Cricket 3

[kidindi]

[quote name='Heremann' post='1417074' date='Jun 26 2008, 21.54']It was strange how differently commentators assessed the run-out issue. I was in the car listening to BBC radio for most of the game, and when the run-out happened, everyone was saying "right thing to do", "understandable, given the context", etc. Then I got home and switched Sky TV on and they were ranting about a shocking offence to the spirit of the game.[/quote]

When they were showing the clip of Pieterson vs South Africa I was bloody annoyed that they didn't show their own reactions to it. I can't be 100% sure (I am pretty sure mind...my memory rocks) but the sky team then were saying it was hard luck for Pieterson and that it should have been a run out. The anti-english barstools.

[quote]It's funny how both teams will be able to get over the incident pretty easily only because NZ actually won in the end. There's no way that Vettori would've accepted Colly's apology if he'd lost the game.[/quote]

Agreed. Colly would've have said exactly the same thing mind you.

[quote]That said, it does highlight what a brilliantly screwed up game cricket is, with laws so vague that we have to rely on gentlemanly decisions from the players. In nearly every game there will be some sort of injustice big or small, and much as we all complain about it I would miss it if it wasn't there.

Also, it makes you wonder what will happen to the 'spirit of the game' with teams now playing for tens of millions of dollars. I'm thinking players are just gonna become more and more ruthless about these things.[/quote]

Damn money.

Oh, I usually post cricket elsewhere but I can't get on that forum anymore so you people are going to have to deal with me for the forseable future. Sorry.

[Stubby]

[quote name='kidindi' post='1417298' date='Jun 27 2008, 09.27']Oh, I usually post cricket elsewhere but I can't get on that forum anymore so you people are going to have to deal with me for the forseable future. Sorry.[/quote]

The more the merrier IMO.

[quote name='x-ray']Help a n00b out: why did Collingwood get a 4-match suspension?[/quote]

[url="http://icc-cricket.yahoo.com/about-icc/rules-regulations.html"]This is a link to the ICC rules page.[/url]

The rules that apply are those for "Men's One Day International". The actual rules are set out in a PDF sans link. Rules 12.4(d) and (e) deal with slow over rates. The penalties are set out in a different document - The ICC Code of Conduct.

Failure by a Captain to ensure that his team meets the minimum over rate requirements is a 'level 2 offence' - on a par with showing serious dissent with an umpire's decision. Rule J(5) (iii) of the code of conduct deals with the penalty. Again, its from a PDF and not a linkable page:

[quote]...if the over rate is more than 5 overs short of the minimum overs required in a Test Match
or more than 2 overs in an ODI Match, the Captain will be charged under Rule of
Conduct CC 2.11 above. In the event of the Captain being found guilty of a charge
under this Rule, the sanction imposed will take the place of the fine imposed under
paragraphs J5 © (i) and (ii) above.[/quote]

I learned something today as well!

[Jeor]

I'm glad they're getting stricter on slow over rates. A few captains have gotten into trouble lately about it (or been threatened with getting into trouble); Collingwood, Ponting was threatened about it, Graeme Smith too I believe, and Ganguly was banned a few years ago.

The over rates these days are ridiculously slow, a combination of lots of things. Field changes every few balls for some captains or bowlers who are very particular about the field settings, the bigger breaks between overs as captains have team talks etc. One suspects TV doesn't mind the breaks between overs dragging on abit longer as it gives them more time to slip ads in. It's no secret that over rates have been terrible in the past few years. Some teams are getting back to the slow over rates of the West Indies teams despite the fact that they aren't fielding four pacemen with long runups.

So I think it's good that they're dishing out some punishment for it. Slow rates are too often used as negative tactics (playing for draws, or slowing the scoring with regards to time, even if it's not slowing the actual run rate). And punishing the captain is entirely appropriate, since he's the one with the most control over the proceedings rather than any individual bowler.

[Rimmer]

What about when the batsmen are slowing the game down though? In the last couple of overs in that last ODI the NZers were strolling into the middle of the pitch for a chat between nearly every ball.

