match throwing okay in particular scenario?

[Pratters]

http://content.cricinfo.com/pakistan/content/story/208310.html

Shoaib Malik threw a match when he wanted another team to qualify.

When Australia were playing a particula match in the World Cup in 1999, they slowed down their run rate as it increased their chance of qualifying into the next round.

Now suppose a scenario exists like there are three teams, India, Australia and Kenya in a tri nation tournament. If Australia lose to Kenya in a particular match, it ensures that they face Kenya in the finals rather than India after a few rounds of round robi matches.

Now would it be okay for Australia to lose to Kenya to decide whom they face in the finals as they are in a POSITION to chose their opponents?

I would say yes and its not the teams but the tournament rules to blame if/when such a scneario comes up. In such a scenario the throwing of a particular match does seem the right thing to do.

 

[Behlol]

well i think that shoaib malik did the wrong thing.he was the captain of Sialkot Stallions and his team had a chance of qualifying into the next round.

 

[andyc]

'throwing a match' usually means that a team is paid off to lose/play worse. the game involving malik doesnt really fit into this, as he was apparently making a protest, while in the world cup it was the teams decision, and youre right in saying that the tournament is to blame. its strange, however, cause captains have always been doing things like this (the two examples you gave, there was an english county match where the captain declared after one over, and the match where the captain instructed a player to bowl badly [70-odd runs of the over]), and in some cases they are disciplined and in some cases theyre not. so who knows?

personally, i think its alright as long as another person/group isnt paying that team to play worse.

 

[andyc]

well i think that shoaib malik did the wrong thing.he was the captain of Sialkot Stallions and his team had a chance of qualifying into the next round.

they still did, didnt they?

 

[Swervy]

they still did, didnt they?

no I dont think they did.

He was doing this as a protest, not because he wanted an easier team to go through.

In my opinion, the guy should be banned for a long time if he did decide to throw the match, for whatever reasons

 

[Behlol]

the competition was between Sialkot Stallions(malik`s team)Lahore Eagles and i dont know the 3rd team.the points were equal.but i dont think the match was thrown away.the PCB decided that Lahore eagles should go on.

 

[Adamc]

(the two examples you gave, there was an english county match where the captain declared after one over, and the match where the captain instructed a player to bowl badly [70-odd runs of the over])

That is a completely different situation altogether. Generally that situation arises when much of a match has been rained out, so the captains agree to set a declaration target to bring about the possibility of a result. The bowlers (usually players who would never normally bowl) then give away runs until the declaration target is met. There are a few examples of centuries being scored in 20-odd minutes because of this, but Wisden does not recognise these as records.

Often double declarations (with the score on 0/0) are used as well; there is one instance of this occurring in Tests - England v South Africa four or five years ago, which England ended up winning, batting in the fourth innings. It attracted some controversy at the time, but is probably even more suspect now, given that the RSA captain in that game was one Hansie Cronje.

Edit: Here's the link to that Test match. Very suspect indeed, given that RSA declared twice (actually declared once and forfeited the second innings) and it allowed England to win the series 2-1. Not many captains would be willing to take that risk, especially in a home series.

 

[andyc]

That is a completely different situation altogether. Generally that situation arises when much of a match has been rained out, so the captains agree to set a declaration target to bring about the possibility of a result. The bowlers (usually players who would never normally bowl) then give away runs until the declaration target is met. There are a few examples of centuries being scored in 20-odd minutes because of this, but Wisden does not recognise these as records.

Often double declarations (with the score on 0/0) are used as well; there is one instance of this occurring in Tests - England v South Africa four or five years ago, which England ended up winning, batting in the fourth innings. It attracted some controversy at the time, but is probably even more suspect now, given that the RSA captain in that game was one Hansie Cronje.

Edit: Here's the link to that Test match. Very suspect indeed, given that RSA declared twice (actually declared once and forfeited the second innings) and it allowed England to win the series 2-1. Not many captains would be willing to take that risk, especially in a home series.

you're right, but the cases i was referring to (my mistake for being unclear and too lazy to get up and find them) were different.http://content.cricinfo.com/ci/content/story/146056.html i forget where i saw the other article

 

[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!

 

[Neil Pickup]

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!

Yes, it backfired to such an extent whereby they made the final rather than not making it. Disaster.

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

Just to clear up the situation, Shoaib Malik allowed his side to lose to make a protest against an umpiring decision with regard to slow over rates in an earlier match. He was evidently unaware that his side would have qualified had they won, and thought he was giving a way a match with essentially no meaning, but in the process ensuring that the Lahore Eagles, the team which had benefitted from the earlier over rates decision, would not qualify for the final.

 

[Swervy]

Just to clear up the situation, Shoaib Malik allowed his side to lose to make a protest against an umpiring decision with regard to slow over rates in an earlier match. He was evidently unaware that his side would have qualified had they won, and thought he was giving a way a match with essentially no meaning, but in the process ensuring that the Lahore Eagles, the team which had benefitted from the earlier over rates decision, would not qualify for the final.

he should be banned for sheer stupidity then

 

[SpaceMonkey]

So he didnt think of his teams win bonus, or the fans who wanted his team to win so badly.
That alone means he should be banned and fined ALOT. Theres no place for childish immature behaviour like this in cricket.

 

[Pratters]

he should be banned for sheer stupidity then

He should be banned because he purposefully went for the detrimental of his team. Intentional or non intentional is inconsequential.

 

[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.

 

[Swervy]

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]

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]

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.