Proposing a New Convention for Batsmen in their Late 90s

[harsh.ag]

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

 

[Antihippy]

Nah.

No mercy.

 

[Hurricane]

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

Good grief. We seem to be able to conjure up all types of threads about cricket. Never imagined there would be this one.

I think part of what makes a 100 so special is crossing through the nervous nineties. I got out for 98 once after being told I was on 91*. The other team told me they considered dropping the ball for me as I had batted so dominantly up to then. But I wouldn't have wanted any mercy as it would have taken the shine off my innings.

My other three centuries are held firmly in my mind as glorious days (where I wasn't told what score I was on by the way).

 

[TheJediBrah]

That is just incredibly, unbelievably stupid

 

[King Pietersen]

 

[harsh.ag]

I think part of what makes a 100 so special is crossing through the nervous nineties. I got out for 98 once after being told I was on 91*. The other team told me they considered dropping the ball for me as I had batted so dominantly up to then. But I wouldn't have wanted any mercy as it would have taken the shine off my innings.

My other three centuries are held firmly in my mind as glorious days (where I wasn't told what score I was on by the way).

Yeah, but I guess everyone's a little different. I have been out on 97 once, and wouldn't have minded it at all.

 

[harsh.ag]

Thinking about it, it obviously isn't something that should be done every time.

Only in a few cases, when the players feel the batsman has played an exceptional innings, and where he is done something quite stupid in the nervousness. This was what was on my mind when I made this thread tbh, and not a blanket free ride to all late 90s.

 

[Goughy]

Surely the reward and glory of a hundred is having earned it rather than having it gifted to you?

 

[Burner]

Getting a batsman out on late 90s is the opposition's and bowler's way of saying 'Suck it' to the batsman. Especially if the batsman had played an exceptional innings, then, it becomes much more satisfying to put the burn on the batsman. Bad bad idea.. Would never work.

 

[Jono]

You've let yourself down today harsh

 

[harsh.ag]

Don't have to throw the baby out with the bath water ****s.

 

[Hurricane]

Don't have to throw the baby out with the bath water ****s.

This baby has gone the same way as the one in trainspotting

 

[kiwiviktor81]

How about, if a bowler is on 4 wickets, the opposing batsman just deliberately castles himself to let him get a five-for, with the proviso that he will bowl easy to him for a bit in the next innings?

 

[Jono]

Don't have to throw the baby out with the bath water ****s.

not sure you know what that phrase means.

 

[CaptainGrumpy]

How about, if a bowler is on 4 wickets, the opposing batsman just deliberately castles himself to let him get a five-for, with the proviso that he will bowl easy to him for a bit in the next innings?

How about if a team is forced to play McClenaghan, the batsmen after smashing him around hole out in overs 45-50 to mid wicket or long on or nick a wild cross bat swipe to the keeper so his average looks good and he keeps getting selected while his career economy rate goes past 6.

 

[Howe_zat]

this is horse nonsense

 

[OverratedSanity]

Agree with OP. Batsmen in their late 90s are probably going to croak any second, so giving them a nice moment is a good thing.

 

[dontcloseyoureyes]

Close this thread.

 

[honestbharani]

You've let yourself down today harsh

Shouldn't you drop him and let him get his 100?

 

[Teja.]

Matthews has been using an Indian proxy and posting in disguise for 2 years to make this thread. We know it's you, Angelo.