Cricket Betting Site Betway
Page 3 of 6 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast
Results 31 to 45 of 86

Thread: Tardy over rates in the Ashes

  1. #31
    Quote Originally Posted by C_C
    And dare i mention it, ICC was pressurised to the hilt to ban Murali's legitimate bowling credentials.
    They're only 'legitimate' because the ICC decided to scrap any sort of stepped limit for different bowling speeds - the limits should have been related to arm speeds, but this would have made it very difficult to keep Murali 'legitimate' and for the rules to have any credibility at the same time - so they sacrificed credibility in the end.
    World Scrabble Champion 2014. National Scrabble Champion 2009, 2015.
    Author of Word Addict
    Countdown Series 57 Champion
    King of the Arcade
    ECB - you are a complete ****ing disgrace, #FTECB

  2. #32
    International Vice-Captain Dasa's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Melbourne
    Posts
    4,955
    Quote Originally Posted by Scaly piscine
    They're only 'legitimate' because the ICC decided to scrap any sort of stepped limit for different bowling speeds - the limits should have been related to arm speeds, but this would have made it very difficult to keep Murali 'legitimate' and for the rules to have any credibility at the same time - so they sacrificed credibility in the end.
    What are you on about? Arm speeds? I think you'd find Murali's arm speed would be up there with someone like McGrath, so your point is irrelevant.
    I think it's obvious that historically, the ICC has had a bias against Asian (or non-white) nations - it makes sense, it was formed out of an imperialist organisation and would naturally be expected to have a bias, not that it's right, of course.

  3. #33
    International Coach archie mac's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    canberra Australia
    Posts
    10,808
    Quote Originally Posted by C_C
    Yes, indeed. Marshall, Ambrose, Walsh, Bishop(Mk-I) and Patterson were all 'waning prowess of WI pace bowling'.
    While they are regarded to be a slightly inferior bunch in terms of quality to Croft-Holding-Garner-Marshall-Roberts, they were still very much capable of pinging away the batsman and in those days, Pakistan was the only one who could challenge them in terms of bowling prowess.

    As per what laws were changed, check the lbw law ammendment right after 'those lil pals of mine' terrorised the english batsmen.

    And dare i mention it, ICC was pressurised to the hilt to ban Murali's legitimate bowling credentials.
    And a certain blonde express bowler was never made to go through the biomechanists and various other process and has been never called by umpires for chucking when it is avidly clear that his bowling is no less 'suspect' than a certain long haired brown pace bowler.
    I think it was towards the end of that great bowlers career (Marshall) at the moment I would say the law would effect England and Australia most.

    What change was made to the LBW law? I remember a major one in the mid 30s but not until they changed the law to not offering a stroke to a ball pitched out side off, can I think of another major change? This latest law would have helped those two great bowlers, and would have stopped May and Cowdrey padding up outside off stump, during their famous stand.

    Lets not open out wounds re-does he or does he not chuck. I have other examples, as I am sure you have. I think they make rule changes to try and help Cricket. They just don't always get them right.
    You know it makes sense.

  4. #34
    Hall of Fame Member Sanz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    16,230
    Quote Originally Posted by Scaly piscine
    I meant a recent history, who gives a crap about 70 years ago
    1965 wasn't 70 years ago.

    look at the way England were threatened over playing Zimbabwe.
    Didn't know Zimbabwe were an Asian Country. Thanks for the Geography Lesson.

    Or the way a certain country has repeatedly gotten away with tampering with the ball.
    ahh when they did it, it was ball tampering, when you do it is 'Reverse Swing' . As far as I know I once saw an english Captain tampering with the ball at the Mecca of Cricket and he got away with it. .


  5. #35
    Global Moderator vic_orthdox's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Melbourne, Australia
    Posts
    29,569
    Quote Originally Posted by someone
    Tit.
    Quote Originally Posted by someone else
    Tat.
    Let's keep it away from this, shall we?

  6. #36
    International Captain Slow Love™'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Melbourne, Australia
    Posts
    6,080
    Quote Originally Posted by Anil
    i have heard lots of claims of asian bias on icc's part, does anyone have any concrete examples like what cc provided for the opposite view? i would be interested to know how that impression came about...??
    Firstly from the hooplah about Murali's action and their failure to "stamp him out of the game". I consider this a completely illegitimate criticism though, and I think it's superior technology that has led us to question the chucking issue so extensively (the discovery that just about every bowler in the game has some degree of straightening of the arm, for a start).

