Poll: Cricket's Top 10 cheats
alvey
baseballs top 10 cheats (Oddly the Chicago White Sox throwing of the
1921(?) WS didn't feature.) and pondered on who'd be in cricket's list.
So here we are. The main problem with doing this in cricket is defining
cheating. Like, the old chestnut, appealing when you know the batter's
not out. Not cheating by the Laws buttt.... So for the purpose of this
exercise lets go with cheating as breaking the Laws OR spirit of the
game. Loads more fun this way.
1. Anil Kumble - for appeals so very, very far above and beyond.
2. SRW - claiming a bump ball v Lara + serially not walking when
blatantly out + running his partners out + invariably batting for self +
manipulating batting order to suit self + only bowling when his place in
odo team was in question + the nauseating campaign to get himself back
in WC03 team and last, but certainly not least, SRW Tour books. The
Compleat All-Round Scumbug.
3. Kaluwitheran - serial offender on outrageous appeals.
4. DN Pathiranahttp- The SL tv umpire who gave the Clangster run out
after Kalu had a) easily dropped the return, and; b) The Clangster was
miles in anyway. (Wish I had that clip.)
5. Greg Dyer - Ties with Kaluwitheran as the worst individual 'cheating'
appeal I've seen by a player.
6. Ground staff/MCC, Manchester 1956. A dusty pitch in England? In
Manchester?
7. Ground staff/MCC, Leeds 1972. Fusarium schmusarium.
8. Ranatunga- Calling for runner when uninjured.
Convicted ball tamperers:
9. Raul Dravid
10. Waqar
Ravi
1977 (?).
Successful because he got away. Should be at No 3.
Mike Brearly for claiming a bump catch of Viswanath when India were
chasing 400+ and getting away with it. Should be No. 1 on the list.
- Ravi
maiet
"alvey" <alvey_11...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:426ad987$1...@dnews.tpgi.com.au...
> Over in another thread I posted a link to an ESPN poll result on
> baseballs top 10 cheats (Oddly the Chicago White Sox throwing of the
> 1921(?) WS didn't feature.) and pondered on who'd be in cricket's list.
> So here we are. The main problem with doing this in cricket is defining
> cheating. Like, the old chestnut, appealing when you know the batter's
> not out. Not cheating by the Laws buttt.... So for the purpose of this
> exercise lets go with cheating as breaking the Laws OR spirit of the
> game. Loads more fun this way.
>
>
>
> 1. Anil Kumble - for appeals so very, very far above and beyond.
> 2. SRW - claiming a bump ball v Lara + serially not walking when
> blatantly out + running his partners out + invariably batting for self +
> manipulating batting order to suit self + only bowling when his place in
> odo team was in question + the nauseating campaign to get himself back
> in WC03 team and last, but certainly not least, SRW Tour books. The
> Compleat All-Round Scumbug.
> 3. Kaluwitheran - serial offender on outrageous appeals.
> 4. DN Pathiranahttp- The SL tv umpire who gave the Clangster run out
> after Kalu had a) easily dropped the return, and; b) The Clangster was
> miles in anyway. (Wish I had that clip.)
i have this on dvd, i should send it to you so you can chuck it on alveytv,
what a total shocker indeed.
John
He knew that it wasn't out, and you could see it in his eyes, but they
needed a wicket so he went along with it...
alvey
/* Darwin awards adjudicator mode on */
> John Lever for applying vaseline on the ball during the tour of India -
> 1977 (?).
> Successful because he got away. Should be at No 3.
Did Lever ever admit this?
Was he fined/suspended?
Is there any vision?
If the answers are all 'No' then this is ineligible.
>
> Mike Brearly for claiming a bump catch of Viswanath when India were
> chasing 400+ and getting away with it. Should be No. 1 on the list.
I'd point out that the top of my list is occupied with repeat offenders.
There's any number of people who've claimed a bump ball as a catch once.
Just off the top of, I (think I) can recall Gangs & Andy Bic doing so in
recent Oz seasons. Mind you, I'm certain that Bic was just taking the
piss out of some filthy cheating opponent. A Qld player would never,
ever claim a 'long' bump ball as a catch if the game was being televised.
But incidental to your Brearley gripe, I should have remembered his
direct descendants effort at Lords. His role and the location of the
misdemeanor is worth huge bonus points so I'd drop Waqar (a hard-working
'proper' bowler) off my list for this droning hypocrites effort.
alvey
alvey
> "alvey" <alvey_11...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:426ad987$1...@dnews.tpgi.com.au...
snipold
>>4. DN Pathiranahttp- The SL tv umpire who gave the Clangster run out
>>after Kalu had a) easily dropped the return, and; b) The Clangster was
>>miles in anyway. (Wish I had that clip.)
>
>
> i have this on dvd, i should send it to you so you can chuck it on alveytv,
> what a total shocker indeed.
>
>
Today is Excellent News Day!
First Bjelke-Petersen finally carks it and now this!!!
If you're not in the Grouper First Ring (and why not?), could you send
the clip to the alveytv gmail box?
cheers
alvey
in briz, recalling the adage about 'Only the good die young.' Petersen
died at the age of 94. 'nuff said.
alvey
If you say so.
Personally I have no recollection of the incident [Must check video
library later. 92/3 you say. What Test?]. Heals said in his auto that he
wasn't sure whether it was out or not, and added that if he had his time
again that he wouldn't have appealed. An odd thing to say.
alvey
The Naked Whiz
<alvey_11...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>Over in another thread I posted a link to an ESPN poll result on
>baseballs top 10 cheats (Oddly the Chicago White Sox throwing of the
>1921(?) WS didn't feature.) and pondered on who'd be in cricket's list.
The "Black Sox" scandal was in 1919. Perhaps they didn't make the
list because they didn't "cheat" per se. They didn't do something
unfair in order to try to win, they tried to lose. Just a guess....
TNW
The Devil's Dictionary Of Cricket
http://www.nakedwhiz.com/crickgl.htm
Mike Holmans
>Ravi wrote:
>
>/* Darwin awards adjudicator mode on */
>> John Lever for applying vaseline on the ball during the tour of India -
>> 1977 (?).
>> Successful because he got away. Should be at No 3.
>
>Did Lever ever admit this?
>Was he fined/suspended?
>Is there any vision?
>
>If the answers are all 'No' then this is ineligible.
The Third Test at Madras was, amazingly, the first one to be played in
typically Indian heat conditions, it having been unseasonably cool at
Delhi (where Lever had taken 7-46 in India's first innings) and
Calcutta.
On the second evening, when England bowled, Willis and Lever found
that the swaet from their long hair was running into their eyes.
During this session, though, Lever took two wickets swinging the ball
quite a lot.
The next morning, Bernie Thomas the physio improvised some sweatbands
for Willis and Lever with strips of gauze, which he stuck on their
foreheads with the only useful substance he had to hand, which was
vaseline.
They didn't work all that well. Willis tore his off after a few
minutes and threw it away. It was later picked up by someone who
passed it to Bedi. Lever took three more wickets, still swinging the
ball a great deal, and India were all out for 164.
There was vaseline on Lever's forehead on the third morning, he
obviously wiped his brow because he was sweating, so vaseline must
have got onto the ball, and it continued to swing a great deal.
