ODI cricket and general cricketing discussion [self - mod]

[Last of the V8s]

Fascinating edition of Stumped last night https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/w3csymnh with lots of weird new to me stuff about drafts and a nice interview with President of the MCC, Sangakkara. A bit inclusive this and equality that but overall nice.

[JSRAW]

^^ V8   Follow this for more.

[Vishnu.Reang]

I think this is good news, judging a winner by boundary count was never good.

It was a dumb rule to decide the winner by the number of boundaries scored, majority of the people did not had any idea about this rule until the final and if everyone knew about this rule before the tournament the ICC could have got some criticism and no one expected a final to be a tie even in the super overs and now the decision to repeat the super over until you see a decisive winner is a fair rule.  

What is the point in changing the rules, after the damage was done already. For the millions of cricket fans around the world, New Zealand were the real champions. England would always be regarded as the cheaters. At least they should have kept quiet. Ben Stokes tried some drama by claiming that he asked the umpire to reverse the decision to award 6 runs of the overthrow, and it was rubbished by the umpire himself. And this just proved that the Brits are a bunch of liars.

[7788bitcoin]

England would always be regarded as the cheaters. At least they should have kept quiet. Ben Stokes tried some drama by claiming that he asked the umpire to reverse the decision to award 6 runs of the overthrow, and it was rubbished by the umpire himself. And this just proved that the Brits are a bunch of liars.

I did not follow these drama after the match but England won the world cup according to the rules that were present before the tournament and hence you cannot call them cheaters but that was not the best decision or rule you can have for a world cup final, i am not aware whether the rule was there from the beginning or changed at a later part but these rules are accepted by every team before the tournament and not during the match.

[SaShiRaJaVu]

~snip
What is the point in changing the rules, after the damage was done already. For the millions of cricket fans around the world, New Zealand were the real champions. England would always be regarded as the cheaters. At least they should have kept quiet. Ben Stokes tried some drama by claiming that he asked the umpire to reverse the decision to award 6 runs of the overthrow, and it was rubbished by the umpire himself. And this just proved that the Brits are a bunch of liars.

@7788bitcoin has a point that the rules were made before the tournament but it was the dumbest rule set i have seen in cricket, earlier we had similar incident in 1992 world cup when the umpires cut short the game when South Africa need 22 runs from 13 balls against England and after the rain the umpires decided to cut short and asked to score 21 runs in 1 ball  , it is said that because of television demands the umpires were forced to come with a decision like that, either way these dumb rules continued in 2019.

[Vishnu.Reang]

England would always be regarded as the cheaters. At least they should have kept quiet. Ben Stokes tried some drama by claiming that he asked the umpire to reverse the decision to award 6 runs of the overthrow, and it was rubbished by the umpire himself. And this just proved that the Brits are a bunch of liars.

I did not follow these drama after the match but England won the world cup according to the rules that were present before the tournament and hence you cannot call them cheaters but that was not the best decision or rule you can have for a world cup final, i am not aware whether the rule was there from the beginning or changed at a later part but these rules are accepted by every team before the tournament and not during the match.

No... I wasn't referring to the rules. I wouldn't complain against the rule, as it was in place for quite sometime. I was mentioning about the statement made by Ben Stokes after the match, in which he was claiming that he had asked the umpire (Kumar Dharmasena) to reverse the overthrow decision. Dharmasena later clarified that Stokes never had such a conversation with him.

[eaLiTy]

I was mentioning about the statement made by Ben Stokes after the match, in which he was claiming that he had asked the umpire (Kumar Dharmasena) to reverse the overthrow decision. Dharmasena later clarified that Stokes never had such a conversation with him.

Ben Stokes is not new to controversy, he came to the limelight when he was arrested from a night club after a brawl and then the other controversy was when Sun publish the story about his family tragedy which was unfortunate, Ben Stokes is the real start of their world cup campaign and he won many close games for England even in the recent Ashes but Stokes is dragged into these unwanted topics and even i heard this from Stokes and Dharmasena said he did not hear anything from him  .

[Sithara007]

I was mentioning about the statement made by Ben Stokes after the match, in which he was claiming that he had asked the umpire (Kumar Dharmasena) to reverse the overthrow decision. Dharmasena later clarified that Stokes never had such a conversation with him.

Ben Stokes is not new to controversy, he came to the limelight when he was arrested from a night club after a brawl and then the other controversy was when Sun publish the story about his family tragedy which was unfortunate, Ben Stokes is the real start of their world cup campaign and he won many close games for England even in the recent Ashes but Stokes is dragged into these unwanted topics and even i heard this from Stokes and Dharmasena said he did not hear anything from him  .

It is all old story and will be forgotten in quick time. The cricket fans may not be happy with it, but as per the official records England are the world champions. And the thing to remember here is that New Zealand players never protested against either the rule regarding the number of boundaries or the decision by Dharmasena to award the overthrows. They were not happy, but refrained from protesting, taking in to account the spirit of the game.