    The other source for the impression comes from the lips of Ehsan Mani, when he said "The ICC IS Asia". Which was a very poor comment and speaks volumes for his poor attitude concerning Zimbabwe. The reason this is relevant is because the Asian countries see no problem with touring Zimbabwe, and the split in attitudes on this has led to some schadenfreude directed towards the non-Asian countries that express reservations about going there.

    None of this really substantiates an institutional "asian bias" though, and I don't think there's much of a basis on which to rest that claim. I guess you have a situation where the Asian countries have formed a bloc of similar interest, but of course, over many years, that's exactly what you had before amongst the (dominantly) white countries, so it's just an evening up of the scale. For the first time, they feel like they have some power in terms of global cricket negotiations. Why shouldn't they?

    On the specific subject of this thread though - although Ganguly's whining is stupid, IMO, because he definitely most egregiously violates the over-rate stipulations and deliberately wastes time (and so deserves to be punished most severely), it IS the case that some of these tardy efforts by other captains aren't being punished perhaps as they should be, for consistency's sake. So let's be more consistent, match referees.
    Last edited by Slow Love™; 12-08-2005 at 11:27 PM.
    "Youre known for having a liking for men who look like women."
    - Linda

    "FFS I'm sick and tired of having to see a bloke bend over to pick something up or lean over and see their arse crack. For christ's sake pull your pants up or buy some underpants you bogan because nobody want's to see it. And this is a boat building shed (well one of them) not a porn studio."
    - Craig

  7. #37
    Hall of Fame Member Sanz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    16,230
    Quote Originally Posted by Scaly piscine
    look at the way England were threatened over playing Zimbabwe.
    I thought England Invited Zimbabwe to play in Natwest Series, No ??

  8. #38
    International Coach Anil's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Location
    Tattooine
    Posts
    13,503
    Quote Originally Posted by archie mac
    I think they make rule changes to try and help Cricket. They just don't always get them right.
    sure, sure...it's always out of the goodness of their heart...are you really that naive or is it just more convenient to believe that? the classic example of a rule change to benefit the european nations was the change from grass hockey to astroturf hockey and changed rules to make the game more physical and less dependent on dribbling skills essentially to counter and negate indian(especially) and pakistani dominance in the sport...knowing very well that they would take a long time to conjure up the monetary resources to train and play consistently on astroturf and acquire the physical attributes to challenge super-fit european and australian teams....
    Last edited by Anil; 12-08-2005 at 11:48 PM.

  9. #39
    International Coach Anil's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Location
    Tattooine
    Posts
    13,503
    Quote Originally Posted by Slow Love™
    Firstly from the hooplah about Murali's action and their failure to "stamp him out of the game". I consider this a completely illegitimate criticism though, and I think it's superior technology that has led us to question the chucking issue so extensively (the discovery that just about every bowler in the game has some degree of straightening of the arm, for a start).

    The other source for the impression comes from the lips of Ehsan Mani, when he said "The ICC IS Asia". Which was a very poor comment and speaks volumes for his poor attitude concerning Zimbabwe. The reason this is relevant is because the Asian countries see no problem with touring Zimbabwe, and the split in attitudes on this has led to some schadenfreude directed towards the non-Asian countries that express reservations about going there.

    None of this really substantiates an institutional "asian bias" though, and I don't think there's much of a basis on which to rest that claim. I guess you have a situation where the Asian countries have formed a bloc of similar interest, but of course, over many years, that's exactly what you had before amongst the (dominantly) white countries, so it's just an evening up of the scale. For the first time, they feel like they have some power in terms of global cricket negotiations. Why shouldn't they?

    On the specific subject of this thread though - although Ganguly's whining is stupid, IMO, because he definitely most egregiously violates the over-rate stipulations and deliberately wastes time (and so deserves to be punished most severely), it IS the case that some of these tardy efforts by other captains aren't being punished perhaps as they should be, for consistency's sake. So let's be more consistent, match referees.
    thanks for the balanced view, it's not that asian nations should be let off lightly for their offences, it's just that all cricketing nations should be treated the same, that's all...and the murali chucking debate just revealed that almost all bowlers chuck so there is really no evidence of any preferential treatment there....

    i am no great admirer of ganguly but when he makes aggressive in-the-face comments or adopts that attitude, he is dismissed as an arrogant ***** but when steve waugh and key members of the aussie team makes snide remarks and insults their opponents prior to and during every series, it is given the fancy term "mental disintegration" and all of a sudden it is a legit technique used in cricket to gain ascendancy over the opposition....and this sort of attitude has umpteen examples in every facet of life, not just cricket....
    Last edited by Anil; 12-08-2005 at 11:50 PM.

