Proposing a New Convention for Batsmen in their Late 90s

[honestbharani]

I would have assumed it was the latest one to be dismissed in the 90s, Teja ...

 

[Daemon]

My love guru thread was better than this imo

 

[Daemon]

It is quite amusing though that the opposite of what harsh has suggested has happened. Suraj Randiv, WAC.

 

[RossTaylorsBox]

Pakistan, the most gentlemanly of teams.

 

[Maximas]

completely illegitimize and devalue the process of scoring a hundred

 

[fredfertang]

There is a school of thought that reckons Douglas Jardine's antipathy towards Australians began in 1921 when he played for Oxford against them and Armstrong didn't play on after the close when he was 96 not out in a match that was going nowhere - it's a stupid theory, if he'd have tried to DRJ would just have patted the ball back to the bowler, but harsh clearly not the first the idea has occurred to - can't say the idea appeals to me though, and it would bugger up the First Chance Average calculations

 

[Red]

I'd love this to become a test cricket "thing" and I become a test cricketer and I'm on 99 and they drop the catch deliberately. I then get my ton and the opposition are expecting me to stand on my stumps or float up a catch to them and I just laugh at them as I smash my way to a triple century!

 

[weldone]

Come on Harsh. You can create better threads than this. You're not this bad.

 

[Lillian Thomson]

I was contemplating whether players around the world might want to be part of a new convention for batsmen in their late 90s. It goes like this. Say someone is on 99*, and happens to go for a foolish single, or pops up a catch. The fielders on the other side, instead of running or catching him out, decide to give him a life to get to the hundred. After having duly got to said hundred, the batsmen then gets himself out somehow, either a hit wicket, or a simple catch or a run-out.

I think it would be nice to have such a practice. Also realize many of you may not think of it as a great idea. Anyways, I am not proposing it be codified of course. How many chances would be given would obviously rest on the players involved. I am fine with only one chance.

Of course, if the other side then loses by a run, there might be some outrage

I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you're drunk.

 

[watson]

Life wasn't meant to be easy as they say. And one of joys of watching cricket is the stress of watching your favourite batsman fall over the line at 100. Allowing a second chance as it were also diminishes the batsman's achievement.

Generous thought though harsh.

 

[flibbertyjibber]

I think batsmen in their 90's will do well to see the ball never mind score runs.

 

[Adders]

There is a school of thought that reckons Douglas Jardine's antipathy towards Australians began in 1921 when he played for Oxford against them and Armstrong didn't play on after the close when he was 96 not out in a match that was going nowhere - it's a stupid theory

Yeah that's a nonsense theory............it was just because they're ****s.

 

[Dan]

It would be nice to see Lindsay Tuckett make it to the century. I agree, give him a free pass.

Arthur Morris and Everton Weekes are only in their early 90s. Should they be afforded the same opportunities?

 

[fredfertang]

Andy Ganteaume currently 94 not out - getting to a century in his only innings twice would certainly be a remarkable achievement