Last edited by Son Of Coco; 28-09-2009 at 08:11 PM.
R.I.P Craigos, you were a champion bloke. One of the best
R.I.P Fardin 'Bob' Qayyumi
Member of the Church of the Holy Glenn McGrath
"How about you do something contstructive in this forum for once and not fill the forum with ****. You offer nothing." - theegyptian.
"There's more chance of SoC making a good post than Smith averaging 99.95." - Furball
"**** you're such a **** poster." - Furball
Cramps can happen to any player at any time...it has very little to do with pre match fitness level of the player..Most batsmen do get a runner..That certainly was unfair to deny Smith a runner at that stage of the game. I am sure Strauss would have no problems if South Africa were 100 runs short!
"This is sport, we need our losers right there. Right in front of us. We need the schadenfreude, we need to see they are hurt, we need to know what they think went wrong. Because we already know what went wrong. We need their version of it so we can feel superior, or smug, or whatever feeling it is we need to get us through another pointless week in our lives. " - Jarrod Kimber
However, particularly in the middle to latter stages of an ODI, running between the wickets is a hugely important part of batting. If you're not fit enough to run, then IMO you're not fit enough to bat. Either man up and bat and run through the pain, or get your arse off the field.
I am kind of confused here reading the law in this regard :-
Law 2 (Substitutes and runners; batsman or fielder leaving the field; batsman retiring; batsman commencing innings) - Laws - Laws of Cricket - Laws & Spirit - Lord's
(ii) a runner when batting.
Any injury or illness that occurs at any time after the nomination of the players until the conclusion of the match shall be allowable, irrespective of whether play is in progress or not.
(b) The umpires shall have discretion, for other wholly acceptable reasons, to allow a substitute for a fielder, or a runner for a batsman, at the start of the match or at any subsequent time.
(c) A player wishing to change his shirt, boots, etc. must leave the field to do so. No substitute shall be allowed for him.
2. Objection to substitutes
The opposing captain shall have no right of objection to any player acting as a substitute on the field, nor as to where the substitute shall field. However, no substitute shall act as wicket-keeper. See 3 below.
3. Restrictions on the role of substitutes
A substitute shall not be allowed to bat or bowl nor to act as wicket-keeper or as captain on the field of play.
the above doesn't say anywhere that the opposing captain has the powers to deny the request for a runner.
This was my point earlier about umpires foisting the responsibility onto Strauss.
Although, partly it may also be, that informally fielding captains have begun to give permission in cases where the umpires were uncertain.
Again, I think Strauss is being hard done by.
Anyways, I just don't like the idea of having a runner, as a batsman if despite an injury if you are willing to stay out there and bat, then you should also try to run your own runs, and if you are not in the condition of doing that, then just come off the field, it should be just as simple as that.
Just a small point to counter the Strauss attack here, remember Edgbaston this year?
He could've easily refused to let Manou play - yes it would've a harsh call, but there'd have been nothing that anyone could've done about it if he'd said no.
OK, not strictly speaking the same as a runner here as in that case, Haddin was actually injured, but if events prior to that in the series can be used to attack him, surely this can be used to defend him?
Unfortunately this furore is beginning to overshadow what actually happened on Sunday (in terms of SA failing yet again when the expectation was on) - and the margin of victory does suggest to me that it was an irrelevant point.
marc71178 - President and founding member of AAAS - we don't only appreciate when he does well, but also when he's not quite so good!
Anyone want to join the Society?
Beware the evils of Kit-Kats - they're immoral apparently.
Just for the record, I thought Strauss was extremely sporting when he called Angelo Mathews back the crease, and deserves all the kudos coming his way for upholding the spirit of the game in the match against Sri Lanka....
However, the opposite has happened here, and Strauss deserves any criticism coming his way. Especially since England batsmen have used runners for batsmen who've suffered from cramp this decade, including Trescothick and Bell, as far as I can remember. There is also a columnist on the BBC who recalls an ODI last year in India when Shah and Prior developed cramps and used Bell as a runner.
So, this sudden change of attitude by Strauss towards using a runner for cramp is a bit disingenuous, and it will be interesting to see how long he and his team maintain that stance....
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)