For many of the cricket fans (including me) what happened during the final was a sham. I believe that New Zealand were the real champions and not England. But after a while all this will be forgotten and only the records will remain. As per the official records, England are the champions and New Zealand are the runners up. And this is what going to matter in the future.

[bryant.coleman]

@7788bitcoin has a point that the rules were made before the tournament but it was the dumbest rule set i have seen in cricket, earlier we had similar incident in 1992 world cup when the umpires cut short the game when South Africa need 22 runs from 13 balls against England and after the rain the umpires decided to cut short and asked to score 21 runs in 1 ball  , it is said that because of television demands the umpires were forced to come with a decision like that, either way these dumb rules continued in 2019.

Well.. the rules are constantly evolving. There was a lot of outcry after the 1992 world cup match, and that is how the Duckworth-Lewis rule came in to effect (there were a few deficiencies in this rule as well, and eventually it was replaced with the Duckworth–Lewis–Stern method). But the problem is that the results if the past matches can't be changed. South Africa was robbed of a win in 1992 and nothing can change that outcome.

The boundary count rule was really dumb thinking. But at the same time, we need to remember that no one actually noticed it until it was put into effect during the final match. No one even thought about the possibility of the final match ending in a tie, because the chances of something like that occurring was very very remote. As I said earlier, the rule was changed as a result of protests from the cricket fans, but the final result remains unchanged.

[ene1980]

I don't really think that you can associate a sport with how tech savvy its viewers are. Cricket has always been a gentlemen's game if you watch it properly and get the intricacies of it .

I wonder how you went back and took this specific post to respond which is posted months ago  . Either way coming to the point it is just a sport and view it as part of entertainment when you are having some free time and we all see sports in that context to relax from the hurdles and stress.
Not sure how you differentiate sports into categories.
cricket- Gentleman's game
Football- Hooligans game
Golf, F1- Rich mans game
Kabaddi - poor mans game

These are just terms added by the media or a concept in the minds of the general public and majority of these terms comes from the roots of these sports, cricket was started by the English and they conquered the world and they planted the seed where ever they went and these people were looked upon as upper hierarchy because they ruled the place where they conquered and hence they were called as gentleman and that is the brief history since you brought up this .

Cricket fans are not very tech savvy

which sport needs tech savvy people to watch the sport .

[Sithara007]

Sure, The format has changes lately, considering T20 formats but it was necessary to open new small formats to gather more viewers.

The game needs to change with the changing taste of the fans. A few decades back, ODI cricket was considered revolutionary. But when Kerry Packer suggested the idea for the first time (sometime during 1970s), it met with huge opposition from the traditionalists. He couldn't convince the boards, and in the end, he rolled out his own competition (World Series Cricket). Ironically, the cricket boards later realized that this format could earn a lot of revenues for them, and they later approved it.

The same had happened with the T20 format as well. It was an Indian media tycoon (Subhash Chandra, the owner of Zee Entertainment Enterprises), who first came up with the Indian Cricket League. The BCCI was initially opposed to it, until they realized how much money they could make from a similar league. After sometime, they came up with their own league (the IPL) without giving any credit to Mr. Chandra.

[SaShiRaJaVu]

It's not really strange. Cricket fans are not very tech savvy, they go to a field and lay down eating chips. It's not a gentleman's game it's a lazy spectator's sport. A lot has changed with the new formats limitations and the T20 mode, but its still a grill. And the only reason anyone talks about Cricket on Bitcointalk is because of signature campaigns. Not because of the game itself.

Basically all the sports fans who watches these sport are viewing for the love of the game and usually we watch at the comfort of our home or in the stadium and as a viewer you are putting your ass down and watching the game and if you view that as laziness then nothing more to tell  .
I know that this is a really old post but after seeing this now i feel like commenting.

I don't really think that you can associate a sport with how tech savvy its viewers are.
At last, it comes down to money and profits, like most of members here trying to get most out of the campaigns.

Anyone can have their opinion about things, quoting the post of DarkDays to show his high octane high energy games he plays and view, just want to show his hypocrisy. Not commenting on the campaigns as he is also involved in one and i just want to show his love for high octane games like brick mortar, virtual casino and on top of that Poker, he just view cricket for lazy spectators.

I'm a semi-professional Poker player based in Singapore.
I am very familiar with both the online casino and brick & mortar casino industries, and obviously know Poker like the back of my hand.

[Vishnu.Reang]

Today there was a statement from Nazmul Hassan (president of the Bangladesh Cricket Board). He hinted that Shakib Al Hasan may miss the upcoming Indian tour. The team will be leaving in two days time, so I don't think that Shakib is left with many options. In case Shakib is left out of the squad, then the playing XI will be very much weakened. Already they are missing two big names (Mohammad Saifuddin and Tamim Iqbal).

[SaShiRaJaVu]

Today there was a statement from Nazmul Hassan (president of the Bangladesh Cricket Board). He hinted that Shakib Al Hasan may miss the upcoming Indian tour. The team will be leaving in two days time, so I don't think that Shakib is left with many options. In case Shakib is left out of the squad, then the playing XI will be very much weakened. Already they are missing two big names (Mohammad Saifuddin and Tamim Iqbal).

