Cricket-Match-Special ... A forum for discussion

hopeforthebest wrote:It was lawful and created a very exciting finale bu I still believe captains arranging the game in this way should be banned. There was a famous example of this in SA involving England some years ago, which turned out to be corrupt. That should have put an end to future arranged endings.

I've always been appalled by contrived results, but this time I was just glad that Somerset's policy of winning the championship by reducing the game to a *modded* nonsense was thwarted.

Hypocritical, I know, but there you have it

Whether this is a convention or not, I would really like someone to explain to me how this is legal and how it is not match fixing? Middlesex had batted themselves into an untenable position. They had a paltry lead and were quickly running out of overs until Gale clearly walked up to the batsman to make a deal. At that point both captains basically agreed to take the most possible natural result out of the equation, and quite clearly Yorkshire placed two terrible bowlers at either end purposefully bowling to give Middlesex runs, and no doubt Middlesex had a target of runs or overs agreed to stop batting. How is this any different to any form of match fixing?

Regardless of fans, championships, and team success both captains and sides owe a debt to the wider sporting integrity and the notions of pure competition. For every Yorkshire fan that wanted to see a victory, there is a Somerset fan that lost out on a championship. So I dont accept that both sides were indebted to artificially find a result.

Could you imagine two managers coming together at 1-0 in a football game, with another result in the bag, and making an agreement that one team will score to equalize the game because it turned out both would make the champions league over a third team should the score remain a draw? Id love to see what would happen if that occurred. Pretty sure everyone involved would never see a pitch again, and would probably see a jail term.

So as I say.... id like an explanation. Why is this not match fixing and why has this been allowed to occur? As far as I see it, both teams should be DSQ'd and Somerset given the title.

Collusion can occur without agreement. Middlesex should have been batting more aggressively to win, a declaration should have been made naturally, and Yorkshire should have targetted that and tried to win. But agreeing on that target is 100% wrong, and I very much doubt its within the laws of the game, and is 100% not within the spirit of the game.

And last time I looked, the laws contain a rather huge clause about actions that are contrary to the spirit of the game being illegal.

As for entertainment purposes, yeah it was entertaining, but in hindsight I think that really shouldnt matter. Should teams in limited overs cricket be celebrated if they shake on creating a score that leads to an interesting run chase? I would assume the general sporting public would be more concerned with cricket allowing such collusion to occur than being drawn to the exciting conclusion.

I think yesterday was pretty much the final nail in the coffin for the relevance of domestic Englilsh cricket. Its pretty much made itself a laughing stock in competitive sport

I wouldnt know where to start explaining what happened yesterday to a football fan.

sussexpob wrote:Whether this is a convention or not, I would really like someone to explain to me how this is legal and how it is not match fixing? Middlesex had batted themselves into an untenable position. They had a paltry lead and were quickly running out of overs until Gale clearly walked up to the batsman to make a deal. At that point both captains basically agreed to take the most possible natural result out of the equation, and quite clearly Yorkshire placed two terrible bowlers at either end purposefully bowling to give Middlesex runs, and no doubt Middlesex had a target of runs or overs agreed to stop batting. How is this any different to any form of match fixing?

Regardless of fans, championships, and team success both captains and sides owe a debt to the wider sporting integrity and the notions of pure competition. For every Yorkshire fan that wanted to see a victory, there is a Somerset fan that lost out on a championship. So I dont accept that both sides were indebted to artificially find a result.

Could you imagine two managers coming together at 1-0 in a football game, with another result in the bag, and making an agreement that one team will score to equalize the game because it turned out both would make the champions league over a third team should the score remain a draw? Id love to see what would happen if that occurred. Pretty sure everyone involved would never see a pitch again, and would probably see a jail term.

So as I say.... id like an explanation. Why is this not match fixing and why has this been allowed to occur? As far as I see it, both teams should be DSQ'd and Somerset given the title.

Collusion can occur without agreement. Middlesex should have been batting more aggressively to win, a declaration should have been made naturally, and Yorkshire should have targetted that and tried to win. But agreeing on that target is 100% wrong, and I very much doubt its within the laws of the game, and is 100% not within the spirit of the game.

And last time I looked, the laws contain a rather huge clause about actions that are contrary to the spirit of the game being illegal.

I've made many of these points myself many times, but I've generally found myself in the minority

I wonder if anyone actually believes that had any other two sides being involved in such a situation on the final day that they would have not done the exact same thing?

Equally, I wonder if anyone actually thinks this will be a talking point when next season starts, or even in a week or two?