  10. #40
    Hall of Fame Member Sanz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    16,230
    Quote Originally Posted by Slow Love™
    The other source for the impression comes from the lips of Ehsan Mani, when he said "The ICC IS Asia". Which was a very poor comment and speaks volumes for his poor attitude concerning Zimbabwe. The reason this is relevant is because the Asian countries see no problem with touring Zimbabwe, and the split in attitudes on this has led to some schadenfreude directed towards the non-Asian countries that express reservations about going there.
    I really dont have a problem If England/NZ/Aus or for that matter any other country doesn't want to play Zimbabwe, What I despise is the hypocrisy some of the countries display. They invite Zimbabwe to play in their country, earn revenues but when it is their turn to oblige Zimbabwe with a reciprocatory tour, they start talking about Morality.

    Indian board hasn't really done anything because Indian govt has still maintained diplomatic relations with Zimbabwe. Indian Goct doesn't think the situation is that worse (I disagree though) to boycott Zim. So Why single out cricket tours ?

  11. #41
    International Captain Slow Love™'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Melbourne, Australia
    Posts
    6,080
    Quote Originally Posted by Anil
    i am no great admirer of ganguly but when he makes aggressive in-the-face comments or adopts that attitude, he is dismissed as an arrogant ***** but when steve waugh and key members of the aussie team makes snide remarks and insults their opponents, it is given the fancy term "mental disintegration" and all of a sudden it is a legit technique used in cricket to gain ascendancy over the opposition....and this sort of attitude has umpteen examples in every facet of life, not just cricket....
    I agree.

    FWIW, I consider Ganguly (over-rates aside) to be in the mould of Ian Chappell. Hell, he did his share of time-wasting, too.

    The claims of Asian bias in some ways are very perplexing, particularly when you look at various disciplinary inconsistencies over the years - both as to how they're charged, and what the penalties are. I find it hard to believe on that count.

    But further from this, there has been a re-configuration of interests within the ICC. Partly by the introduction of new test-playing countries, but also because of the changing world. South Africa and Zimbabwe for example, used to cater to "white" interests, and for obvious reasons, this has dramatically changed. And then, in addition to this, there's the realisation of the extraordinary power of television/sponsorship etc, in highly populated countries.

    In a way, the cries of Asian bias mimic other realms of public life - like for example, those that cry that black people/women etc now have all the power, and that the pendulum has swung too far the other way - traditional complaints tied to more equitible circumstances for those with previously limited power. Dunno - it's all a bit depressing in a way though, to think that all these interests in world cricket are still so tied to ethnicity and culture. It was interesting to hear though (even if it was only rumor) that there was a group of member representatives prepared to vote against Zimbabwe's test status during Australia's last tour that apparently included South Africa and India. Don't know if it was true though.

    Mind you, I still think the organization, at least in terms of it's public heirarchy, largely sucks.
    Last edited by Slow Love™; 13-08-2005 at 12:02 AM.

  12. #42
    International Captain Slow Love™'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Melbourne, Australia
    Posts
    6,080
    Quote Originally Posted by Sanz
    I really dont have a problem If England/NZ/Aus or for that matter any other country doesn't want to play Zimbabwe, What I despise is the hypocrisy some of the countries display. They invite Zimbabwe to play in their country, earn revenues but when it is their turn to oblige Zimbabwe with a reciprocatory tour, they start talking about Morality.

    Indian board hasn't really done anything because Indian govt has still maintained diplomatic relations with Zimbabwe. Indian Goct doesn't think the situation is that worse (I disagree though) to boycott Zim. So Why single out cricket tours ?
    Well, I've had the "touring Zimbabwe" debate multiple times, so I won't repeat myself.... BUT:

    When somebody says "well, what's going on in Zimbabwe is outrageous, but I don't see the point in boycotting Zimbabwe" or, "I don't think a cricket tour specifically will make a difference", OK, that's a point of view (even if it's one I disagree with).

    But the ICC has gone further than that. They have assured us that there is nothing wrong with Zimbabwe cricket, and that the ZCU is not being operated by Mugabe's stooges with a specific political agenda, when it is obvious to ALL of us that this isn't true.