It is just a statement just to put pressure on Shakib Al Hasan because if the Bangladesh cricket wanted to avoid him from the team they could have already done that but instead picking him in the team and then voicing their opinion that he could miss the tour does not make any sense other than making news headline and putting pressure on the player. If he is not in the team then it will create a big void in their performance because even with Shakib in the team there is no chance for Bangladesh.

[Juggy777]

Today there was a statement from Nazmul Hassan (president of the Bangladesh Cricket Board). He hinted that Shakib Al Hasan may miss the upcoming Indian tour. The team will be leaving in two days time, so I don't think that Shakib is left with many options. In case Shakib is left out of the squad, then the playing XI will be very much weakened. Already they are missing two big names (Mohammad Saifuddin and Tamim Iqbal).

It is just a statement just to put pressure on Shakib Al Hasan because if the Bangladesh cricket wanted to avoid him from the team they could have already done that but instead picking him in the team and then voicing their opinion that he could miss the tour does not make any sense other than making news headline and putting pressure on the player. If he is not in the team then it will create a big void in their performance because even with Shakib in the team there is no chance for Bangladesh.

If Bangladesh Cricket Board decide to leave him out of this series then it’ll backfire on them, as he’s an experienced player and the team will miss his presence. There’s no official word whether he’ll be excluded or not, but I’m hoping he’ll be forgiven and allowed to play in the upcoming series vs India. @SaShiRaJaVu I won’t underestimate Bangladesh as I have seen them perform well whenever they’re playing against team India.

[Haunebu]

If Bangladesh Cricket Board decide to leave him out of this series then it’ll backfire on them, as he’s an experienced player and the team will miss his presence. There’s no official word whether he’ll be excluded or not, but I’m hoping he’ll be forgiven and allowed to play in the upcoming series vs India. @SaShiRaJaVu I won’t underestimate Bangladesh as I have seen them perform well whenever they’re playing against team India.

They will probably retain him for the series against India after which they will let him go and focus on the legal stuff. Why do you think they will forgive him that easily after he breached the contract?

The president of the BCB himself is pretty pissed about this entire ordeal and he will definitely not let this slide so easily unless the entire nation causes an uproar forcing him to change his decision. I do hope he continues playing though especially since he is in the form of this life currently.

[7788bitcoin]

They will probably retain him for the series against India after which they will let him go and focus on the legal stuff. Why do you think they will forgive him that easily after he breached the contract?

If the cricket board is to take any actions they will be taking it now rather than waiting for the series to end and if that is the case then they are willing to sort the case between Shakib Al Hasan and the cricket board as he is their best player in the team and his absence will have an impact on the team performance and even during the recent world cup we saw how Shakib Al Hasan performed as he was one of the leading all rounders in the entire tournament.

[Ayiranorea]

Today there was a statement from Nazmul Hassan (president of the Bangladesh Cricket Board). He hinted that Shakib Al Hasan may miss the upcoming Indian tour. The team will be leaving in two days time, so I don't think that Shakib is left with many options. In case Shakib is left out of the squad, then the playing XI will be very much weakened. Already they are missing two big names (Mohammad Saifuddin and Tamim Iqbal).

It is just a statement just to put pressure on Shakib Al Hasan because if the Bangladesh cricket wanted to avoid him from the team they could have already done that but instead picking him in the team and then voicing their opinion that he could miss the tour does not make any sense other than making news headline and putting pressure on the player. If he is not in the team then it will create a big void in their performance because even with Shakib in the team there is no chance for Bangladesh.

It is a way to give pressure to the player and make him take responsibility. He is one that has helped Bangladesh win several matches. He also got good record against India compared to other players of the squad. Another thing India is strong to face any team, but India will have fear playing against Bangladesh. Once they won against India and that day was declared national holiday in Bangladesh which caused big criticism over India.

[RapTarX]

It is a way to give pressure to the player and make him take responsibility. He is one that has helped Bangladesh win several matches.

Putting pressure to play better, I never heard of this strategy any where. Putting pressure on a player will never bring something good to the team. He is already in a lot of pressure I think because he had leaded the strike for 11 points someday ago.
I doubt Bangladesh will have much benefit even if the Indian teal is a total mess for me. A lot of inexperienced players.

[Sithara007]

I would just ignore these rumors. The Bangladesh team will be leaving for India tomorrow, and as of now Shakib al Hassan remains as the captain of the squad. If he misses the tournament as a result of the differences with BCB, and Bangladesh performs poorly against India, then Nazmul Hassan will be the first person to get kicked out of the BCB.

BTW, the latest news is that the BCB CEO Nizamuddin Chowdhury has told the media that he would not take any legal action against Shakib al Hassan as long as he files a proper reply to the legal notice. His tone is much different from that of Nazmul Hassan, and gives an indication that the board may be looking for a compromise with the player on this issue.