Indeed, when Aldo was injured all the time for the whites we'd have loved to have someone else to do his running as long as he was still there to put it in the net
TBF that was because if he stayed on the field he'd have ran all the Aussies out and we didn't want to cheat the paying crowd out of a full day's cricket
Runners less than perfect, but the only other option is the batsman sucking it up. Which there's an argument that they should anyway, bowlers don't get a runner if they're crocked in the course of a game.
Cricket Web's 2013/14 Premier League Tipping Champion
- As featured in The Independent.
"as much a news event as an actual footballer, a worthy stop-start centre forward, but an all-time hyper-galactico when it comes to doing funny things with cars and hats, a player whose signing proves once again that the Premier League is still undoubtedly the best in the world when it comes to doing things with cars and hats."
- Barney Ronay on Mario Balotelli
Unlike the issue of substitute-fielders, it's not like teams are gaining any kind of advantage by using a runner unless they're properly ****ed. It screws up the running between the wicket pretty horribly. You generally don't want one unless it's completely necessary. If I were Strauss I'd probably have let Smith have one and told my infielders to be on their toes for the inevitable run-out.
I don't see why the fielding captain should be asked at all. It's about time cricket moved on from this false premise of the 'spirit of the game', and put the umpires in sole charge of deciding whether a batsman can have a runner or not. This business of asking the fielding captain has to come to an end.
Lol at people missing the facetitious Healy reference.
GOOD OLD COLLINGWOOD - PREMIERS IN 2010Originally Posted by Irfan
Is Cam White, Is Good.
Was Ranatunga he said it to wasn't it?
I'm a bit torn between this issue. Honestly, I'm against the opinion of anyone getting a runner in the first place because quite frankly if you get injured then its your own fault and you shouldn't be allowed a fresher, and usually more agile, runner to come in for you. Running and physical exertion in general in ODI cricket play a very big role the longer you bat, any one who's ever played a long inning knows how much running drains out of you and it affects the rest of your game.
Should Strauss have allowed Smith a runner? Well yes, because of his philosophy: you can't be hypocritical and allow someone a runner based on what type of pain they are suffering from.
Should players be allowed runners? No, go back to the dressing room if you are not fit to run.
Tendulkar = the most overated player EVER!!
Beckham = the most overated footballer EVER!!
Vassell = the biggest disgrace since rikki clarke!!
It was unsporting. It is the same law, so Shah should not have been allowed a substitute fielder, he clearly had no injury. England are one of the most prolific abusers of the substitute fielder.
England now have a series in South Africa. You can bet if there's a runner needed by England, there'll be an argument.
Last edited by Kyle; 28-09-2009 at 01:05 PM.
If you came into a game with a pre-existing injury and you were struggling with it and wanted a runner it would be tough luck.
If you come into a game suffering from a pre-existing penchant for pies then I don't see how it's any different.
National Scrabble Champion 2009, 8th, 11th and 5th in 2009/2011/2013 World Championships, gold medal (team) at Causeway, 2011 Masters Champion
Australia’s Darren Lehmann is a ‘blatant loser’ insists Stuart Broad
Countdown Series 57 Champion
King of the Arcade
Reply from mods to my prank bans in public:
Reply from mods to my prank bans in private:
MSN - evil_budgie @ hotmail.co.uk
You know "it's" can't be possessive right.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)