It is happening again .... spot-fixing again!

[Offramp]

As the Indian reporter on TMS said, why are these people still being involved in match-fixing when the IPL has made many of them - and he mentioned Sreesanth - millionaires?

"For 4-million rupees ($72,900) Sreesanth agreed to concede 13 or more runs in his second over of a May 9 match at Mohali, Kumar told a news conference.

As was agreed upon, Sreesanth tucked a towel in his waistband to signal to the bookie, giving him enough time to "indulge in heavy betting", the police chief said.

"Sreesanth bowled the first over without the towel. In the second over, he put a towel in his trousers and then, in order to give bookies time to indulge in betting, he did some warming up, some stretching exercises, and then went on to give 13 runs," Kumar said."

[Dave Cornwell]

---------------------------
Quite skillfull though to get to exactly 13!

[Vidcapper]

Unless the batsmen are in cahoots?

--
Regards,

Paul Hyett

[mick]

That wasn't the deal. "Sreesanth agreed to concede 13 or more runs"

mick

[Offramp]

Cahoots has been renamed.

[David North]

"Vidcapper" <vidca...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:pDGlt.8030$JB5....@newsfe26.iad...

It might still be difficult unless you've got a few fielders involved as
well. The batsmen were Shaun Marsh and Adam Gilchrist, btw. The single that
was scored was a top-edged pull by Marsh that dropped at midwicket where
there was no fielder. Had it gone to a fielder and been caught, Sreesanth
would have done well to concede exactly 9 off the remaining two balls.
--
David North

[David North]

"mick" <cough...@privacy.com> wrote in message
news:mTIlt.1858$Pt5....@newsfe02.iad...

Yes, but I'd expect him to do it with a bit to spare, not to leave 8 or more
to concede off the last two balls.

--
David North

[mick]

"mick" <cough...@privacy.com> wrote in message
>news:mTIlt.1858$Pt5....@newsfe02.iad...
>> Offramp wrote:
>>>> As the Indian reporter on TMS said, why are these people still being
>>>> involved in match-fixing when the IPL has made many of them - and he
>>>> mentioned Sreesanth - millionaires?
>>>>
>>>> "For 4-million rupees ($72,900) Sreesanth agreed to concede 13 or more
>>>> runs in his second over of a May 9 match at Mohali, Kumar told a news
>>>> conference.
>>>>
>>>> As was agreed upon, Sreesanth tucked a towel in his waistband to signal
>>>> to the bookie, giving him enough time to "indulge in heavy betting", the
>>>> police chief said.
>>>>
>>>> "Sreesanth bowled the first over without the towel. In the second over,
>>>> he put a towel in his trousers and then, in order to give bookies time

>>>> to indulge in betting, he did some w arming up, some stretching

>>>> exercises, and then went on to give 13 runs," Kumar said."
>>>---------------------------
>>>Quite skillfull though to get to exactly 13!
>>
>> That wasn't the deal. "Sreesanth agreed to concede 13 or more runs"
>
>Yes, but I'd expect him to do it with a bit to spare, not to leave 8 or more
>to concede off the last two balls.

And make it even more obvious? The guilty are always looking over their
shoulder remember. And giving away 2 fours in a T20 sloggathon is hardly
difficult. Its not that easy to prevent it even when your'e *not* cheating.

mick

[David North]

"mick" <cough...@privacy.com> wrote in message

news:yA1mt.33739$pU6....@newsfe10.iad...

As long as the batsman doesn't miss it, mishit it or hit it to a fielder.
What proportion of balls that deserve to be hit for four actually are?

"3.6 Sreesanth to Gilchrist, FOUR, blasted back to the fence but it's not
timed too well and still goes to the fence, fuller in length but it came
slower than what Gilly expected, he had gone through with the shot and hits
the toe end of the bat, Sreesanth pulls his hand out of the way and it rolls
down to the fence "

It sounds to me like Sreesanth came close to messing it up. Bowling a slower
ball doesn't seem like the best method of guaranteeing a boundary.

> Its not that easy to prevent it even when your'e *not* cheating.

In the rest of the innings, there were 2 other occurrences, out of a
possible 99, of 2 consecutive balls of an over conceding 8 or more runs,
which suggests that it's not that difficult.
--
David North

[Offramp]

Btw, I don't personally care about spot-fixing.
As I've said before, gambling preceded cricket but wanders around cricket like Jimmy Savile on the set of Oliver! No amount of kicks up the gooch will get rid of it.
And who gives a tinker's cuss about some T20 in Chennai that's over in three hours? I would never bet on the result, and I don't care if a no-ball is bowled on ball 4 of over 14.
It definitely is wrong, but it's the bookies who lose out - not the audience.

[David North]

"Offramp" <alane...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:dd951224-9a56-4b18...@googlegroups.com...

Provided it's only the odd ball. Any bookies who take large bets on such
trivialities are pretty much asking for it.
--
David North

[Offramp]

But isn't it computerised? Surely there isn't some guy taking the bets and telling the odds?

[David North]

"Offramp" <alane...@gmail.com> wrote in message

news:f39a8b4a-2bac-4e20...@googlegroups.com...

> But isn't it computerised? Surely there isn't some guy taking the bets and
> telling the odds?

That should make it easier to build in limits, both in the size of
individual bets and in the total aggregated value of bets, on particular
types of event.
--
David North