    To be honest though, I think that some of the motivation for the criticism of these countries isn't really about hypocrisy so much. I think there's far too much of a joy at the colonial powers getting their comeuppance (the schadenfreude I mentioned earlier). I could be wrong though. Yes, it would be far more desirable for the countries not wanting to tour not hosting Zimbabwe in the first place. However, it would be even more desirable if all the countries on the ICC would express the same reservations about Zimbabwe and it's cricket.

    IMO.

  13. #43
    International Coach Anil's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Location
    Tattooine
    Posts
    13,503
    Quote Originally Posted by Slow Love™
    I agree.

    FWIW, I consider Ganguly (over-rates aside) to be in the mould of Ian Chappell. Hell, he did his share of time-wasting, too.

    The claims of Asian bias in some ways are very perplexing, particularly when you look at various disciplinary inconsistencies over the years - both as to how they're charged, and what the penalties are. I find it hard to believe on that count.

    But further from this, there has been a re-configuration of interests within the ICC. Partly by the introduction of new test-playing countries, but also because of the changing world. South Africa and Zimbabwe for example, used to cater to "white" interests, and for obvious reasons, this has dramatically changed. And then, in addition to this, there's the realisation of the extraordinary power of television/sponsorship etc, in highly populated countries.

    In a way, the cries of Asian bias mimic other realms of public life - like for example, those that cry that black people/women etc now have all the power, and that the pendulum has swung too far the other way - traditional complaints tied to more equitible circumstances for those with previously limited power. Dunno - it's all a bit depressing in a way though, to think that all these interests in world cricket are still so tied to ethnicity and culture. It was interesting to hear though (even if it was only rumor) that there was a group of member representatives prepared to vote against Zimbabwe's test status during Australia's last tour that apparently included South Africa and India. Don't know if it was true though.

    Mind you, I still think the organization, at least in terms of it's public heirarchy, largely sucks.
    yeah you've got that right....the europeans who were used to holding sway suddenly find asians at the helm and having a big say in cricketing affairs and they are distinctly uncomfortable with that and that expresses itself in outpourings about asian bias...

  14. #44
    C_C
    C_C is offline
    International Captain C_C's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    World
    Posts
    6,990
    Quote Originally Posted by Scaly piscine
    They're only 'legitimate' because the ICC decided to scrap any sort of stepped limit for different bowling speeds - the limits should have been related to arm speeds, but this would have made it very difficult to keep Murali 'legitimate' and for the rules to have any credibility at the same time - so they sacrificed credibility in the end.

    Incorrect.
    The limits set cannot be due to pure arm-speeds.
    For one, Murali is on record to generate a higher arm speed than McGrath. So why should his armspeed be restricted ?
    For two, bowlers have different armspeeds for different balls and it is too complex to monitor.
    An offcutter is of different armspeed than a bouncer. Same with a floater and a big ripper.
    When everyone flexes, victimising Murali is WRONG.

  15. #45
    C_C
    C_C is offline
    International Captain C_C's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    World
    Posts
    6,990
    Quote Originally Posted by Scaly piscine
    Fairly obvious why 10 years ago is far more relevant than 70 years ago. England were unfairly threatened and were the scapegoat for the ICC's awful handling of Zimbabwe. And that last comparison is complete tosh.

    England were not threatened unfairly. I have no problems if England refuses to HOST AND VISIT zimbabwe.
    But is simply smacks of hypcorasy to invite zimbabwe for cricket and generate $$ but not do the same back for zimbabwe.
    And the last comparison is complete tosh ? Pray tell how ?
    If wide rumour-mongering from disgruntled media outlets and one man's confession to have tampered with the ball in FIRST CLASS matches is enough to extend it towards the whole team and in all forms of sport, then wide rumour-mongering and one man's doping incident is enough to extend doping accusations towards the whole team.
    Thats being fair, wouldnt you say ?

Page 3 of 6 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast


Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Greatest ever Ashes series?
    By FaaipDeOiad in forum Cricket Chat
    Replies: 66
    Last Post: 13-09-2005, 05:47 PM
  2. Replies: 63
    Last Post: 30-03-2005, 04:50 PM
  3. Replies: 87
    Last Post: 28-02-2005, 02:53 PM
  4. Squiz's Ashes Series'
    By squiz in forum Cricket Games
    Replies: 12
    Last Post: 04-02-2005, 06:46 PM
  5. Replies: 30
    Last Post: 24-01-2005, 05:35 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •