- Video
-
Club Roar
Captured a great grassroots sporting moment? We want to see it!Content Collections
The Roar Community
- Join
- Login
Roar Rookie
Joined July 2019
0
Views
0
Published
13
Comments
Published
Comments
I’m not sure how many times Garry Sobers batted three? That said, he’s definitely in my XI (but in your team he should be No. 5……time for Sachin to earn his keep at 3). When I say ‘your team’, I’m not sure how you can pick a ‘Best Teenage XI’ and ignore 19 year olds…….despite the difficulty.
Your attempt, however, does raise the question of each country’s best ‘Teenage XI’. An interesting exercise for those with more time on their hands……..
The all time best teenage Test XI
Well, Peter, if the correct ‘five’ runs had been awarded instead of the six, the result would have been completely different with a super over not required…but now it’s all ifs, buts and maybes…..
The Stokes deflection and the spirit of cricket
The difference being in 1999 the result was decided by the actual rules of the competition. This was decided by an incorrect interpretation of the Laws of Cricket.
Darren Lehmann laments 'crap' rule that decided 'the greatest game of cricket' he's seen
Best in the world for the last 4 years is a bit of a stretch, Barmy. England were No.1 for five months in 2012 and didn’t get there again until May 2018 where they remained for 14 months (until now, less about a week when India briefly had the ranking). Their improvement has been significant but they’ve not now, nor ever been, the best for four years. They are, however, currently No. 1.
New Zealand were robbed in the World Cup final
The difference is, Brian, Australia didn’t lose the semi-final in 1999 and nobody had thought of the idea of a super over back then (or, at least, it clearly was not in the playing conditions).
New Zealand were robbed in the World Cup final
That is pretty obvious, Chris, but it doesn’t change the fact the rule is so ‘particular’ that I reckon the umpires should have known the interpretation, or at the very least, queried the crossing with the off-field umpire(s).
New Zealand were robbed in the World Cup final
So why not just pick eleven batsmen and take your chances with the ball. It’s a batsmen’s game alright…..at least, according to the administrators.
New Zealand were robbed in the World Cup final
Spruce,
Why, exactly, is the chasing team ‘naturally allowed’ to lose more wickets? As for the pitch, it’s why they have a toss at the start. Do you mean a team which wins the toss and puts the opposition in should somehow be given more consideration regarding wickets?
You can see, surely, that it might get a bit ‘technical’. Every team has fifty overs, they score ‘x’ amount of runs and lose ‘y’ amount of wickets doing it. It’s not too difficult to imagine ‘wickets lost’ might be the decider in a run tie.
Of course, in white ball these days, administrators do seem over enamoured with ‘big hits’ as some sort of measure of ability and crowd excitement. These are the same administrators who seem to think a World Cup Final crowd needs loud music at every opportunity to ensure they stay interested so we can assume, I reckon, administrators know jack….as shown by the ‘most boundaries’ rule.
New Zealand were robbed in the World Cup final
Optionally, given overthrows for four additional runs is relatively rare in a series, let alone a game, why not check whether the batsmen crossed. There would still be less time wasted than is about to be with Broad and Anderson having a chat at mid-off after every bloody ball….which is almost certainly going to happen.
New Zealand were robbed in the World Cup final
The real problem, Flexis, is there shouldn’t have been a super over in the first place……
New Zealand were robbed in the World Cup final
Not forgetting the fact that the deflection should have been worth five, instead of six, runs so the ‘super over’ should not have been required. Under the Laws of the game, New Zealand won. Under the incorrect interpretation of those Laws, perhaps understandable in the tension of the moment, England won.
As for the ‘most boundaries wins’, this is clearly an idiocy. As you pointed out, why not ‘least dot balls’, ‘most left-handers’, ‘most players over thirty years’, etc. It is clear it is a nonsense arbitration applied, presumably, because the idiots who run this game (i.e. cricket) have long been under the impression that, in white ball cricket, runs are the only currency worth considering. This blithely ignores the other side of the coin that the team with the most boundaries, especially when the differential is significant, as in this match, have also highly likely faced the most ‘dot balls’ – so which team should be credited for their batting?