It's almost as if people have developed a very selective memory and suddenly have never encountered the idea of declaration bowling before.

Making_Splinters wrote:I wonder if anyone actually believes that had any other two sides being involved in such a situation on the final day that they would have not done the exact same thing?

Equally, I wonder if anyone actually thinks this will be a talking point when next season starts, or even in a week or two?

It's almost as if people have developed a very selective memory and suddenly have never encountered the idea of declaration bowling before.

You are probably correct splinters in saying any two other teams in a similar situation would do the same but that's not the point. The point is they shouldn't be allowed to arrange things in that way. The grey line between corrupt practice and lawful arrangements is too inviting for some.A couple of batsmen from the team batting second could have contacted a bookie or a couple of bowlers on the fielding side tried something. There's a can of worms ready to be opened in those situations. It could also be seen as unsporting behaviour with two teams conniving against another team.

hopeforthebest wrote:

Making_Splinters wrote:I wonder if anyone actually believes that had any other two sides being involved in such a situation on the final day that they would have not done the exact same thing?

Equally, I wonder if anyone actually thinks this will be a talking point when next season starts, or even in a week or two?

It's almost as if people have developed a very selective memory and suddenly have never encountered the idea of declaration bowling before.

You are probably correct splinters in saying any two other teams in a similar situation would do the same but that's not the point. The point is they shouldn't be allowed to arrange things in that way. The grey line between corrupt practice and lawful arrangements is too inviting for some.A couple of batsmen from the team batting second could have contacted a bookie or a couple of bowlers on the fielding side tried something. There's a can of worms ready to be opened in those situations. It could also be seen as unsporting behaviour with two teams conniving against another team.

I really don't see the problem, the declaration set up a situation where either side could have won and that's happened plenty of times before without any umbridge being caused.. If Yorkshire were out of the race then agreed the same, I would see the problem with that.

sussexpob wrote:Whether this is a convention or not, I would really like someone to explain to me how this is legal and how it is not match fixing? Middlesex had batted themselves into an untenable position. They had a paltry lead and were quickly running out of overs until Gale clearly walked up to the batsman to make a deal. At that point both captains basically agreed to take the most possible natural result out of the equation, and quite clearly Yorkshire placed two terrible bowlers at either end purposefully bowling to give Middlesex runs, and no doubt Middlesex had a target of runs or overs agreed to stop batting. How is this any different to any form of match fixing?

Regardless of fans, championships, and team success both captains and sides owe a debt to the wider sporting integrity and the notions of pure competition. For every Yorkshire fan that wanted to see a victory, there is a Somerset fan that lost out on a championship. So I dont accept that both sides were indebted to artificially find a result.

Could you imagine two managers coming together at 1-0 in a football game, with another result in the bag, and making an agreement that one team will score to equalize the game because it turned out both would make the champions league over a third team should the score remain a draw? Id love to see what would happen if that occurred. Pretty sure everyone involved would never see a pitch again, and would probably see a jail term.

So as I say.... id like an explanation. Why is this not match fixing and why has this been allowed to occur? As far as I see it, both teams should be DSQ'd and Somerset given the title.

Collusion can occur without agreement. Middlesex should have been batting more aggressively to win, a declaration should have been made naturally, and Yorkshire should have targetted that and tried to win. But agreeing on that target is 100% wrong, and I very much doubt its within the laws of the game, and is 100% not within the spirit of the game.

And last time I looked, the laws contain a rather huge clause about actions that are contrary to the spirit of the game being illegal.

West Germany 1-0 Austria 1982
Sweden 2-2 Denmark 2004

The first led to a change in the rules which were then exploited in the second.

Making_Splinters wrote:

hopeforthebest wrote:

Making_Splinters wrote:I wonder if anyone actually believes that had any other two sides being involved in such a situation on the final day that they would have not done the exact same thing?

Equally, I wonder if anyone actually thinks this will be a talking point when next season starts, or even in a week or two?

It's almost as if people have developed a very selective memory and suddenly have never encountered the idea of declaration bowling before.

You are probably correct splinters in saying any two other teams in a similar situation would do the same but that's not the point. The point is they shouldn't be allowed to arrange things in that way. The grey line between corrupt practice and lawful arrangements is too inviting for some.A couple of batsmen from the team batting second could have contacted a bookie or a couple of bowlers on the fielding side tried something. There's a can of worms ready to be opened in those situations. It could also be seen as unsporting behaviour with two teams conniving against another team.

I really don't see the problem, the declaration set up a situation where either side could have won and that's happened plenty of times before without any umbridge being caused.. If Yorkshire were out of the race then agreed the same, I would see the problem with that.

