• Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.

    You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!

    If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.

Match fixing or doping?

Which is worse?


  • Total voters
    25

Spark

Global Moderator
They're both pretty bad but as far as cricket is concerned, definitely match fixing IMO.
 

Cruxdude

International Debutant
I am not comfortable with putting Match and spot fixing together. Match Fixing >>>> Doping. Doping (as in using performance enhancement drugs) == Spot Fixing.
 

miscer

U19 Cricketer
yea for me match fixing is far worse. i guess at some crude level doping still means that the player is playing purely to win. When you fix the match's result the whole thing is just a sham. It's the worst form of cheating in cricket, I think.
 

BoyBrumby

Englishman
Clearly one would aspire to have neither in the sport, but one of the main tenets of any sporting contest (as opposed to sporting entertainment like professional wrestling) is that the combatants are trying to win. With match-fixing this is eroded.

As great as the stand between Trott and Broad was in the 4th test of Pakistan's 2010 tour up here I personally find it impossible to view in quite the same way as I did on the Saturday before the NotW broke the no-balls for sale story.

Ftr I don't consider "spot-fixing" any less grave a sin than "match-fixing"; "fixing" any aspect of a match is match-fixing, surely? By definition.
 

morgieb

Request Your Custom Title Now!
worst one first-

match fixing > doping > spot fixing
Probably this. If it was an individual sport then doping and match fixing would be as bad as each other, but the integrity of the game is more likely to be wrecked with match fixing.
 

Agent Nationaux

International Coach
Match Fixing > Spot Fixing > Doping

The terrible feeling I experienced due to Asif's involvement in spot-gate was so much worse than the horrible feeling I got due to him taking drugs. I felt disgusted knowing that there are so many Pakistani youths who are striving to do better for their country and are very patriotic, and yet these traitors were willing to sell their country's reputation for cash.
 

andyc

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
Both are terrible and should result in life bans for all involved. However, I would rather a player test positive for doping than be shown to be match fixing.

Doping calls into question the fairness of an individual player's abilities and performance. Match fixing calls into question the legitimacy of the whole game.

Edit: Am including spot fixing with match fixing there. They are, for all intents and purposes, indistinguishable in my book.
 

Jono

Virat Kohli (c)
Spot fixing is basically match fixing. For one ball, or two, or whatever, Amir and Asif were trying not to win.
 

pskov

International 12th Man
Spot fixing is basically match fixing. For one ball, or two, or whatever, Amir and Asif were trying not to win.
This basically.

Match fixing/spot fixing is deliberately not performing to your best for ulterior motives and is the most serious crime in professional sport.
 

zaremba

Cricketer Of The Year
Am including spot fixing with match fixing there. They are, for all intents and purposes, indistinguishable in my book.
Spot fixing is basically match fixing. For one ball, or two, or whatever, Amir and Asif were trying not to win.
Come off it guys, trying to lose a match is worse than deliberately bowling a no-ball.

As for the OP, it's a really good question. I think we're all more revolted by fixing than cheating, but there's really no good reason for that. Either way you compromise the integrity of the game. The idea that the cheat is somehow the more noble for actually trying to win is a hard one to sustain.

It's a bit like being asked whether you'd prefer to die by being fried, boiled or roasted. None of them are pleasant and when you analyse them, they're all pretty sub-optimal.
 

zaremba

Cricketer Of The Year
On the day in 1948 when the Crims scored 700 against Essex, Keith Miller is said to have deliberately chucked his wicket away first ball*.

Applying Jono's logic, "for that one ball, Miller was trying to lose."

But personally I don't think that what Miller did was remotely as serious as it would have been had he (or his captain) deliberately tried to lose the match.

You can say of course that Miller chucking his wicket away didn't matter, because his team-mates were scoring so heavily that it couldn't possibly influence the outcome of the match. Couldn't a lot of spot-fixing be described in the same way?

Just a thought. Probably a crap one, but hey, that's never stopped me before.


* It's recently been suggested by David Frith that this may not in fact be true. But whether or not that's so, it doesn't really alter the point.
 

Top