If runs are tied, surely it’s the turn of the bowlers to be considered so least number of lost wickets should be the criteria. If nothing else, this interpretation allows bowlers to feel they at least have a role to play other than being cannon fodder.
New Zealand were robbed in the World Cup final
It is fair to say that my feelings towards the convicted ‘ball tamperers’ in South Africa was a curious mixture of ambivalence and venom. I liked Smith, didn’t like Warner, didn’t really know Bancroft. Didn’t really think it much of a crime, given all the help given to batting in the last decade or two, or more.
However, given the Australian team had been front and centre in criticizing every other ball-tamperer on the planet, what happened in South Africa was embarrassing. Caught cold, guilty as hell, premeditated. Awkward!
The ICC slapped Smith and Bancroft on the wrist, as they had done with every other offender, but CA decided firm action had to be taken. Only after the CA investigation did we know about the involvement of Warner.
In short, CA decided Warner was the culprit, and everybody I’ve spoken to would back that up, so he got a year (given he was vice-captain of Australia and it was his idea). Smith was ‘done’ because he was captain, knew (or should have known) what Warner was up to and did nothing to stop him (not to mention telling porkies at the world’s most ill-conceived press conference, post play) while Bancroft was the ‘patsy’, too inexperienced, and too ambitious, to say ‘That’s a ‘No’ from me, Davy’.
So the penalties were announced and applied. No mention of of CA setting the agenda. No mention of senior CA officials telling the team after South Africa torched them in Hobart a year or two previously, ‘We don’t pay you to play cricket, we pay you to win…’.
Some might find that statement ambiguous, some did not. David Warner among them. A kid from western Sydney, he understood completely, absolutely. Told by Pat Howard to be the on-field aggressor, to get ‘in their face’, he did as he was asked. Ugly as it was, as personally damning as it was. His reputation secured.
When it hit the fan, CA took a massive step backwards. Not us, nothing to do with us, this is all down to team culture. Ooops, sorry Boof, this means you!
Now, let’s be clear. I don’t believe for a minute Lehmann was completely unaware that something strange was a foot. I don’t believe the rest of the team didn’t know about Warner’s ‘plan’. But this incident was the natural end-result of CA’s desire to be on the up-side of the win/loss ledger. Money was involved, prestige was involved, careers were involved.
Warner, surprisingly to most, and definitely to me, came out of the long suspension with the most integrity. Silent, dignified, punishment accepted and while he may have questioned the fairness of the penalty, he made no comment of dissent.
On return, Steve Smith’s Ashes was a triumph. A basically ‘good guy’ showing what we have missed in the last twelve months. Meanwhile, Warner’s Ashes series was a disaster, leading some to wonder if he had ‘lost it’. His subsequent Australian form a silent answer to the critics. Are there still questions about Stuart Broad going around the wicket to him? Probably, yes, but Pakistan have been put to the sword and, argue all you might, 154 and 335*, suggest Warner can play. Bancroft, meantime, is probably where he belongs, out of the team. It’s no disgrace. We are talking about Test cricket, after all. The best players.
Interestingly, Warner’s recent success has put him front and centre in regard to media, and he’s been impressive. Played down his achievements, played up his teammates, given credit to bowlers he has incinerated, been jovial, happy, compliant. In short, he’s been exactly what CA and everyone else would have hoped for two or three years ago. Maybe he’s matured. If so, all credit to him. The new version David Warner a big improvement on the old model. If you’re a kid on the fence these days there’s a chance you’re about to get a free pair of gloves et al. It’s actually, good to see. Imagine all those cricket memorabilia gurus squirming when they realize some unknown kid has just scored the helmet David Warner wore when he made 300. For nothing! Of course, the kid who presents it for sale, eventually, probably stole it but that’s another story.
Warner is clearly on a path to redemption. Whether the target is us, or himself, is the question. The story, so far, is he’s done everything right…..and, at the end of the day…..if he’s comfortable about where he’s at, the rest of us don’t really matter.
Do runs warrant redemption?