match throwing okay in particular scenario?

[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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

 

[Tony Blade]

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

Its more popular than most international matches...

 

[SJS]

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.

Sorry Pratyush I have a difference of opinion.

1) The only spectators who matter are not those from one team.
2) If india dont think they have a chance to beat australia then they should be satisfied with a number two spot. If they reach the finals in this way by keeping australia out, I would lok at the victory hollow in a sense.

As I said at the start, its a matter of opinion. Its the game that loses.

If we manage to throw out the gary Kasparovs from the official chess championships or make two boxing asociations then the world titles thus obtained do appear hollow to me. This is something similar though not exactly the same.

 

[Pratters]

Sorry Pratyush I have a difference of opinion.

1) The only spectators who matter are not those from one team.
2) If india dont think they have a chance to beat australia then they should be satisfied with a number two spot. If they reach the finals in this way by keeping australia out, I would lok at the victory hollow in a sense.

As I said at the start, its a matter of opinion. Its the game that loses.

Okay I will give a varied scenario which would make it much more difficult to justify not throwing the match.

Suppose India did beat Australia in the first of a series of round robin matches courtesy excellent innings by Sehwag and Tendulkar. Now India IS in a better position due to their superior performance in the earlier match compared to Australia.

Would India not have a RIGHT to chose its opponent if it is in a position to do so. If India feels it has more of a chance to beat Kenya rather than Australia, why should it not contrive to face Kenya.

I do not think it is doing injustice to the spectators of any of the teams because the teams are playing to WIN the entire tournament and improving its chances for that.

A bit like the Peleton so famous in cycling I would say. A Peleton is basically the huge group of cyclists who race together in a cycling race. Now we have Lance Armstrong in the Postal team (his former team) and 3 other team mates (say) in the Peleton. It is a common strategy in the Peleton for the other three members to slow down the speed to increase the gap between their team leader, in this case Armstrong and the huge group which follows. Its a lot about team work and stratey.

Now would the three cyclists be doing an injustice to the spectators.

Its not an exact example but an anology neverthless. The main objective is to WIN the tournament remaining within the rules. If I feel I want to face X team instead of Y as I feel I have a better chance to win it (cos I am a bit less confident about my ability against Warne or McGrath), and I am in a position to decide the opponent I can chose because of my superior results in the past, I have every right to do so and logic says I should.

Its okay you disagree with me Perspectives can indeed be different/varied

 

[Craig]

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

I think he means because New Zealand lost the two final matches to South Africa

Mind you taking into what Somerset said on page two, me and a friend (an Aussie) agreeded we would would have probably done the same thing if we were New Zealand and didn't have much chance of winning, let alone being an outside shot at the bonus point.

So I would agree with Somerset it isn't match fixing in anyway.

Mind you Hansie Cronje would have been the last guy I would have expected to be involved in this heinous crime, nor Henry Williams or Herschalle Gibbs. Salim Malik on the hand...

 

[honestbharani]

Salim Malik's was the classic case, wasn't it? Apparently some Dutch cops approached him under cover and wanted to know if he knew anyone in his side who might be involved in illegal betting/match fixing and Malik says that he is the biggest fish of that pond. He says that he can get almost anyone involved provided the parties are willing to fork out the amounts required. And the rest.............is history.