Bedi complained, there was an investigation, and it was concluded that
it had been an ill-thought out improvisation but that there had been
no nefarious intent. Since Lever had already been too good for the
Indians earlier in the series and had started the damage the previous
evening removing Viswanath and the nightwatchman when he hadn't had
the gauze strip on, and in the second innings the Indians fell like
ninepins to Underwood and Willis, and they were already 2-0 down in
the series, it's not entirely obvious that Lever's vaseline-assisted
spell actually turned the match.
Cheers,
Mike
Ivan Skivar
Uday Rajan
> The Third Test at Madras was, amazingly, the first one to be played in
> typically Indian heat conditions, it having been unseasonably cool at
> Delhi (where Lever had taken 7-46 in India's first innings) and
> Calcutta.
Delhi is always cool at that time of year (mid-December).
Calcutta is a little less warm than Madras in January (though
significantly warmer than Delhi), but I thought a couple of days
of that Test were on the warm side. Calcutta is quite humid as
well, so I'm surprised that Willis and Lever didn't have the same
trouble with sweat that you mention below.
I recall seeing Lever's spell at Delhi. On day 2, towards the end
of the day, he was moving the ball a large amount. Generally,
moving it in to the right-handers, and causing havoc. Willis and
Old opened the bowling. Lever came on as the first change, and
prompty grabbed 4 wickets before the end of the day.
> On the second evening, when England bowled, Willis and Lever found
> that the swaet from their long hair was running into their eyes.
> During this session, though, Lever took two wickets swinging the ball
> quite a lot.
> ....
> Since Lever had already been too good for the
> Indians earlier in the series and had started the damage the previous
> evening removing Viswanath and the nightwatchman when he hadn't had
> the gauze strip on, and in the second innings the Indians fell like
> ninepins to Underwood and Willis, and they were already 2-0 down in
> the series, it's not entirely obvious that Lever's vaseline-assisted
> spell actually turned the match.
There were two occasions during the series at which Lever
generated prodigious swing, more than any other England bowler,
and more than he himself was able to get anytime else. One was at
Delhi towards the end of day 2, and the other was at Madras.
Though no complaint was put forward on the first occasion, I
wouldn't be surprised if the Indian side harbored some suspicions
that led eventually to a complaint during the Madras Test.
India were comprehensively outplayed by England during the first
three Tests, and IMO would have lost regardless of any
ball-tampering that went on. At the same time, I don't think the
Indian complaint was just sour grapes. If they did find vaseline
on the ball, it seems to have been a legitimate complaint too.
Opinions on intent will inevitably differ across continents.
Salil
And if so, is the pwd back to the guy with no test average?
SAM
were dubious decisions. Then in the same match Srinath asking S Ramesh
not to catch Waqar Younis of his own bowling only to let Kumble to get
the 10th wicket. This should top the list.
SAM
alvey
> Cronje
>
Doh!
Though this also means that spots have to be found for Azza, Gibbs et
all, swamping the 10 places. This is probably why the baseball list
didn't include the *1919* (thenk yew) WS.
Perhaps a seperate group? 'Criminals' perhaps?
Conehead
news:1114302127....@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
Benaud's comment was along the lines of, "Oh dear. I think there's a law
against that sort of thing."
--
Conehead
RodP
Conehead says...
> Max Walker appeared to rub sun-cream from his nose onto the ball. Richie
> Benaud's comment was along the lines of, "Oh dear. I think there's a law
> against that sort of thing."
...and Dravid rubbed a lozenge.
However, rubbing suncream over a ball has been going on since suncream
was invented.
Cheers,
Rod.
Paul Robson
> 1. Anil Kumble - for appeals so very, very far above and beyond.
> 2. SRW - claiming a bump ball v Lara + serially not walking when
> blatantly out + running his partners out + invariably batting for self +
> manipulating batting order to suit self + only bowling when his place in
> odo team was in question + the nauseating campaign to get himself back
> in WC03 team and last, but certainly not least, SRW Tour books. The
> Compleat All-Round Scumbug.
> 3. Kaluwitheran - serial offender on outrageous appeals.
> 4. DN Pathiranahttp- The SL tv umpire who gave the Clangster run out
> after Kalu had a) easily dropped the return, and; b) The Clangster was
> miles in anyway. (Wish I had that clip.)
> 5. Greg Dyer - Ties with Kaluwitheran as the worst individual 'cheating'
> appeal I've seen by a player.
> 6. Ground staff/MCC, Manchester 1956. A dusty pitch in England? In
> Manchester?
> 7. Ground staff/MCC, Leeds 1972. Fusarium schmusarium.
> 8. Ranatunga- Calling for runner when uninjured.
>
> Convicted ball tamperers:
> 9. Raul Dravid
> 10. Waqar
Cronje ?
Phil Wise
"Ivan Skivar" <ktho...@tconl.com> wrote in message
news:1114312287.3...@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> Cronje
I thought the thread was about cricket cheats, not gambling cheats
Phil
Old Joe
Replays showed he dropped it and picked it up again after it bounced.
The West Indies intimidating Hair (I think) into giving McDermott out in
that one run loss at Adelaide.
The 'dirt in the pocket' case.
Mike Gatting - according to Shakoor Rana :-)
Will S
oh Al, are you really getting that embarrassed by reading your own posts
that you have to put SRW at 2 ?
"alvey" <alvey_11...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:426ad987$1...@dnews.tpgi.com.au...
Rob
> 1. Anil Kumble - for appeals so very, very far above and beyond.
> 2. SRW - claiming a bump ball v Lara + serially not walking when blatantly
> out + running his partners out + invariably batting for self +
> manipulating batting order to suit self + only bowling when his place in
> odo team was in question + the nauseating campaign to get himself back in
> WC03 team and last, but certainly not least, SRW Tour books. The Compleat
> All-Round Scumbug.
Personally I'd have him top. The inevitable response from his supporters
here will be to accuse me of being a whinging pom. Nobody takes umpteen
centuries off our attack without earning my grudging admiration - however
one or two things about him seem to have been forgotten. That ball
definitely did hit the ground in 1995 - yet he claimed it - and I might add
that Taylor (IMHO the epitamy of sportsmen) would never have let him uphold
the appeal had he known - so it was all down to Waugh. Furthermore during
the MCG test one year against SA (I think) he actually questioned the umpire
(Hair) about a run out decision such that it was picked up by the stump mic!
That's so far beyond audacity that it's cheating. For those two instances
alone, he gets my vote.
> 3. Kaluwitheran - serial offender on outrageous appeals.
Most keepers are beyond optimistic IMHO. He's no worse than Moin Khan - or
at present Geraint Jones.
> 4. DN Pathiranahttp- The SL tv umpire who gave the Clangster run out after
> Kalu had a) easily dropped the return, and; b) The Clangster was miles in
> anyway. (Wish I had that clip.)
> 5. Greg Dyer - Ties with Kaluwitheran as the worst individual 'cheating'
> appeal I've seen by a player.
> 6. Ground staff/MCC, Manchester 1956. A dusty pitch in England? In
> Manchester?
I thought it was a sticky, as opposed to a dust bowl. If it was a sticky,
it would certainly be consistent with Lancs!
> 7. Ground staff/MCC, Leeds 1972. Fusarium schmusarium.
I'm not going to argue this too strongly but... Australia won the toss and
batted - and were 90 odd for one at lunch on day one. It was a bit odd
that Underwood returned just at the right time though ;-)
> 8. Ranatunga- Calling for runner when uninjured.
Sod that - pick any incident you like from the WSC game in Adelaide in
1998/9 to see just how bad he was.
