Cheats XI

[andyc]

I'd say that's more due to an ingrained attitude remaining in cricket, and due to the fact that more non-subcontinental cricketers have been inclined to write about their cricketing days and describe any such incidents in detail.

Fair call.

 

[Burpey]

From time to time, the pressure gets to the captains and thus the over rate gets to be an issues..

He did it repeatedly, not just once or twice.

 

[alternative]

He did it repeatedly, not just once or twice.

I did edit my post...

Ok again let me say Punter

 

[Xuhaib]

So why did they cheat then?

A cheater is someone who is caught in some wrong doing.

Wasim and Waqar were accused of cheating but they were not caught.

 

[Burpey]

A cheater is someone who is caught in some wrong doing.

Wasim and Waqar were accused of cheating but they were not caught.

You don't have to be 'caught' to actually be a cheater. I think to be a cheater the only requirement is to actually 'cheat', and from Pringle's and Smith's accounts the Pakistani bowlers did so.

 

[Smudge]

Wasim and Waqar were accused of cheating but they were not caught.

Not caught by the home umpires...



(NB: I'm fully aware that NZ was by no means exempt from poor and possibly biased umpiring, particularly when Fred Goodall was standing).

 

[Xuhaib]

You don't have to be 'caught' to actually be a cheater. I think to be a cheater the only requirement is to actually 'cheat', and from Pringle's and Smith's accounts the Pakistani bowlers did so.

And Smith and Pringle were the messengers of God who would never lie

 

[Burpey]

And Smith and Pringle were the messengers of God who would never lie

Just one thing first off, don't start twisting people's words and turn it into one of those discussions.

Now, to the discussion at hand. I do not believe they are the 'messengers of God who would never lie', but I do believe what they have said. That's my decision and you yourself can believe what you want.

 

[Smudge]

Of course, I'm going to be a touch biased, but why shouldn't we believe Pringle, considering he was never caught, yet came out and admitted what he did.

After all, only players from one of those two teams taking part were actually suspended for ball tampering in their careers - and it wasn't any of the New Zealanders bowling in that series...

 

[steds]

A cheater is someone who is caught in some wrong doing.

Wasim and Waqar were accused of cheating but they were not caught.

A cheater is someone who does something against the rules to gain an unfair advantage. One that is caught is just a bad one.

 

[Xuhaib]

A cheater is someone who does something against the rules to gain an unfair advantage. One that is caught is just a bad one.

But if they are not caught red-handed then they cant be given the cheater tag.

 

[Xuhaib]

Just one thing first off, don't start twisting people's words and turn it into one of those discussions.

Now, to the discussion at hand. I do not believe they are the 'messengers of God who would never lie', but I do believe what they have said. That's my decision and you yourself can believe what you want.

I have not twisted anywords here.

You can go on believing Pringle and Smith's comment its your own oponion .Take an example son.

There is a good student (Waqar) who gets good marks the bad student (Pringle) says that the good student got good marks because he cheated so what should should the teacher do should he believe the bad student without any proof

 

[Burpey]

But if they are not caught red-handed then they cant be given the cheater tag.

You believe that, steds and I don't.

 

[SirBloody Idiot]

Dravid?

 

[Goughy]

But if they are not caught red-handed then they cant be given the cheater tag.

Have you not read the article? Waqar was fined and given a suspension for getting caught 'cheating'.

From your above quote he can be defined as a cheat.

 

[Burpey]

I have not twisted anywords here.

You can go on believing Pringle and Smith's comment its your own oponion .Take an example son.

There is a good student (Waqar) who gets good marks the bad student (Pringle) says that the good student got good marks because he cheated so what should should the teacher do should he believe the bad student without any proof

You were implying that I thought two normal humans were prophets, when all I was doing was believing their account of this particular incident. In my books, you have twisted my words.

Now to deal with your example, it is completely irrelevant. You have classified Waqar as being the good guy while Pringle is the bad guy, obviously to champion your point. It is not objective at all.

 

[steds]

Have you not read the article? Waqar was fined and given a suspension for getting caught 'cheating'.

From your above quote he can be defined as a cheat.

Alec Stewart also admitted in his autobiography that the Surrey team altered the condition of the ball when Waqar was in the side.

Admitting that he, you, and your teamates did it is different to accusing him because he's a successful oppenent.

 

[Xuhaib]

Have you not read the article? Waqar was fined and given a suspension for getting caught 'cheating'.

From your above quote he can be defined as a cheat.

Waqar incident was no different then the Sachin incident and my reference of not getting caught for cheating was for that Pak-Nzl series.

 

[Xuhaib]

You were implying that I thought two normal humans were prophets, when all I was doing was believing their account of this particular incident. In my books, you have twisted my words.

Now to deal with your example, it is completely irrelevant. You have classified Waqar as being the good guy while Pringle is the bad guy, obviously to champion your point. It is not objective at all.

The good student and bad student example was related to their respectice career records.

Waqar good record = Good student and Vice versa for Pringle.

 

[Fusion]

Xuhaib,
I strongly suggest you ask the moderators to close this thread. All this thread will do is get people to throw accusations (true or otherwise) which will result in insults and hurt feelings. Your intention may have been to post a humourous thread, but this will only lead to angry debates.