Should Smith have been allowed a runner?

[GIMH]

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

[vic_orthdox]

Originally Posted by GeraintIsMyHero

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

Heard Andrew Flintoff's reward for his run-out in the Fifth Test was six overs off the ground, ITBT.

[GIMH]

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

[Fusion]

Originally Posted by Uppercut

Would you rather he were allowed to be substituted off for a reserve batsman? That's what happens in a lot of other sports.

My personal preference is that if he's hurt, then there should be no substitution period. IMHO that’s the harsh, but most fair way to deal with it.

[BoyBrumby]

Originally Posted by Uppercut

Would you rather he were allowed to be substituted off for a reserve batsman? That's what happens in a lot of other sports.

Nah, it'd be too open to abuse and the supersub in ODIs was a bust.

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.

[Uppercut]

Originally Posted by Fusion

My personal preference is that if he's hurt, then there should be no substitution period. IMHO that’s the harsh, but most fair way to deal with it.

I don't really agree I guess. I think there's a safety element to consider too. Players will generally play on if the other option is to make their team play with ten men. They could be aggravating injuries further and doing themselves some damage by, for example, continuing to run when their hamstring's gone. Substitutions don't really work for cricket, but having a runner is the next best thing.

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.

[shivfan]

Originally Posted by Jono

Did someone actually quote Ian Healy as an authority? Lol.

Anyway, Strauss should have had no say in it at all.

I agree....

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.

[Matt79]

Lol at people missing the facetitious Healy reference.

[Uppercut]

Was Ranatunga he said it to wasn't it?

[G.I.Joe]

No to the OP. Tough titties.

[tooextracool]

Originally Posted by Matt79

Cramping isn't an injury, it's a conditioning issue. To quote Ian Healy, you don't get a runner for being a fat *******, nor should you get one for lacking the fitness required. Maybe it was an extreme level of fitness required in this instance, but one of the things that makes someone a exceptional champion.

You could probably argue the same for those who get injured during a game and require a runner. The fitter you are as a player, the less likely you are to get injured and James Anderson and Makhaya Ntini are walking proof of that.

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.

[Kyle]

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.

[Scaly piscine]

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.

[Kyle]

Originally Posted by Scaly piscine

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.

Hi Scaly, Page 1 called, it wants its fat jokes back.

[Scaly piscine]

Meh.

You know "it's" can't be possessive right.