>
> Convicted ball tamperers:
> 9. Raul Dravid
News to me - though I concede I don't follow Indian cricket that closely.
> 10. Waqar
An interesting one this. Now Waqar's retired and everyone knows how to
reverse swing the ball, is it "that bad" to tamper with the ball? I guess
it was in his day so it makes him a cheat - but having said that - I'll
remember him more for his fabulous thunderbolt inswinging yorkers bringing
something to the game more than his ball tampering.
John Hall
Rob <gofy...@wrong.address.com> writes:
>> 6. Ground staff/MCC, Manchester 1956. A dusty pitch in England? In
>> Manchester?
>I thought it was a sticky, as opposed to a dust bowl. If it was a sticky,
>it would certainly be consistent with Lancs!
You're both right. It was dusty in the first innings. Then it rained,
making it a sticky for the second innings.
--
John Hall
"I don't even butter my bread; I consider that cooking."
Katherine Cebrian
Somefella
> 9. Raul Dravid
And incidentally the first Spanish cricketer in the history of the game.
Mark Banfield
>Over in another thread I posted a link to an ESPN poll result on
>baseballs top 10 cheats (Oddly the Chicago White Sox throwing of the
>1921(?) WS didn't feature.) and pondered on who'd be in cricket's list.
>So here we are. The main problem with doing this in cricket is defining
>cheating. Like, the old chestnut, appealing when you know the batter's
>not out. Not cheating by the Laws buttt.... So for the purpose of this
>exercise lets go with cheating as breaking the Laws OR spirit of the
>game. Loads more fun this way.
>
>
[snip alvey's list]
1 - 22 (?) Every player involved in the first 2 Tests of the Sri Lanka v.
England series in 2000-01. Yes, every single one of them. The fact that the
umpires for those games knew nothing about the laws and allowed the players to
make it up as they went along is not an excuse.
Dishonourable mention for Adam Parore ; for the appeal against Flintoff at
Auckland during the 2001-02 series, and for his comments afterwards.
Chuckles The Scary Clown
The entire England team in the March 2001 Test at Kandy - not only for
appealing against Jayasuriya for a catch off of the most palpable bump ball
imaginable but for being caught on live television immediately afterwards
watching the replay on the giant screen at the ground and openly laughing
about it.
Not our finest hour.
Paul Robson
When in Rome ....
Chuckles The Scary Clown
Billy Doctrove, West Indian acting as 3rd umpire 3 years ago in the West
Indies vs India..............West Indies captain Carl Hooper is run out by a
yard with the Windies teetering..........the umpires in the middle ask
Doctrove for a verdict based on the tv replay, Doctrove is watching the same
pictures that everyone else in the world which show the Windies captain well
out of his ground.
After a delay of at least five minutes (even as we're watching a freeze
frame of Hooper a yard short and the bails in the air) the tv commentators
are saying "I can't understand the delay here, its a straightforward enough
decision) Doctrove gives Hooper not out.
Chuckles The Scary Clown
"The Naked Whiz" <dhanthor...@nc.rr.com> wrote in message
> The "Black Sox" scandal was in 1919. Perhaps they didn't make the
> list because they didn't "cheat" per se. They didn't do something
> unfair in order to try to win, they tried to lose. Just a guess....
> TNW
>
Although soccer and not cricket or basbeall, you mean something similar to
http://www.snopes.com/sports/soccer/barbados.htm ?
Aditya Basrur
alvey wrote:
> Over in another thread I posted a link to an ESPN poll result on
> baseballs top 10 cheats (Oddly the Chicago White Sox throwing of the
> 1921(?) WS didn't feature.) and pondered on who'd be in cricket's
list.
> So here we are. The main problem with doing this in cricket is
defining
> cheating. Like, the old chestnut, appealing when you know the
batter's
> not out. Not cheating by the Laws buttt.... So for the purpose of
this
> exercise lets go with cheating as breaking the Laws OR spirit of the
> game. Loads more fun this way.
>
>
>
> 2. SRW - claiming a bump ball v Lara + serially not walking when
> blatantly out + running his partners out + invariably batting for
self +
> manipulating batting order to suit self + only bowling when his place
in
> odo team was in question + the nauseating campaign to get himself
back
> in WC03 team and last, but certainly not least, SRW Tour books. The
> Compleat All-Round Scumbug.
> after Kalu had a) easily dropped the return, and; b) The Clangster
was
> miles in anyway. (Wish I had that clip.)
> 5. Greg Dyer - Ties with Kaluwitheran as the worst individual
'cheating'
> appeal I've seen by a player.
> Manchester?
>
> 9. Raul Dravid
Bollocks to all of these. It's a crap list.
Number 1 has to be Cronje. Stood on a ball during a streaking interval
in Australia. Too f'ing incompetent to walk on to the field against
India in the 1999 World Cup without Woolmer mouthing sweet nothings in
his ears. Did I mention that he sold Cricket away for personal fortune?
(Don't give me the BS about it not expressly violating any Code of
Conduct. The mo-fo violated the spirit of the game. Born-again scum.)
No. 2: Azhar, Jadeja and Saleem Malik. For similar reasons. Plus they
were generally quite useless cricketers (Azhar excepted).
No. 4: If we're going down the ball-tampering path, haven't Wasim and
Imran been implicated as much as Imran? And Chris Pringle has even
admitted to it in print.
No. 5: On the subject of ground-staff, who prepared the sodden track
where McGrath took 8-38 in 1997 on a Lord's track and got England out
for one of their lowest totals post-war?
No. 6: On the subject of ball-tampering (again), what about Atherton's
dirt-in-pocket, or the people who Denness fined and suspended ...
Tendulkar seemed to be in there, similarly Sehwag - but you won't hear
about that from our biased Indian friends.
No. 7: Dodgy wicketkeepers: Wasim Bari, Anil Dalpat, Moin Khan.
No. 8: Umpires Javed Akhtar and Eddie Nicholls.
No. 9: Richard Hadlee. Does anyone have stats on how often he was given
LBW in NZ, as compared with overseas? (And I'd be interested in any
figures which show Martin Crowe in poor light - basically because I
hate the twit.)
No. 10: Jardine.
Aditya
Ivan Skivar
dislodging a bail while playing a shot, he picked it up and replaced it
while the umpires were watching the ball go towards the boundary.
Chuckles The Scary Clown
> Clyde Walcott - batting against Aust in the W. Indies - after
> dislodging a bail while playing a shot, he picked it up and replaced it
> while the umpires were watching the ball go towards the boundary.
>
lol, you sure?
Shishir S. Pathak
news:1114344126.8...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
<snip>
> No. 2: Azhar, Jadeja and Saleem Malik. For similar reasons. Plus they
> were generally quite useless cricketers (Azhar excepted).
If you don't think Azhar was useless, can't see how Malik can be called
useless. Match-fixing aside, Malik was a very useful bat for Pak.
No 3: Missing. Perhaps it's those 3 runs that were added to India's total
to make the upper-middle-class Wadekar look respectable.
> No. 4: If we're going down the ball-tampering path, haven't Wasim and
> Imran been implicated as much as Imran?
It's highly unlikely that Imran hasn't been implicated as much as Imran.
Unless there are two cheating Immys out there, which would be a tragedy.
Anyway, no shame-list is complete without including the ACB's disgraceful
attempt to protect their poster boys Mark Waugh and Shane Warne, and that
too over a number of years.