That's true declarations do take place which offer the opponent a chance but they don't first have every tom. *modded* and harry bowling rubbish to create a total to aim at. A normal 3rd innings declaration tempting the opponent to risk going for it is acceptable because the two captains don't first get together about the decision.

hopeforthebest wrote:

Making_Splinters wrote:

hopeforthebest wrote:

Making_Splinters wrote:I wonder if anyone actually believes that had any other two sides being involved in such a situation on the final day that they would have not done the exact same thing?

Equally, I wonder if anyone actually thinks this will be a talking point when next season starts, or even in a week or two?

It's almost as if people have developed a very selective memory and suddenly have never encountered the idea of declaration bowling before.

You are probably correct splinters in saying any two other teams in a similar situation would do the same but that's not the point. The point is they shouldn't be allowed to arrange things in that way. The grey line between corrupt practice and lawful arrangements is too inviting for some.A couple of batsmen from the team batting second could have contacted a bookie or a couple of bowlers on the fielding side tried something. There's a can of worms ready to be opened in those situations. It could also be seen as unsporting behaviour with two teams conniving against another team.

I really don't see the problem, the declaration set up a situation where either side could have won and that's happened plenty of times before without any umbridge being caused.. If Yorkshire were out of the race then agreed the same, I would see the problem with that.

That's true declarations do take place which offer the opponent a chance but they don't first have every tom. *modded* and harry bowling rubbish to create a total to aim at. A normal 3rd innings declaration tempting the opponent to risk going for it is acceptable because the two captains don't first get together about the decision.

I'd dispute some of that, Hope. Declaration bowling has been going on for decades, our current bowling coach scored a ton in 20 odd minutes 20 years ago off it and there are many times its happened since. Yorkshire have a past history of this themselves, a couple of seasons back they did much the same in Scarborough against Gloucs and chased down the target set.

So can we all stop pretending this game was a unique turn of events.

I've got absolutely no issue with declaration bowling. Back in 2005, when we actually had a rare chance of winning the title, we were one of three sides in the race together with Notts and Kent. The latter two took each other on in the penultimate round of matches, with Kent needing a victory to keep them in the race, and us needing Notts not to win to keep us in the race (with a final week showdown between us and Notts to come). But knowing full well that Kent needed to beat them, and that a victory for them would hand them the title, Notts kept on batting and batting in their 2nd innings. They ultimately set Kent a stupidly high score with not a massive amount of time to get it (something like 420 off 70 overs - and this was over a decade ago remember, when t20 had only just been invented), and Kent got bowled out horribly attempting to go after it - thereby screwing us over in the process.

Now of course I am biased, but I think I have more justification at being annoyed at Kent having a go at chasing that (and continuing to have a go at that, throughout their innings - rather than accepting at any point that it was over, and turning to try and salvage a draw) than a Somerset fan being annoyed at what Middlesex and Yorkshire did. In the case of the latter, it was a decision to give both of those sides a chance of the title. In the former, it was handing Notts the title on a plate.

(But whilst I don't have any issue at all with what Yorkshire and Middlesex did, I do hope for the sake of Somerset's fans that they're not sitting here in 11 years time still looking back on this season, without a Championship title in the meantime, all bitter and twisted )

Making_Splinters wrote:I wonder if anyone actually believes that had any other two sides being involved in such a situation on the final day that they would have not done the exact same thing?

Equally, I wonder if anyone actually thinks this will be a talking point when next season starts, or even in a week or two?

It's almost as if people have developed a very selective memory and suddenly have never encountered the idea of declaration bowling before.

Precisely

Yesterday's contrived target meant all three results was possible instead of one and Yorkshire could have batted out for the draw if they wanted to, 10 wickets in 40 overs is not a given by any means.

You can circle around this subject as much as you like but you'll never get away from the fact that the captain of the team batting in the 3rd innings deciding off his bat to declare the innings closed is entirely different to both captains getting together and agreeing a contrived way forward.

hopeforthebest wrote:You can circle around this subject as much as you like but you'll never get away from the fact that the captain of the team batting in the 3rd innings deciding off his bat to declare the innings closed is entirely different to both captains getting together and agreeing a contrived way forward.

I completely agree

There is nothing wrong with a captain saying "I think we've got enough"

pretty sure that Leics scored 200 and odd off about 12 overs a few years ago..... with 2 opening bats doing the bowling.....and I think they still lost

members are paying good money for the cricket they watch and should never have to expect getting that sort of sh1t