match throwing okay in particular scenario?

[Swervy]

Originally Posted by Richard

The rules are clear for all to see, Shoaib Malik did not break those rules; people have deliberately lost matches or reduced margins of victory before and will do so again.
There can be no justification for any action against him.
WRT the Centurion Test of 1999\2000, it is known for certain that Cronje's will to contrive a result was motivated by financial gain - Marlon Aronstram, a gambler, paid him and gave him a leather-jacket to turn what seemed to be nothing possible but a draw into a victory. Cronje's targets that day were South African win first, England win second, draw worst-case scenario.
Given that SA had already won the series there was little to lose from that POV.
Match-throwing is never acceptible - deliberately contriving a match for your team's own gain is perfectly acceptible because there's no legitimate way to outlaw it.

but he did it supposedly as a protest...where is there any gain for his team other than just trying to prove a point. If he has speciffically said he threw the game , there should be some sort of punishment

[aliG]

On a side note, the TWENTY20 tournament has been immensly popular and has sprout great attendence in normally empty domestic matches.

On another note, Cronje and Nassir Hussain were slapped on the wrist when they deliberately threw a match and didn't admit it till they were finally pressurized to. The result? Since they were not from the subcontinent, it wasn't a big deal. Compare that to this domestic fiasco being blown out of proportion..!

[Swervy]

Originally Posted by aliG

On a side note, the TWENTY20 tournament has been immensly popular and has sprout great attendence in normally empty domestic matches.

On another note, Cronje and Nassir Hussain were slapped on the wrist when they deliberately threw a match and didn't admit it till they were finally pressurized to. The result? Since they were not from the subcontinent, it wasn't a big deal. Compare that to this domestic fiasco being blown out of proportion..!

great to see that it has become popular in pakistan as well


but I dont really know what your point is about Cronje and Hussain!!!

[Richard]

Originally Posted by Swervy

but he did it supposedly as a protest...where is there any gain for his team other than just trying to prove a point. If he has speciffically said he threw the game , there should be some sort of punishment

Why?
Has he broken any rules?

[SJS]

I am surprised that intentionally losing a match is justified in "certain" circumstances.

Everyone seems to forget one important person in the entire scheme of things...the spectator. What about him? What kind of a farce do we want him to see ? A sporting contest where two teams are trying to best each other or where they are trying to lose ?

We need to understand why EACH individual match is played ? Is a match by itself of no relevance ?

Is only the final game a team plays of importance ?

If yes, this has many implications for the game. I dont think this is right. I know it has happened before and may happen again but the game's authorities need to come down heavily on those transgressing the spirit of the game.

If Australia, in one of the examples given, had the option of winning and facing India, possibly, in a future round or losing and facing Kenya, they must go on to try and beat Kenya and prove their sporting as well as competitive vigour by going on to beat India, if they can.

Why should a team aspire to be champion by beating minnows and hope the stronger teams knock each other out ?

It is not the same but similar to some sides cribbing that they did not reach the next round because they had a stronger group. You should beat who soever you play if they are the stronger of the possible options, so be it.

[Scallywag]

Why play if you dont want to play the best there is, stick to local cricket and play against even weaker teams if that is your desire.

[Beleg]

great to see that it has become popular in pakistan as well

If it is so popular then why are stadium's half-empty all the time?

[Swervy]

Originally Posted by Beleg

If it is so popular then why are stadium's half-empty all the time?

because AliG (aiiii!) said it was immensily popular...I just took his word for it

[Beleg]

Oops.

I repost my question for AliG,

If it is so popular then why are stadium's half-empty all the time?

[BoyBrumby]

Match throwing is never ok, but there has always been a fair few contrived results in the County Championship.

You know the kind of thing: rain intervenes & a few sessions are lost so the captains make an agreement along the lines of one team will be dished up 20 overs of dollies (or as few as are required to reach an agreed total) to set a fair target for the oppo to chase over a set number of overs.

I guess it's not absolutely in the purest spirit of Corinthian ideals, but I don't see any great crime being committed: all three parties (both teams & the spectators) are aware what's going on. It creates an exciting finish where a tame draw would've ensued; although, if I were to play devil's advocate, in isn't a million miles from Hansie's little contrivance in the 5th test of 99/00. I suppose the intention behind the contrivance is the important thing.

I would also guess that this manner of contrivance is unique to cricket in the world of sport, unless anyone knows differently.....

[SJS]

Originally Posted by BoyBrumby

Match throwing is never ok, but there has always been a fair few contrived results in the County Championship.

You know the kind of thing: rain intervenes & a few sessions are lost so the captains make an agreement along the lines of one team will be dished up 20 overs of dollies (or as few as are required to reach an agreed total) to set a fair target for the oppo to chase over a set number of overs.

I guess it's not absolutely in the purest spirit of Corinthian ideals, but I don't see any great crime being committed: all three parties (both teams & the spectators) are aware what's going on. It creates an exciting finish where a tame draw would've ensued; although, if I were to play devil's advocate, in isn't a million miles from Hansie's little contrivance in the 5th test of 99/00. I suppose the intention behind the contrivance is the important thing.

I would also guess that this manner of contrivance is unique to cricket in the world of sport, unless anyone knows differently.....

Serving lollies to get a result (for either side) is not throwing away the match. It is a tactic to try and WIN if possible not to CERTAINLY lose.

[Pratters]

Originally Posted by SJS

Everyone seems to forget one important person in the entire scheme of things...the spectator. What about him? What kind of a farce do we want him to see ?

A true spectator would want the team he supports wina tournament and though each match is important, its not that important.

I will give another example. The World Cup is going on. India have had the luck of the rain rule plus a few good performances and Australia have had the opposite.

Now India faces Canada for example. If India lose to Canada, India will have the chance to face West Indies in the final. Else India will have to face Australia.

India would like to face the West Indies obviously in the current scenario as to where they stand in world cricket.

[luckyeddie]

After everything which has gone on in our game before and after Hansiegate, anyone who allows themselves to be swayed into taking the attitude of not 'playing to win' for any reason whatsoever is a complete and utter idiot.

[marc71178]

Originally Posted by BoyBrumby

Match throwing is never ok, but there has always been a fair few contrived results in the County Championship.

You know the kind of thing: rain intervenes & a few sessions are lost so the captains make an agreement along the lines of one team will be dished up 20 overs of dollies (or as few as are required to reach an agreed total) to set a fair target for the oppo to chase over a set number of overs.

But the difference is in that case it's to create a chance for both sides to win, whereas Malik's actions here are the complete opposite of that.

[Somerset]

Originally Posted by Arjun

One just needs to remember NZ "deliberately playing to lose" to give SA the bonus point, so that they can meet them again in the VB finals in 2002, keeping the Australians out. How that backfired on the Kiwis!

They didn't set out to lose though - the New Zealanders made every effort to get close to the target set but it was always going to be too much. Instead of risking not making the final, the logical finish to the game that they faced no chance of winning was to slow down - I would've done the same thing and with the unlikely situation New Zealand faced, I don't think it can be classed as match fixing TBH.