Cheers, Shishir
<snip>
Southpaw
Mike Holmans wrote:
<snip>
> Bedi complained, there was an investigation, and it was concluded
that
> it had been an ill-thought out improvisation but that there had been
> no nefarious intent. Since Lever had already been too good for the
> Indians earlier in the series and had started the damage the previous
> evening removing Viswanath and the nightwatchman when he hadn't had
> the gauze strip on, and in the second innings the Indians fell like
> ninepins to Underwood and Willis, and they were already 2-0 down in
> the series, it's not entirely obvious that Lever's vaseline-assisted
> spell actually turned the match.
Ironically the same excuses were doled out by those defending Dravid:
a) there had been no nefarious intent (the effect of a lozenge on the
ball being unknown), and b) it's not entirely obvious it changed
anything in the game.
-Samarth.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Mike
Sreekanth
"Paul Robson" <auti...@autismuk.muralichucks.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in
message
news:pan.2005.04.24....@autismuk.muralichucks.freeserve.co.uk...
Sreekanth
Phil.
unilaterally abandon play with an hour of play left on the last day of
a Test when they were trying to avoid defeat.
Phil.
The Naked Whiz
No, the White Sox of 1919 (well, 7 of the players and possibly an
eighth) tried to lose. They bet against themselves and thus tried to
lose so they would collect on the bets. It is a long and complicated
story, documented in several full-length books.
In the case you cite, they simply tried to score on themselves to give
themselves a chance to win by two goals and advance. Very interesting
link, however!
TNW
The Devil's Dictionary Of Cricket
http://www.nakedwhiz.com/crickgl.htm
Madhusudan Singh
> exercise lets go with cheating as breaking the Laws OR spirit of the
> game. Loads more fun this way.
>
>
>
> 1. Anil Kumble - for appeals so very, very far above and beyond.
How does that make him a "cheat" ? Might make him a serial appealer. In my
mind, the term "cheat" is reserved for the likes of Cronje, Azhar, Malik,
etc.
> 2. SRW - claiming a bump ball v Lara + serially not walking when
> blatantly out + running his partners out + invariably batting for self +
> manipulating batting order to suit self + only bowling when his place in
> odo team was in question + the nauseating campaign to get himself back
> in WC03 team and last, but certainly not least, SRW Tour books. The
> Compleat All-Round Scumbug.
Its gamesmanship. Not cheating.
> 3. Kaluwitheran - serial offender on outrageous appeals.
Have no idea. As to appealing, see Kumble above.
> 4. DN Pathiranahttp- The SL tv umpire who gave the Clangster run out
> after Kalu had a) easily dropped the return, and; b) The Clangster was
> miles in anyway. (Wish I had that clip.)
> 5. Greg Dyer - Ties with Kaluwitheran as the worst individual 'cheating'
> appeal I've seen by a player.
> 6. Ground staff/MCC, Manchester 1956. A dusty pitch in England? In
> Manchester?
> 7. Ground staff/MCC, Leeds 1972. Fusarium schmusarium.
No idea for 4-7.
> 8. Ranatunga- Calling for runner when uninjured.
Not cheating really, but comes close.
>
> Convicted ball tamperers:
> 9. Raul Dravid
> 10. Waqar
"Convicted" being the operative word. There are plenty more who have not
been convicted.
Aditya Basrur
Shishir S. Pathak wrote:
> "Aditya Basrur" <sandaa...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:1114344126.8...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
>
> <snip>
>
> > No. 2: Azhar, Jadeja and Saleem Malik. For similar reasons. Plus
they
> > were generally quite useless cricketers (Azhar excepted).
>
> If you don't think Azhar was useless, can't see how Malik can be
called
> useless. Match-fixing aside, Malik was a very useful bat for Pak.
>
> No 3: Missing. Perhaps it's those 3 runs that were added to India's
total
> to make the upper-middle-class Wadekar look respectable.
No, Wadekar was made to look respectable by Gavaskar in 1971. Both came
from Mumbai (which immediately made them far better middle-order bats
and captains than Pataudi or Dravid could ever hope to be, of course).
When they walked around England in the rain after their 1971 triumph,
Wadekar was immaculate while Gavaskar was raffish, unkempt and wore an
open-collared shirt. Ergo, Gavaskar - the young star, with the world
before him - made Wadekar - the old pro who took Bombay out of the
doldrums - look respectable. (And I have an A3 print of that photo in
the "Romance of Bombay Cricket" book hanging in my living room, in a
picture-frame made out of beedis purchased between Ghatkopar and
Churchgate in 1971 to prove out. to prove out.)
>
> > No. 4: If we're going down the ball-tampering path, haven't Wasim
and
> > Imran been implicated as much as Imran?
>
> It's highly unlikely that Imran hasn't been implicated as much as
Imran.
> Unless there are two cheating Immys out there, which would be a
tragedy.
Sorry, meant that Wasim and Imran have been implicated as much as Waqar
- all were, by implication, plaintiffs against Botham in the 1995 case,
IIRC.
> Anyway, no shame-list is complete without including the ACB's
disgraceful
> attempt to protect their poster boys Mark Waugh and Shane Warne, and
that
> too over a number of years.
Or Jinnah, who created a different country just to weaken India's
Cricketing strength.
Aditya
Sanjiv Karmarkar
> No, Wadekar was made to look respectable by Gavaskar in 1971. Both
came
> from Mumbai (which immediately made them far better middle-order bats
> and captains than Pataudi or Dravid could ever hope to be, of
course).
Dravid actually is a lot more like Wadekar than Gavaskar is; you can't
wipe out centuries of history just because one Mr. sharad Dravid moved
to a different city in '80 pursuing a better job. (-:
And facetiousness apart, you happen to be right about Mr. Mansur Ali
Khan; he could not hold a candle to middle order bats like Dravid,
Hazare, and several other Mumbai MO batsmen, despite the genuflection
of his doting and curtsying subj.. I mean fans!
> When they walked around England in the rain after their 1971 triumph,
> Wadekar was immaculate while Gavaskar was raffish, unkempt and wore
an
> open-collared shirt. Ergo, Gavaskar - the young star, with the world
> before him - made Wadekar - the old pro who took Bombay out of the
> doldrums - look respectable. (And I have an A3 print of that photo in
> the "Romance of Bombay Cricket" book hanging in my living room
Again, sarcasm apart, that indeed is a great photograph of those two.
One of my favorite cricket pictures ever; although my guess is that
picture is not in your living room but under your pillow.
Sanjiv
Aditya Basrur
Sanjiv Karmarkar wrote:
Aah, Sanjiv ... You do make taking the piss fun.
> Dravid actually is a lot more like Wadekar than Gavaskar is; you
can't
> wipe out centuries of history just because one Mr. sharad Dravid
moved
> to a different city in '80 pursuing a better job. (-:
Did Wadekar ever score two double-centuries in overseas wins?
Has Wadekar ever smited England at Headingley?
Does Wadekar have a 55+ average?
Did Wadekar ever put India's so-called star batsman (rightfully) in his
place by declaring at 194?
You can't wipe out the Keki Tarapore school of batsmanship (as
evidenced by the 90 degree arc which makes Dravid's backlift), 9 years
of top-class Cricket, and half-Tamilian ancestry with centuries of
history.
>
> And facetiousness apart, you happen to be right about Mr. Mansur Ali
> Khan; he could not hold a candle to middle order bats like Dravid,
> Hazare, and several other Mumbai MO batsmen, despite the genuflection
> of his doting and curtsying subj.. I mean fans!
