Ponting's actions were craven in their self-interest and actively harmed his team's chances.

Yep, fully agreed.

I get the feeling Streetwise disagrees with us and is trying to prove a point about something else, but it's backfired - in my case at least. That the underarm ball had been predicted as a possibility in that exact situation by several pundits and that lawmakers did nothing to prevent it despite this makes me lay most (although obviously not all) of the blame with them.

What Ponting did made my stomach turn.

 

[Prince EWS]

How was it cheating when it was entirely within the laws of the game?

Yeah, regardless of what you think about the underarm ball, it definitely wasn't cheating.

 

[Streetwise]

Yep, fully agreed.

I get the feeling Streetwise disagrees with us and is trying to prove a point about something else, but it's backfired - in my case at least. That the underarm ball had been predicted as a possibility in that exact situation by several pundits and that lawmakers did nothing to prevent it despite this makes me lay most (although obviously not all) of the blame with them.

What Ponting did made my stomach turn.

Got your tin foil hat on I see.

 

[Flem274*]

Word has it that the NZ batsman was going for a glory shot.

It was against Australia. It's perfectly fine to go for the glory shot against those ****s.

 

[Prince EWS]

It was against Australia. It's perfectly fine to go for the glory shot against those ****s.

Haha, whoosh!

 

[Ikki]

Would unhesitatingly say Ponting's was worse. Chappell was at least making sure his team won, notwithstanding the spirit of the game; Ponting's actions were craven in their self-interest and actively harmed his team's chances.

Didn't he leave it to the team to decide whether they wanted to risk getting him banned and they voted no?

 

[Jono]

Where did you hear that?

 

[honestbharani]

What a weird post.

I'm not sure "sticking to the spirit of the game" is the defining characteristic of Ponting's actions in that case. I think "allowing the team to get behind on the over rate and then bowl part-timers to try to avoid a fine" is a little nearer the mark. How the "spirit of the game" enters into that is a mystery to me.

How is "I gotta make sure I am not banned for the next test" = "playing within the spirit of the game"???? Do you define spirit of cricket as ensuring availability for the next match?


If Ponting was so keen on spirit of cricket, he should have been bowling part timers a LOT earlier and never gotten so much behind the over rate in the earlier tests.....

 

[honestbharani]

At the time, sure. But now, it seems people fondly remember the WI team as the pinnacle of gentlemanly play with the pace attack all smiles, bowling flowers and farting rainbows. Over time, their less than sportsmanlike play has largely been forgotten if not forgiven.

yeah.. it is a puzzling thing coz the first I heard of this was at CW from blokes like yourself who have been around to watch them back then... Is it like all those guys turned out to be very nice once they retired or something? Would that be why they are fondly remembered now? Or was it like they were very nice to everyone off the field even back then?