Cheats XI

[Burpey]

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

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

Okay, I will use your example then. Waqar was caught later on cheating. Therefore, in hindsight I am more likely to believe Pringle than Waqar. happy?

 

[Burpey]

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.

It doesn't need to resort to insults, and nothing of the sort has occurred yet. Stop stirring the pot with such posts.

 

[Xuhaib]

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.

So Alec Steward can also be labelled a cheat,thanks for finding a good keeper for my cheatsXI

BTW during the Oval test in the 92 series ball was getting checked after every over by the umpires so my advice is log on to cricinfo and check the scorecard.

 

[Xuhaib]

Okay, I will use your example then. Waqar was caught later on cheating. Therefore, in hindsight I am more likely to believe Pringle than Waqar. happy?

Its your choice sir

 

[Burpey]

Its your choice sir

Indeed it is. I am glad we agree on that point.

 

[Burpey]

Indeed it is. I am glad we agree on that point.

By the way, Michael Slater has to be in this, doesn't he? Not for any on-field actions though ...

 

[Xuhaib]

By the way, Michael Slater has to be in this, doesn't he? Not for any on-field actions though ...

Afridi and Athhers are dead set certain in my team maybe you can put Slats in your team

 

[Goughy]

So Alec Steward can also be labelled a cheat,thanks for finding a good keeper for my cheatsXI

EDIT- You seem not to be that serious
but just in case
Watching Waqar change the ball condition does not make Stewart a cheat. Same way it does not make any of the Pakistani batsmen cheats who played in the same team. They are not commiting the crime.

I think it is fair to say with all the evidence, that Waqar 'cheated' by doctoring the ball. To argue otherwise kind of shows a lack of willingness to view things rationally and without bias.

The issue is whether the ball tampering is an issue? and whether it taints Waqars legacy?

For me, the answers are yes and no. I hated the tampering and lost some respect for the way it was denied in the face of evidence however, despite that it takes nothing away from Waqar as a bowler and he is still one of my favourites.

 

[dontcloseyoureyes]

Just wait until C_C spots this thread. You guys calling Waqar a cheat are all toast.

 

[Xuhaib]

EDIT- You seem not to be that serious
but just in case
Watching Waqar change the ball condition does not make Stewart a cheat. Same way it does not make any of the Pakistani batsmen cheats who played in the same team. They are not commiting the crime.

I think it is fair to say with all the evidence, that Waqar 'cheated' by doctoring the ball. To argue otherwise kind of shows a lack of willingness to view things rationally and without bias.

The issue is whether the ball tampering is an issue? and whether it taints Waqars legacy?

For me, the answers are yes and no. I hated the tampering and lost some respect for the way it was denied in the face of evidence however, despite that it takes nothing away from Waqar as a bowler and he is still one of my favourites.

Goughy read steds post he mentions that Surrey team changed the condition of the ball not only Waqar so yes Steward can be labelled a cheat.

BTW how much truth is in Steward comments is another mystery, he has to sell more copies of his book and what better way to sell more then by adding extra masala and yeah why not do it on account of a controversial Pakistani who happened to be both a teammate and an oppenent.

 

[Burpey]

Just wait until C_C spots this thread. You guys calling Waqar a cheat are all toast.

What a joy that'll be.

 

[Xuhaib]

Just wait until C_C spots this thread. You guys calling Waqar a cheat are all toast.

LOLZ..would be fun, i would be happy to take the backseat.

 

[BoyBrumby]

I'm not at all happy about the thread being called "Cheats XI" as it's a fairly serious thing to label someone as, maybe "Transgressors XI" would a an acceptable new-Labourish third way alternative.

Anyway, the point of me logging on from my work is to say that I can remember Waqar & Wasim being caught tampering in a test: in 1992 when Pakistan played over here. On the afternoon of the third day of the second Test at Lord's the umpires actually changed the Pakistan ball; the clear implication being that its condition was due to rather more than wear & tear.

 

[Goughy]

I'm not at all happy about the thread being called "Cheats XI" as it's a fairly serious thing to label someone as, maybe "Transgressors XI" would a an acceptable new-Labourish third way alternative.