Which would be an interesting observation, if that were what I said -
facetiousness apart.
> > When they walked around England in the rain after their 1971
triumph,
> > Wadekar was immaculate while Gavaskar was raffish, unkempt and wore
> > an
> > open-collared shirt. Ergo, Gavaskar - the young star, with the
world
> > before him - made Wadekar - the old pro who took Bombay out of the
> > doldrums - look respectable. (And I have an A3 print of that photo
in
> > the "Romance of Bombay Cricket" book hanging in my living room
>
> Again, sarcasm apart, that indeed is a great photograph of those two.
> One of my favorite cricket pictures ever;
Again, sarcasm apart, it is a nice photo, but it is not why Wadekar was
respectable. And I have other favourites from that book and Indian
Cricket history generally. I like the juxtaposition of Vengsarkar and
Shastri on one page with Agarkar, Kuruvilla and Mazumdar on the other -
it contrasts the few Bombay Cricketers who were actually decent and
worked hard up till 1990 with the overrated hype that has followed and
never delivered. I love the action shot of Farokh Engineer jumping up
to catch an England batsman; next to it is a far more understated shot
of Vijay Manjrekar holding a tennis racquet next to a Wadekar wearing
shorts and t-shirt. It must have been taken at some stage in the 1960s
or early 1970s, and paints a quite different world from the manicured
gymkhanas in the suburbs with which I'm familiar.
But I think my favourite Bombay Cricket folklore photo is the one of an
aged Subhash Gupte, in an old red t-shirt, walking with the assistance
of a frame, next to Sharad Kotnis, DBV, and a young and hep Sanjay
Manjrekar at Fergie's house in the Caribbean. Seems to show how Cricket
brings people who might never have seen each other otherwise extremely
close.
> although my guess is that
> picture is not in your living room but under your pillow.
Leave thoughts of my pillow to me. It was, as you correctly pointed
out, a facetious take-off on the likes of Sadiq and you who eulogise
even the excreta of Bombay Cricket (e.g. Agarkar and Kuruvilla) without
thought or judgment. I don't think my parents would allow me to make a
photo frame out of stubs of beedis bought during the 1971 England tour,
and I don't think either of my grandfathers kept their beedi stubs for
posterity either (probably fortunately). I have the picture in the book
("Guts and Glory: The Bombay Cricket Story", FWIW), and don't think I
have the A3 print anymore. And I generally keep photos of a very
different kind under my pillow - although I now have a drawer under my
bed for those Feminas and Stardusts which feature Gayatri Joshi and
Rani Mukherji.
And if you keep up this Wadekar-pimping, I think you'll have to start
composing couplets on Wadekar, a la Shridhar and Agarkar. (Both went to
Ruia, IIRC.) I'm not very good at this, but a few to start maybe ...
"When the opposition batsmen got going and all other bowlers fail, its
the captaincy of Waddy which makes the opposition derail"
"East or west, Waddy was the best"
"When Ajit got bashed, he became Wadekar the great Indian mythological
warrior. And when Wadekar got bashed, he became Ajit, the butt of all
the best Indian jokes."
And so on. I'll eagerly anticipate your contributions.
Aditya [ Who is actually quite a big Wadekar-fan. ] Basrur
amukhop
Sanjiv Karmarkar
> Sanjiv Karmarkar wrote:
> Did Wadekar ever score two double-centuries in overseas wins?
> Has Wadekar ever smited England at Headingley?
> Does Wadekar have a 55+ average?
Are you trying to somehow compare Dravid's batting with Wadekar's?
This is ridiculous. Dravid is one of the three greatest MOBs India
ever produced, and perhaps it can be argued - especially after his
performances since '01 - that he is even better that Hazare and SRT.
To compare him with Wadekar is laughable; I am not sure if Wadekar
makes my top 20. For the record, I have never compared Dravid and
Wadekar as batsmen; they are not even in the same league.
> Did Wadekar ever put India's so-called star batsman (rightfully) in
his
> place by declaring at 194?
Wadekar was too busy putting his *opposition* in their places; his
surprise follow-on in the first test in WI in 71 is legendary!
Actually, I don't believe Dravid had any such trifling intentions;
Dravid is a class act - he is not petty. He made a decision (and IMO
an incorrect one) as the captain of the Indian team.
> half-Tamilian ancestry with centuries of history.
It is greatly amusing how some are still clinging to this straw of his
fabled half-Tamilian ancestry, a bunch of bs that started in that e-rag
Rediff and spread like bad odor. I had expected that his Mom's
statements about that article following the announcement of Rahul's
wedding would have put that notion to rest. However, if that delusion
makes you guys feel good and if that illusion reduced the number of
ill-mannered posts about him, I say fantasize away! (-:
> Leave thoughts of my pillow to me. It was, as you correctly pointed
> out, a facetious take-off on the likes of Sadiq and you who eulogise
> even the excreta of Bombay Cricket (e.g. Agarkar and Kuruvilla
Show one post where I call Agarkar's and Kuruvilla's career anything
close to 'great' or even 'very good'. I have always said that Agarkar
overall has been a great disappointment and has never risen over
mediocrity despite flashes of brilliance here and there. Kuruvilla was
a really good First-class level paceman when he was at his prime; we
will never know if he would have made it at the international level -
he was selected to play for India when he was much older and way past
his prime.
> different kind under my pillow - although I now have a drawer under
my
> bed for those Feminas and Stardusts which feature Gayatri Joshi and
> Rani Mukherji.
That's obviously the closest you can get to any pretty girl. (-:
Sanjiv
Phil Wise
"Paul Robson" <auti...@autismuk.muralichucks.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in
message
news:pan.2005.04.24....@autismuk.muralichucks.freeserve.co.uk...
> On Sun, 24 Apr 2005 09:26:01 +1000, alvey wrote:
>
>> blatantly out + running his partners out + invariably batting for self +
>> manipulating batting order to suit self + only bowling when his place in
>> odo team was in question + the nauseating campaign to get himself back
>> in WC03 team and last, but certainly not least, SRW Tour books. The
>> Compleat All-Round Scumbug.
>> after Kalu had a) easily dropped the return, and; b) The Clangster was
>> miles in anyway. (Wish I had that clip.)
>> 5. Greg Dyer - Ties with Kaluwitheran as the worst individual 'cheating'
>> appeal I've seen by a player.
>> 6. Ground staff/MCC, Manchester 1956. A dusty pitch in England? In
>> Manchester?
>> 7. Ground staff/MCC, Leeds 1972. Fusarium schmusarium.
>>
>> 9. Raul Dravid
>> 10. Waqar
>
Well he stood on the ball and wasn't a great walker, but that shouldn't have
him on the list. Match fixing isn't cheating at cricket. It is sabotaging
cricket (which is bad, worse than cheating at it), and cheating at gambling,
which I couldn't give a fuck about.
Phil
>
Aditya Basrur
Sanjiv Karmarkar wrote:
> Aditya Basrur wrote:
> > Sanjiv Karmarkar wrote:
>
> > Did Wadekar ever score two double-centuries in overseas wins?
> > Has Wadekar ever smited England at Headingley?
> > Does Wadekar have a 55+ average?
>
> Are you trying to somehow compare Dravid's batting with Wadekar's?
> This is ridiculous.
So is saying "Dravid is a lot more like Wadekar than Gavaskar is."
