PottedMustard
Cricket Spectator
Yes, I'm sure the national cricket board will instruct its side to throw a match in order to avoid a $50,000 fine for producing a drawn game. This is too hard. I will leave you to it.
It's quite possible if money was involved, highly unlikely i agree, but quite possible. I would be suprised to find that if you asked people if players would throw matches before match fixing first reared it's ugly head, they would've most likely dismissed the idea, just like you have above.Yes, I'm sure the national cricket board will instruct its side to throw a match in order to avoid a $50,000 fine for producing a drawn game. This is too hard. I will leave you to it.
I do apologise if my post came accross that way at all, i didn't mean it to.You come across as being vastly more interested in asserting yourself than discussing anything, so, all the best.
So then you'd still be up for punishing the respective cricket boards because of drawns caused by phenominal performances by players from either team??? In effect you'd be handing out punishment for outstanding cricket performances. If you ask me, sometimes a draw is a fitting end to a test match where both teams have played incredibly well, yet at the end of the day cannot be seperated.
Would i be correct in saying that your main argument is that if say the pitch provided is an absolute road, and doens't provide a result, thats when the punishment should be handed out?
TBH, I dont have any issue with it. Its a dead ball if they hit the stumps and run the batsman out. Its only extra runs if the batsman is in his crease.Actually, to move the thread on a little - I've always had one law I wish was changed, that being when a ball is thrown in from a fieldsman, hits the stumps and then ricochets off in a different direction allowing the batsmen to take extra runs. I've always thought the ball should be declared dead when it hits the stumps, rather than punishing the fielding side by conceding more runs as the result of an accurate throw.
To be fair that does happen. Umpires are generally more leniant if there's two spinners bowling for safety reasons but you can't have batsman facing a turning ball with poor visibility. Safety might be the main issue however you need a fair contest between bat and ball. I don't think there's much you can do to improve the light situation.In relation to lights, i'd love to see changes in relation to players going of due to bad light. I can understand that it's dangerous for batsmen with the faster men bowling during bad light, but i can't understand how it's a danger to the batsmens well-being if slow bowlers (i.e Spinners & Ashley Giles) are sending the ball down. I've heard it time and time again from past players that they think it's ridicudlous and i'd be inclined to agree with them.
That pitch was an absolute minefield. Teams lose points in the CC for pitches like that so I don't see why they couldn't be fined. Roads are a bit harder and boards would always appeal it. How much does Cricket Australia actually control the pitches anyway? It's really just up to the curator. Although there must be something to discourage the roads produced in the India v Pakistan series earlier this year.The hardest thing about implementing such a law though is that it's extremely subjective, and i'd pity anyone who had to make such a decision on whether the draw was because of a flat deck, or because they teams really were inseperable. Also, if you were to fine someone because they've produced a road,you'd have to look at fining those who produce poor quality pitches (see 4th Test, India v Australia 2004) where the match is over inside two days because the pitch is simply unplayable for batsmen.
The man makes a good pointTBH, I dont have any issue with it. Its a dead ball if they hit the stumps and run the batsman out. Its only extra runs if the batsman is in his crease.
Basically, it rewards good decision making, ie throwing the stumps down only when the runout is on, and punishes bad decisions ie throwing the stumps down when the batsman is in his crease.
If you want to be constantly throwing the stumps down wen there is no runout, you deserve all the extra runs you get.
Im in favour of anything that rewards a good decision and punishes a bad one.
Mate, you make a fair point, and obviously throwing down the stumps with no chance of a run out is a poor decision, but I was talking more in terms of a throw from the outfield that's good enough to hit the stumps, or in particular a very close call where a run out is on and the batsman scrambles home by inches despite the direct hit. I don't think a good piece of fielding deserves to get punished. I see what you're saying though.TBH, I dont have any issue with it. Its a dead ball if they hit the stumps and run the batsman out. Its only extra runs if the batsman is in his crease.
Basically, it rewards good decision making, ie throwing the stumps down only when the runout is on, and punishes bad decisions ie throwing the stumps down when the batsman is in his crease.
If you want to be constantly throwing the stumps down when there is no runout, you deserve all the extra runs you give away.
Im in favour of anything that rewards a good decision and punishes a bad one.
The biggest change i'd like to see from the umpires in relation to the light situation is a willingness from them to stay out on the field for as long as possible, something which i don't beleive happens enough. Thats just me being picky thoughTo be fair that does happen. Umpires are generally more leniant if there's two spinners bowling for safety reasons but you can't have batsman facing a turning ball with poor visibility. Safety might be the main issue however you need a fair contest between bat and ball. I don't think there's much you can do to improve the light situation.
I do like the ball hitting the stumps idea. Of course it would only occur if it were off a fielder like in the case of a run out. If the striker smashed the ball into the stumps at the other end clean then of course they could still run on the ricochet.
The fact that you are getting hammered by Australia and have had at least 1 horrible innings in every test makes it a quite accurate comment. England need to improve their batting. I think the only guy averaging over 50 is KP.What an idiotic comment; yeah sure, we're getting hammered by Australia, but we reacked up some big runs last summer.