"Transgressors XI", implies they have intentionally broke the rules and could therefore be said to have 'cheated'.

How about we call a spade a spade and not hide behind 'new-Labourish third way alternatives'?

 

[alternative]

Just wait until C_C spots this thread. You guys calling Waqar a cheat are all toast.

someone wants to stir things here in CC

 

[Xuhaib]

I'm not at all happy about the thread being called "Cheats XI" as it's a fairly serious thing to label someone as, maybe "Transgressors XI" would a an acceptable new-Labourish third way alternative.

Anyway, the point of me logging on from my work is to say that I can remember Waqar & Wasim being caught tampering in a test: in 1992 when Pakistan played over here. On the afternoon of the third day of the second Test at Lord's the umpires actually changed the Pakistan ball; the clear implication being that its condition was due to rather more than wear & tear.

I am not a top cricket pundit that if i label someone cheat then there would be turning of heads all around the cricket world, Fusion seems to be the only one who understands that my intensions of starting the thread was for some humerous and harmless moments but it seems the people over hear are humerless and sensitive . So I would like to apologise to those whose feeling i may have hurt intentionaly or unintensionaly by starting this thread.

Regarding that Lords test incident people were unaware of reverse swing at that time and so the umpires were confused by the condition of the ball which was shiny on one side and scuffed up on the other so they demanded a ball change which had no effect as Wasim and Waqar polished of the tail with the newer ball, as i have said it was never proven in that series so you cant call them cheats.

 

[Goughy]

proven in that series so you cant call them cheats.

Isolating every series and saying you have to be caught in every series is extreme. I love Waqar, but he cheated and did it often. You need to get a bit more realistic.

I drive fast but have only been given 3 tickets in my life. Because I was caught 3 times does that mean Ive only broke the speed limit thrice? or does it mean that Ive been caught before and I am likely to continue to do it and get away with it most of the time?

You cannot be so naive to think that a player (with a history) has only done it the time they have been caught.

The fact he has been caught before proves he cheated and also shows he is likely to have done it previously and again. Same as my driving

I could watch Waqar all day but to deny he cheated is just like putting your head in the sand or covering your ears and shouting "LA-LA-LA-LA-LA-LA"

 

[BoyBrumby]

"Transgressors XI", implies they have intentionally broke the rules and could therefore be said to have 'cheated'.

How about we call a spade a spade and not hide behind 'new-Labourish third way alternatives'?

Actually "transgression" merely implies the breaking of rules without the associated value judgement that comes with calling someone "cheat". If a bowler accidentally oversteps & bowls a front-foot no-ball he has transgressed, no-one would call him a cheat tho.

 

[Goughy]

Actually "transgression" merely implies the breaking of rules without the associated value judgement that comes with calling someone "cheat". If a bowler accidentally oversteps & bowls a front-foot no-ball he has transgressed, no-one would call him a cheat tho.

Yes but thats not what you meant, otherwise the XI would be made up of fast bowlers with no-ball problems rather than what the thread is aimed at looking at.

Definition
Transgression may be:

a legal transgression, a crime

What is cheating if not breaking the rules? and the things we are talking about like Athertons dirt in the pocket, Waqar tampering the ball and Cronjes matchfixing are hardly likely to be completely accidental crossing of boundaries are they?

 

[BoyBrumby]

Yes but thats not what you meant, otherwise the XI would be made up of fast bowlers with no-ball problems rather than what the thread is aimed at looking at.

The distinction I meant to draw is that to label someone a "cheat", with no caveat is still a fairly serious thing to do in what is traditionally a sport that sets great store by fair-play. That may be terribly old-fashioned of me, but this is the sport that gave us "just not cricket" to describe soemthing underhand.

The players in people's various XIs may've cheated once, twice or more, but to my mind there's a subtle distinction between one who has cheated & a "cheat".

Woud you honestly be happy to call, say, Shahid Afridi "Pakistani leg-spinning all-rounder & cheat"?