Dravid is a lot more like Dravid than anyone else. Gavaskar is also a
lot more like Gavaskar than anyone else. And we'll leave Wadekar to
you. (BTW, and since this matters to you, Gavaskar admits to being a
GSB - i.e. konkani speaker from Kashmir via Bengal and Mangalore. His
uncle Madhav Mantri stayed in a house in the Saraswat Colony in Pune
for a longish time.)
> Dravid is one of the three greatest MOBs India
> ever produced, and perhaps it can be argued - especially after his
> performances since '01 - that he is even better that Hazare and SRT.
> To compare him with Wadekar is laughable; I am not sure if Wadekar
> makes my top 20. For the record, I have never compared Dravid and
> Wadekar as batsmen; they are not even in the same league.
Sure. Dravid is just a lot more like Wadekar than Gavaskar is. Oh, I
forgot, you care more about background than on-field performances.
> Wadekar was too busy putting his *opposition* in their places; his
> surprise follow-on in the first test in WI in 71 is legendary!
> Actually, I don't believe Dravid had any such trifling intentions;
> Dravid is a class act - he is not petty. He made a decision (and IMO
> an incorrect one) as the captain of the Indian team.
The decision was perfect. The total was fine. It would have taken too
long to let Tendulkar make his double. (And the stuff about "Did Dravid
..." etc comes from a line of reasoning in a thread called "Ian Butler
thinks he's Ajit Agarkar". 2003 was a fantastic year for rsc.)
> > half-Tamilian ancestry with centuries of history.
>
> It is greatly amusing how some are still clinging to this straw of
his
> fabled half-Tamilian ancestry,
Yes. I crack up over it several times a day. Those fools who think
Dravid has half-Tamilian ancestry. Ha! I laugh in the reflection of
their greatly amusing faces as they urinate their amusing urine!
> a bunch of bs that started in that e-rag
> Rediff and spread like bad odor.
Having Tamilian ancestry is like a bad odor? Sorry?
> I had expected that his Mom's
> statements about that article following the announcement of Rahul's
> wedding would have put that notion to rest.
What statements?
> However, if that delusion
> makes you guys feel good and if that illusion reduced the number of
> ill-mannered posts about him, I say fantasize away! (-:
Who are "we guys"? I speak NO Tamil, and no Kannada (unlike Dravid, who
speaks both). The language I do speak sounds like Marathi to many and
makes Marathi intelligible to me. I want to believe that Rahul Dravid
is fully Maharashtrian, I really do. It will make me feel so much
better (and nullify the effect of Tarapore's coaching at St Joesphs in
the Cantonment area entirely, obviously). Please show me that Dravid
has half-Tamilian ancestry, Sanjiv, and hence is almost as good a
batsman as Wadekar - please, and soon.
> > Leave thoughts of my pillow to me. It was, as you correctly pointed
> > out, a facetious take-off on the likes of Sadiq and you who
eulogise
> > even the excreta of Bombay Cricket (e.g. Agarkar and Kuruvilla
>
> Show one post where I call Agarkar's and Kuruvilla's career anything
> close to 'great' or even 'very good'.
Did I say you did?
> I have always said that Agarkar
> overall has been a great disappointment and has never risen over
> mediocrity despite flashes of brilliance here and there. Kuruvilla
was
> a really good First-class level paceman when he was at his prime; we
> will never know if he would have made it at the international level -
> he was selected to play for India when he was much older and way past
> his prime.
Oh, but he was *so* fast. He, Mhambrey, Amre, and Apte must be the
hardest done-by Cricketers in Indian History, I swear. (Not to mention
Manjrekar, who should have had a pension for life, and Kambli, who was
so unfairly dropped, and Bahutule, who'd still be playing now if that
rotten Kumble with his questionable roots in Central Karnataka didn't
have the annoying habit of taking wickets regularly.)
And I think you misunderstood the term "excreta of Bombay Cricket". It
wasn't meant to be pejorative. It reminds me of an analogy with an area
called Remuera in Auckland, which is generally seen as quite
well-to-do. A local magazine interviewed some sewer-workers, who said
the sewers in Remuera were "fragrant".
Similarly, when Bombay Cricket is fed and nourished on a diet of
lotuses and roses and the choicest modaks, how could its excreta be
anything but only the best fertiliser? As my posts here show, I have
the highest regard for Agarkar's and Kuruvilla's ability. They're both
amazing players - real hit-the-deck with pace kind of bowlers, and
certainly would have rejuvenated our flagging stock of all-rounders if
only given a chance. But sadly, the biased Bonda selectors thought
otherwise.
> > different kind under my pillow - although I now have a drawer under
> my
> > bed for those Feminas and Stardusts which feature Gayatri Joshi and
> > Rani Mukherji.
>
> That's obviously the closest you can get to any pretty girl. (-:
Living in Auckland, sadly true.
Aditya [ Who can't discern a difference, taste-
wise, between bondas and batata-wadas. ] Basrur
John
> John wrote:
>
>> 1) Ian Healy for his 'stumping' of Brian Lara at the Gabba in 1992-93.
>> He knew that it wasn't out, and you could see it in his eyes, but they
>> needed a wicket so he went along with it...
>
>
> If you say so.
> Personally I have no recollection of the incident [Must check video
> library later. 92/3 you say. What Test?]. Heals said in his auto that he
> wasn't sure whether it was out or not, and added that if he had his time
> again that he wouldn't have appealed. An odd thing to say.
>
>
> alvey
1st Test of the 1992-93 series. BC Lara st Healy b Matthews. There
wasn't a third umpire in those days, and although Lara was out of his
crease, as Healy fell to make the stumping and he threw his hand towards
the stump. By the time his hands broke the stumps, the ball had fallen out.
In some fairness to Healy, most of the appealing was done by Mo, however
he may have had an obscured view of the incident. When the finger was
raised, you could see the doubt in Healy's face, he was smiling but only
half-smiling. Sort of a "ok, yeah, he's been given out so I'll go along
with it" look on his face.
Lara was on 58 and looking good too although he wouldn't make them pay
until the Sydney test...
R. Bharat Rao
> top 10 cheats (Oddly the Chicago White Sox throwing of the 1921(?) WS
> didn't feature.) and pondered on who'd be in cricket's list. So here we
> are. The main problem with doing this in cricket is defining cheating.
> Like, the old chestnut, appealing when you know the batter's not out. Not
> this way.
>
>
>
Of course, put in an Indian spinner for over appealing, leave out the
Aussie fat boy, who not only appeals a lot, but was suspended for one
year for failing the drug testing policy.
Yet another instance of "no biases" there == right Alve?
Bharat
Vinay
"R. Bharat Rao" <rao_b...@yahoo-nospam-this.com> wrote in message
news:Dj_ae.3068$Nc.3004@trnddc03...
Not sure if you meant test cricket - but Imran Khan himself admitted to
using a bottle top to get the ball to move during a county game - wouldn't
that qualify him for the list? Or does the fact that he admitted to it
absolve him?
Vinay
R. Bharat Rao
"Vinay" <vin...@hpl.hp.com> wrote in message
news:d4hvau$aes$1...@hplms2.hpl.hp.com...
>
> "R. Bharat Rao" <rao_b...@yahoo-nospam-this.com> wrote in message
> news:Dj_ae.3068$Nc.3004@trnddc03...
>>
>> "alvey" <alvey_11...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> news:426ad987$1...@dnews.tpgi.com.au...
