cricket betting betway blog banner small
Page 1 of 4 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 46
Like Tree8Likes

Thread: Absolutely ridiculous/odd cricket scorecards

  1. #1
    U19 Vice-Captain
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Tasmania, Australia
    Posts
    500

    Absolutely ridiculous/odd cricket scorecards

    Title kinda sums it up.


    What are some matches where score-wise some absolutely ridiculous things happen? Here are a couple I have some across;

    Leicestershire vs Essex, 2006
    Leicestershire v Essex at Leicester, Sep 20-23, 2006 | Cricket Scorecard | Cricinfo.com

    Basically seems to start off pretty normally. Then in Essex's second innings the only bowlers used are Paul Nixon and Darren Robinson, both who are not even bowlers. Essex's batting performance in that innings needs to be seen to be believed. I'd love for somebody to tell me what the hell was going on, because I have no idea.


    Western Australia Vs South Australia, 1996
    http://static.cricinfo.com/db/ARCHIV...0MAR-03APR1996

    First innings Gilchrist gets 189*. South Australia eventually realise they cannot win and decided to bat it out as that will win them the Sheffield shield. Siddons gets 4 off 134 balls. May gets a duck off 52 balls. SA went on to draw the match and win the Shield.



    Pretty interesting stuff.
    Fred Tetanus likes this.

  2. #2
    Request Your Custom Title Now! Simon's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Location
    Canberra
    Posts
    25,597
    1st one looks like it was manufactured to try and get a result. Looking at the time of year it was probably the last game of the season with both teams needing a win or something like that.

  3. #3
    International Captain stumpski's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Medway valley
    Posts
    5,951
    Yes, used to be fairly common in rain-affected matches itbt, a big factor in adopting four day games. Wisden relegates hundreds scored in these circumstances to a footnote in its Records section.

  4. #4
    Cricket Web: All-Time Legend morgieb's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    63*
    Posts
    20,533
    1st looks like it was done so a result could be done, and the 2nd, well, SA needed to win the Shield, obv.
    RIP Craig Walsh (Craig) 1985-2012
    RIP Hughesy 1988-2014. 63* for eternity.


  5. #5
    International Debutant Dissector's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    India
    Posts
    2,343
    Quote Originally Posted by Simon View Post
    1st one looks like it was manufactured to try and get a result. Looking at the time of year it was probably the last game of the season with both teams needing a win or something like that.
    What does that mean? The two teams agreed to an approximate target and the number of overs and then the bowlers bowled rubbish in the third innings so that the right target could be reached? Wouldn't this be against the rules and practically be a kind of match fixing?

  6. #6
    International Captain stumpski's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Medway valley
    Posts
    5,951
    Quote Originally Posted by Dissector View Post
    What does that mean? The two teams agreed to an approximate target and the number of overs and then the bowlers bowled rubbish in the third innings so that the right target could be reached? Wouldn't this be against the rules and practically be a kind of match fixing?
    That's exactly what happens, or what used to happen fairly regularly. It's not against any of the existing Laws, but 'the authorities' took a very dim view of it when it first occurred.

    If a match is badly affected by rain though, sometiimes it's hard to get a result any other way.

  7. #7
    Request Your Custom Title Now! Mr Mxyzptlk's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Location
    Trinidad and Tobago (Trinidad)
    Posts
    36,797
    Quote Originally Posted by Dissector View Post
    What does that mean? The two teams agreed to an approximate target and the number of overs and then the bowlers bowled rubbish in the third innings so that the right target could be reached? Wouldn't this be against the rules and practically be a kind of match fixing?
    Quote Originally Posted by stumpski View Post
    That's exactly what happens, or what used to happen fairly regularly. It's not against any of the existing Laws, but 'the authorities' took a very dim view of it when it first occurred.

    If a match is badly affected by rain though, sometiimes it's hard to get a result any other way.
    Or possibly there wasn't any collaboration between the captains/teams. Leicestershire declared well behind, then offered up the absolute least of their bowlers, knowing that Essex would attack savagely then declare, needing a win themselves. Whenever a target was set, Leics just went out there and attacked it.

    Of course this is just a theory, but shows that there needn't be anything to frown upon nor accusations of match-fixing to get a result like that.
    Sreesanth said, "Next ball he was beaten and I said, 'is this the King Charles Lara? Who is this impostor, moving around nervously? I should have kept my mouth shut for the next ball - mind you, it was a length ball - Lara just pulled it over the church beyond the boundary! He is a true legend."

    The...er...Twitter[/SIZE][/CENTER]

  8. #8
    Cricket Web Moderator Neil Pickup's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Location
    Oxford, England
    Posts
    27,193
    Quote Originally Posted by Dissector View Post
    What does that mean? The two teams agreed to an approximate target and the number of overs and then the bowlers bowled rubbish in the third innings so that the right target could be reached? Wouldn't this be against the rules and practically be a kind of match fixing?
    Rubbish as in 30mph leg stump full tosses, I expect. Also, how is it match fixing? It is creating a situation where a result is possible (any of three) - both teams had to win to gain promotion (and hope Worcestershire didn't): a draw was no good to either.

    Almost all of day three was lost due to rain. When Leics declared 114 behind, there were 86 overs left in the day - the game was dead to all intents. Notts then made 186 in ten overs - making the lead 300, and 72 overs remaining (two overs lost at each innings break). Leics made 301/5 in 70.1 overs... it could easily have been any of the three (four) results, giving both sides that chance of going up.