[Jeor]

[quote name='Rimmer' post='1417755' date='Jun 27 2008, 21.28']What about when the batsmen are slowing the game down though? In the last couple of overs in that last ODI the NZers were strolling into the middle of the pitch for a chat between nearly every ball.[/quote]

That's a problem, but usually they'll do that while a bowler is walking back to his mark, so they're not really prolonging the game all that much. Compared to the actions of the bowlers themselves, I think mid-pitch conferences from the batsmen have a much smaller effect.

[Daeric]

I shudder whenever I see Botham begin to rant about something (No sky sports so its hard to see these things).

From what I can tell about him commentating is basically that he shouldn't.

[Jeor]

[quote name='SirRots' post='1418287' date='Jun 28 2008, 02.30']I shudder whenever I see Botham begin to rant about something (No sky sports so its hard to see these things).

From what I can tell about him commentating is basically that he shouldn't.[/quote]

Botham's quite forceful with his opinions and he's not one to hold back, but he's inconsistent and changes his mind. One day he'll be ranting about how there are so many field changes every ball, just get on with the game...and the next day, he'll be talking about Michael Vaughan being a master tactician and making sure that he's got every man in the right place for every ball, that's how it should be done.

[ithanos]

Enjoying this ODI immensely not only for NZ posting a rousing 266 for England to chase, thanks to a couple solid mid-order partnerships - thanks Styris, Oram, Elliot and in kind to some inaccurate England bowling at the end, but also for the soul warming images of midsummer sunshine coming through the telly. Yes it's cold, wet and miserable at GMT+12.

[Stubby]

[quote name='Jeor' post='1418981' date='Jun 28 2008, 08.49']Botham's quite forceful with his opinions and he's not one to hold back, but he's inconsistent and changes his mind.[/quote]

Same as his career really - couldn't make up his mind if he was a batsman or a bowler,

[Daeric]

England flopped again. Pieterson was quite good when England was bowling, but had yet another damp squig of a match while batting.

Pontings being fined for dissent as well!

[Paxter]

[quote name='SirRots' post='1419573' date='Jun 29 2008, 03.43']England flopped again.[/quote]

Yep. England's ups and downs in ODI cricket continue to astound me. Just when I thought they were playing really well and had NZ on the ropes - they blew it. Credit where credit is due though - the NZers put in some really great performances in this series and probably could have won it 4-1 if rain hadn't denied them in the second game.

Interestingly, NZ's heroes with the bat were slightly unexpected ones - instead of How, McCullum and Taylor it was players like Styris, Oram, Elliot and Mills who gave England problems with the willow in hand. Once again, NZ's batting depth was the key - but I still can't see them winning a major tournament like the Champions Trophy if their top-order doesn't improve. Bowling-wise, Mills and Southee did the damage in terms of wickets, while Vettori, Elliot, Oram and Gillespie kept the runs down. BTW I think Styris' all-rounder days are coming to an end with the arrival of Elliot. IMO he should just focus on his batting from now on. Oram's penetration with the ball is also at an all-time low. But I suppose that as long as batsman aren't dominating him it's not such a problem in ODI cricket.

For England, there are a few positives to take out of the series. Owais Shah was the outstanding batsman of the series and KP had one excellent innings. Otherwise their batting looks decidedly weak at this level. They probably need to cut Tim Ambrose from the ODI team - 5 innings for 10 runs is just unacceptable from a player that is supposed to be an all-rounder. The two shining lights in the bowling department were Swann and the ever-improving Stuart Broad. Anderson and especially Sidebottom had absolutely woeful series. For England's sake those two will have to lift their game because the SA batting line-up is appreciably more talented than that of NZ.

All-in-all I think that NZ will be pretty happy with that tour. The expectations were pretty low in the first place give the lack of experience in their team and the poor preparation, so I think the fact that they were competitive in the test matches and dominant in the ODI matches is a real bonus for NZ cricket. Hats off to Dan Vettori. It was always going to be hard to replace an outstanding captain like Fleming - and yet I didn't even notice Fleming's absence that much (except of course for the notable lack of elegant left handers in the NZ batting line-up).