>>> Over in another thread I posted a link to an ESPN poll result on
>>> baseballs top 10 cheats (Oddly the Chicago White Sox throwing of the
>>> 1921(?) WS didn't feature.) and pondered on who'd be in cricket's list.
>>> So here we are. The main problem with doing this in cricket is defining
>>> cheating. Like, the old chestnut, appealing when you know the batter's
>>> not out. Not cheating by the Laws buttt.... So for the purpose of this
>>> exercise lets go with cheating as breaking the Laws OR spirit of the
>>> game. Loads more fun this way.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> 1. Anil Kumble - for appeals so very, very far above and beyond.
>>
>> Of course, put in an Indian spinner for over appealing, leave out the
>> Aussie fat boy, who not only appeals a lot, but was suspended for one
>> year for failing the drug testing policy.
>>
>> Yet another instance of "no biases" there == right Alve?
>>
> using a bottle top to get the ball to move during a county game - wouldn't
> that qualify him for the list? Or does the fact that he admitted to it
> absolve him?
I'm sure that Alvey will say he was just taking the piss, and did so
successfully,
but putting one of the solid good guys of cricket as the #1 cheat on his
list, someone
who hasn't had a single bid incident in cricket to his name as the #1
cheat -- when
the #1 Aussie spinner has about 500-times more muck to his name, both off
the
field and on the field -- of course thats just Aussie hard-nosed
competition, when
Ponting or Langer doesn't walk after a clear nick, or McGrath sledges
someone
about his sexuality -- but Anil Kumble appealing too much -- that is
cheating.
Alvey would be a complete bigot if he were smart enough to have any
prejudices.
Bharat
Bob Dubery
alvey wrote:
> Ivan Skivar wrote:
> > Cronje
> >
>
>
> Doh!
>
Do Cronje's worse deeds fall within the parameters "breaking the Laws
OR spirit of the game"?
Not that I care for what he did, but most of the truly villainous stuff
was done off the field and probably outside of a match. So does he
enter the top 10 for having rolled a ball under spiked foot and for
wearing an earpiece?
Bob Dubery
Bob Dubery wrote:
>
> Not that I care for what he did, but most of the truly villainous
stuff
> was done off the field and probably outside of a match. So does he
> enter the top 10 for having rolled a ball under spiked foot and for
> wearing an earpiece?
Just to clarify. I regard cheating as something you do in order to gain
an advantage in a game. Players, and especially captains, that conspire
to perform poorly or to lose a game are far worse than mere cheaters.
alvey
> alvey wrote:
>
>> John wrote:
>>
>>> 1) Ian Healy for his 'stumping' of Brian Lara at the Gabba in
>>> 1992-93. He knew that it wasn't out, and you could see it in his
>>> eyes, but they needed a wicket so he went along with it...
>>
>>
>>
>> If you say so.
>> Personally I have no recollection of the incident [Must check video
>> library later. 92/3 you say. What Test?]. Heals said in his auto that
>> he wasn't sure whether it was out or not, and added that if he had his
>> time again that he wouldn't have appealed. An odd thing to say.
>>
>>
>> alvey
>
>
> 1st Test of the 1992-93 series. BC Lara st Healy b Matthews.
Oh come on. Greg Matthews got a ball past IVAR?
Pull the other one.
alvey
in briz, uncovering a NSV mole.
alvey
Of course there's bias there idiot. I'm biased against Kumble because
IMO he's the most farcical over-appealer (and ham actor) in world
cricket. If you don't share my opinion that's bad luck. If you think
it's race bias then you're an even more ridiculous nitwit than I
previously thought.
gokrix
IVAR? Where does he come in?
Thanks,
--GS
Bob Dubery
Chuckles The Scary Clown wrote:
> "The Naked Whiz" <dhanthor...@nc.rr.com> wrote in message
>
> > The "Black Sox" scandal was in 1919. Perhaps they didn't make the
> > list because they didn't "cheat" per se. They didn't do something
> > unfair in order to try to win, they tried to lose. Just a
guess....
> > TNW
> >
>
> Although soccer and not cricket or basbeall, you mean something
similar to
> http://www.snopes.com/sports/soccer/barbados.htm ?
The nearest cricketing equivalent I can think of is Somerset contriving
to lose a one day match. They'd worked out that even if they lost they
could still make it on nett run rate and so decided to contrive a loss
that would not see their NRR suffer too much. They declared in the
first over.
The whole match lasted less than half an hour. Somerset were eventually
thrown out of the competition.
kenh...@hotmail.com
alvey wrote:
> Ravi wrote:
>
> /* Darwin awards adjudicator mode on */
> > John Lever for applying vaseline on the ball during the tour of
India -
> > 1977 (?).
> > Successful because he got away. Should be at No 3.
>
> Did Lever ever admit this?
> Was he fined/suspended?
> Is there any vision?
>
> If the answers are all 'No' then this is ineligible.
> >
> > Mike Brearly for claiming a bump catch of Viswanath when India were
> > chasing 400+ and getting away with it. Should be No. 1 on the list.
>
> I'd point out that the top of my list is occupied with repeat
offenders.
> There's any number of people who've claimed a bump ball as a catch
once.
> Just off the top of, I (think I) can recall Gangs & Andy Bic doing so
in
> recent Oz seasons. Mind you, I'm certain that Bic was just taking the
> piss out of some filthy cheating opponent. A Qld player would never,
> ever claim a 'long' bump ball as a catch if the game was being
televised.
>
Ian Healy, for twice 'stumping' Lara, whilst not actually having the
ball in his hand, once for qld and once for Aus.
Made worse by his rather pathetic excuse that he was simply exhibiting
a 'competitive spirit'.
Higgs
qlders r cheets
Bob Dubery
Aditya Basrur wrote:
> Bollocks to all of these. It's a crap list.
>
> Number 1 has to be Cronje. Stood on a ball during a streaking
interval
> in Australia. Too f'ing incompetent to walk on to the field against
> India in the 1999 World Cup without Woolmer mouthing sweet nothings
in
> his ears. Did I mention that he sold Cricket away for personal
fortune?
> (Don't give me the BS about it not expressly violating any Code of
> Conduct. The mo-fo violated the spirit of the game. Born-again scum.)
Also brow beating an umpire into calling for a replay AFTER he'd
already said "not out".
Brian Rose seems to have got off fairly lightly for his manipulation of
run rates.
But surely the number one spot has to go to Warwick Armstrong for
bowling two consecutive overs in a Test match? That takes some doing
and huge nerve.
kenh...@hotmail.com
heroes, the pair of them.....
Higgs
> Cheers, Shishir
>
> <snip>
zRahul
> Convicted ball tamperers:
> 9. Raul Dravid
> 10. Waqar
You can add Mike Atherthon who was convicted of rubbing dirt on to the
ball.
How about players who have confessed (hence convicted) to have taken
money from bookies?
Cronje, Mark Waugh , Shane Warne
Also how about the Aussie umpire ( although he had enough evidence to
use insantity defence) who called Murali for chucking when he was
bowling leg spin.
You seem to have a very selective memory. Do I sense a patern here?
Southpaw
Ivan Skivar wrote:
> Clyde Walcott - batting against Aust in the W. Indies - after
> dislodging a bail while playing a shot, he picked it up and replaced
it
> while the umpires were watching the ball go towards the boundary.
Hmm. Clyde Walcott seems to be a master of gamesmanship. It is said
that when India were closing in on a win in the Bombay test of 1948-9,
he, the wicket-keeper would trudge down to the fine-leg/thirdman
boundary to retrieve the ball every time it went down there, so as to
maximize time wasted.