    As it turned out, Worcestershire won their game anyway and it made no difference.
    MSN Messenger: minardineil2000 at hotmail dot com | AAAS Chairman
    CricketWeb Black | CricketWeb XI Captain
    ClarkeWatch: We're Watching Rikki - Are You?

    Up The Grecians - Exeter City FC

    Completing the Square: My Cricket Web Blog

  9. #9
    State Captain Chubb's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    1,983
    Quote Originally Posted by Mr Mxyzptlk View Post
    Or possibly there wasn't any collaboration between the captains/teams. Leicestershire declared well behind, then offered up the absolute least of their bowlers, knowing that Essex would attack savagely then declare, needing a win themselves. Whenever a target was set, Leics just went out there and attacked it.

    Of course this is just a theory, but shows that there needn't be anything to frown upon nor accusations of match-fixing to get a result like that.
    There was collusion in that match- I remember discussion of it on the Essex website. They've been keener to set up results than most counties in recent season, though they hardly ever win when they do for some reason.
    Fred Tetanus likes this.

  10. #10
    Request Your Custom Title Now! Mr Mxyzptlk's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Location
    Trinidad and Tobago (Trinidad)
    Posts
    36,797
    Quote Originally Posted by Chubb View Post
    There was collusion in that match- I remember discussion of it on the Essex website. They've been keener to set up results than most counties in recent season, though they hardly ever win when they do for some reason.
    Wasn't necessarily referring to what happened in that match. Just posing a theory of what could have happened in such a situation.

  11. #11
    Cricketer Of The Year zaremba's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Burgess Hill
    Posts
    9,171
    When 3-day county games were played, these arrangements were common. They were unknown in Australia though. I was in Oz in 1991/2 when (IIRC) Geoff Lawson became the first State captain to forfeit an innings. Created a massive furore which, as someone brought up on county cricket, I couldn't really understand.

    It's not match fixing because both teams are trying to win.

  12. #12
    International Debutant Dissector's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    India
    Posts
    2,343
    The reason it's like match-fixing is that part of the game: i.e. the third innings in this case isn't a competitive contest but a pre-arranged agreement by the two teams to push the game in a certain direction. I can see why it might benefit the match as a whole but it strikes me as pretty dubious nevertheless.

  13. #13
    World Traveller Craig's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    Super Happy Fun Sugar Lollipop Land!
    Posts
    34,127
    Quote Originally Posted by Neil Pickup View Post
    Rubbish as in 30mph leg stump full tosses, I expect. Also, how is it match fixing? It is creating a situation where a result is possible (any of three) - both teams had to win to gain promotion (and hope Worcestershire didn't): a draw was no good to either.

    Almost all of day three was lost due to rain. When Leics declared 114 behind, there were 86 overs left in the day - the game was dead to all intents. Notts then made 186 in ten overs - making the lead 300, and 72 overs remaining (two overs lost at each innings break). Leics made 301/5 in 70.1 overs... it could easily have been any of the three (four) results, giving both sides that chance of going up.

    As it turned out, Worcestershire won their game anyway and it made no difference.
    Then it is their fault for not playing better cricket throughout the season and not ot be in that situation. Cases like that makes it a farce and I can hold no sympathy towards either team. I would have fined both teams pretty heavily.
    Fred Tetanus likes this.
    Beware the lollipop of mediocrity. Lick once and you suck forever...

    RIP Fardin Qayyumi, a true legend of CW

    Quote Originally Posted by Boobidy View Post
    Bradman never had to face quicks like Sharma and Irfan Pathan. He wouldn't of lasted a ball against those 2, not to mention a spinner like Sehwag.

  14. #14
    Request Your Custom Title Now! Mr Mxyzptlk's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Location
    Trinidad and Tobago (Trinidad)
    Posts
    36,797
    Quote Originally Posted by Craig View Post
    Then it is their fault for not playing better cricket throughout the season and not ot be in that situation.
    Not at all true, considering the numerous different factors that affect results in cricket matches, let alone over the course of a season.

  15. #15
    Cricketer Of The Year zaremba's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Burgess Hill
    Posts
    9,171
    Quote Originally Posted by Craig View Post
    Then it is their fault for not playing better cricket throughout the season and not ot be in that situation. Cases like that makes it a farce and I can hold no sympathy towards either team. I would have fined both teams pretty heavily.
    What if the match is rain-affected, so you've got a day and a half to produce a result in a 4-innings match? You've got two options: either to bat out a mind-bendingly boring draw or for the skippers to get together and to negotiate a target. The aim of both captains being, throughout, for their team to win the game.

    Admittedly the means of achieving this aren't pretty, and they distort certain records (many of the fastest hundreds in FC history are relegated to footnote status by Wisden because they've been scored in such contrived situations), but there's a lot of sense in allowing this to happen.

    And as I've said, it used to be very, very common. The combination of 3 day cricket, uncovered pitches and the English weather basically necessitated it. It's not as though a couple of teams had a little sneaky pact at everyone else's expense, because everyone did it.

Page 1 of 4 123 ... LastLast


Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

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

Similar Threads

  1. #Link to Testing Forum#
    By Matteh in forum Testing Forum
    Replies: 3225
    Last Post: 23-02-2017, 04:22 AM
  2. Well it's not time to go, and first...
    By Richard in forum Off Topic
    Replies: 439
    Last Post: 09-06-2014, 12:12 AM
  3. The man who revolutionised cricket
    By C_C in forum Cricket Chat
    Replies: 43
    Last Post: 15-06-2011, 11:23 PM
  4. Cricket Web's Review of International Cricket 2009
    By James in forum Cricket Games
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 13-07-2009, 07:35 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
  •