As a side-note: does anyone know what the latest is on Jesse Ryder? I think that he and How opening the batting with McCullum at three is a very exciting prospect...

[DJDonegal]

What does everyone think on the [url="http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/cricket/7480812.stm"]battle lines being drawn[/url] at the moment with regards to Zimbabwe's continued involvement in international cricket?

[Hereward]

I don't know, I was too busy chortling over Ireland losing an ODI by 290 runs. :wideeyed:

[Daeric]

Its Ireland what do you expect, through that was some huge hitting from Macclum at times.

[williamjm]

[quote name='Hereward' post='1424149' date='Jul 2 2008, 09.15']I don't know, I was too busy chortling over Ireland losing an ODI by 290 runs. :wideeyed:[/quote]

I would laugh, but I'm waiting until I see how much Scotland lose to New Zealand by before I feel safe to do that ;)

[DemonKing]

[quote name='DJDonegal' post='1424138' date='Jul 2 2008, 17.56']What does everyone think on the [url="http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/cricket/7480812.stm"]battle lines being drawn[/url] at the moment with regards to Zimbabwe's continued involvement in international cricket?[/quote]

In any sane world Zimbabwe would lose their full member status and become an affiliate nation (after all, how can you justify allowing a nation that doesn't play test cricket any more to stay at the big boy's table?), however as we're dealing with the ICC here, I am extremely pessimistic.

The biggest problem is that as long as Zimbabwe has a vote they can help India get their own way so there's no incentive for the Asian bloc to vote them out.

I also heard that the ICC are going to reverse the result of the test match that Pakistan forfeited after they refused to take the field and call it a "draw". What a joke...so now if you don't like a decision from the umpire you can refuse to play on and escape with a draw.

[Paxter]

[quote name='DemonKing' post='1425591' date='Jul 3 2008, 09.08']I also heard that the ICC are going to reverse the result of the test match that Pakistan forfeited after they refused to take the field and call it a "draw". What a joke...so now if you don't like a decision from the umpire you can refuse to play on and escape with a draw.[/quote]

I have to agree with you here. Even though I did feel that Pakistan were hard done by in that test match (I mean, the umpire pretty much called the Pakistanis cheats without any solid evidence), it sets a poor precedent for the future.

[Hereward]

It wasn't just one umpire, though. In the rush to lynch hare as a racist, it tends to be forgotten that the West Indian umpire concurred at the time and continues to do so.

It could have been better handled, of course, but this is still a stupid decision.

[Stubby]

[quote name='Hereward' post='1425893' date='Jul 3 2008, 16.31']It wasn't just one umpire, though. In the rush to lynch hare as a racist, it tends to be forgotten that the West Indian umpire concurred at the time and continues to do so.

It could have been better handled, of course, but this is still a stupid decision.[/quote]

I don't like Daryl Hair. Never have - never will. But I agree with H and others that this is a silly decision.

[ithanos]

[quote name='DJDonegal' post='1424138' date='Jul 2 2008, 19.56']What does everyone think on the [url="http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/cricket/7480812.stm"]battle lines being drawn[/url] at the moment with regards to Zimbabwe's continued involvement in international cricket?[/quote]
The Surfer on Cricinfo-Blogs links to a [url="http://blogs.guardian.co.uk/sport/2008/07/02/big_debate_are_sports_sanction.html"]Guardian[/url] piece with opposing views on whether action to ban Zimbabwe Cricket is pointless. Years ago I would have been indifferent to this whole question, to my shame, but I must favour Goolam Rajah's view in this regard. It may well be that this won't affect Mugabe at all but it should remind leaders around the world how to act.


The [url="http://icc-cricket.yahoo.com/media-release/2008/July/media-release20080704-5.html"]ICC statement[/url] on this issue is predictably ICC circa early 21st century.
There must have been some tongue-in-cheek in adding the following. [quote]This recommendation should be viewed as a one-off and will not be taken as a precedent.[/quote]