It's even more surprising there should be two instances of gamesmanship
involving him, considering those were more genteel times. He later went
on to become Chairman of the ICC, and was knighted for his services to
the game!
-Samarth.
Phil.
ball. "
And SRT of course.
Phil.
zRahul
Also I forgot Warne gets one more go at the top ten by being a drug
cheat in addition to taking money from a bookie.
And the whole Aussie Cricket Board for trying to hide Warne-Waugh bookie
affair .
Chuckles The Scary Clown
"Paul Robson" <auti...@autismuk.muralichucks.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in
message
news:pan.2005.04.24....@autismuk.muralichucks.freeserve.co.uk...
>
>> "alvey" <alvey_11...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> news:426ad987$1...@dnews.tpgi.com.au...
>>
>> appealing against Jayasuriya for a catch off of the most palpable bump
>> ball
>> imaginable but for being caught on live television immediately afterwards
>> watching the replay on the giant screen at the ground and openly laughing
>> about it.
>>
>> Not our finest hour.
>
> When in Rome ....
>
Maybe, but Nasser Hussein (who seemed to be laughing loudest) had the
opportunity to call the batsman back.
And he chose not to.
Those are the facts, make of them what you will.
Phil.
bookie
affair ."
As long as your definition of 'hiding' includes reporting it to the
ICC, what you mean is that they didn't publicise it (neither did the
ICC).
Phil.
opportunity to call the batsman back.
And he chose not to.
Those are the facts, make of them what you will."
Those are some of the facts, however what's 'sauce for the goose is
sauce for the gander', Jayasuriya could have also called batsmen back
but did not do so.
The facts are that there was outrageous appealing and pressurising of
the umpires into bad decisions in the first 2 Tests of that series and
it's unreasonable to expect the visiting side to sit back and play by
the rules when the other side is getting away with it.
Colin Kynoch
enraptured with the Election of Cardinal Ratchaser decided to post the
following:
You have an interesting idea of 'hiding'.
They reported it to the peak body of cricket.
Neither they nor the ICC saw fit to issue a press release.
Colin Kynoch
kenh...@hotmail.com
That's bullshit.
The ACB would, normally, have made the affair public.
That they didn't speaks volumes.
It was a cover up.
Don't blame the ICC.
Higgs
Andrew Dunford
"Aditya Basrur" <sandaa...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1114344126.8...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
<snip>
> No. 9: Richard Hadlee. Does anyone have stats on how often he was given
> LBW in NZ, as compared with overseas?
Are you asking about batting or bowling?
(And I'd be interested in any
> figures which show Martin Crowe in poor light - basically because I
> hate the twit.)
I'd be happy to nominate Crowe for being captain of the NZ team which played
England at Eden Park in the 1991/92 Test match. That being the team which
sneaked their own ball onto the field and swapped it for the official ball
early in England's first innings, got caught doing it by the umpires and
told not to do it again, then promptly did the same thing again in the
second innings.
<snip>
Andrew
gane...@gmail.com
alvey wrote:
> Over in another thread I posted a link to an ESPN poll result on
> baseballs top 10 cheats (Oddly the Chicago White Sox throwing of the
> 1921(?) WS didn't feature.) and pondered on who'd be in cricket's
list.
> So here we are. The main problem with doing this in cricket is
defining
> cheating. Like, the old chestnut, appealing when you know the
batter's
> not out. Not cheating by the Laws buttt.... So for the purpose of
this
> exercise lets go with cheating as breaking the Laws OR spirit of the
> game. Loads more fun this way.
>
>
1. SM Gavaskar - walked when he felt like it ( anyone remember
Calcutta.Jan 84 against the Windies when he walked following an lbw
appeal without waiting for the umpires decison) but if he felt it was
in his interest to stay, did everything in is power to influence the
umpire - pointing to his bat, arm guard, pads what have you.
not cheating but considering that we have the Kumbles and the Kalu's on
this list for far less, SMG should head the table.
for outright cheating you have to hand it over to Pak umpires in the
eighties ( shakoor rana et al) - they seemed to join in the appeals of
the Pak bowlers.
-Ganesh P Shetty
Chuckles The Scary Clown
"Phil." <fel...@princeton.edu> wrote in message
news:1114461408.7...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
Hmmm, sinking to the lowest common denominator just because others around
you have seems to be a valid justification in today's society.
Andrew Dunford
"Aditya Basrur" <sandaa...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1114344126.8...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
<snip>
> No. 9: Richard Hadlee. Does anyone have stats on how often he was given
> LBW in NZ, as compared with overseas?
Even if you were referring to Hadlee's batting, one should never miss an
opportunity to debunk Sidecast Myth #73, namely that Hadlee had only to
clear his throat to get a New Zealand umpire to give a visiting batsman out
lbw.
Hadlee's record provides an excellent opportunity to compare home versus
away performances, because he played the same number of Tests away as at
home (43 in each case). Playing away he took more wickets at a better
strike rate and lower average than at home, claimed more five- and
ten-wicket bags and was granted more lbws. Apart from that, I reckon Alvey
is spot on.
Here are the figures
Home:
43 matches
201 wickets at 22.96
s/r: 53.0
5fers: 15
10fers: 3
lbws: 41
Away:
43 matches
230 wickets at 21.72
s/r: 48.9
5fers: 21
10fers: 6
lbws: 42
I have no doubt that Hadlee the bowler was a fine 'worker' of an umpire.
However his influence in such matters seems to have extended world-wide.
Overall he averaged just shy of one lbw per match, but managed somehow to
convince Australian umpires to grant him 17 lbws in twelve Tests.
<snip>
Andrew
Aditya Basrur
Andrew Dunford wrote:
> "Aditya Basrur" <sandaa...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:1114344126.8...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
>
> <snip>
>
> > No. 9: Richard Hadlee. Does anyone have stats on how often he was
given
> > LBW in NZ, as compared with overseas?
>
> Are you asking about batting or bowling?
Should have been more clear. Some of our Indian friends who've been
here for ages claim Hadlee was hardly ever given out LBW as a BATSMAN
in NZ, even on plumb calls. Is this true? Was Hadlee likely to be
caught in front of the stumps often?
Adtya
> Andrew
Andrew Dunford
He wasn't out lbw very often - only five times in 113 dismissals by bowlers
(twice in 51 dismissals at home, three times in 62 dismissals away). The
interesting statistic amongst all that is that Hadlee played 63 Tests
against teams not named Australia without ever being dismissed lbw. The
lucky bowlers were Max Walker, Greg Campbell, Bob Holland, David Gilbert and
Peter Sleep.
My memory of Hadlee the batsman is of him being on the back foot, giving
himself a bit of room to slash anything slightly short through the off-side.
He wasn't exactly famous for getting into line against short-pitched quick
stuff.
Andrew
Colin Kynoch
<adun...@artifax.net> enraptured with the Election of Cardinal
Ratchaser decided to post the following:
>
>"Aditya Basrur" <sandaa...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>news:1114510760.0...@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
>>
>> Andrew Dunford wrote:
>> > "Aditya Basrur" <sandaa...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> > news:1114344126.8...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
>> >
>> > <snip>
>> >
>> > > No. 9: Richard Hadlee. Does anyone have stats on how often he was
>> given
>> > > LBW in NZ, as compared with overseas?
>> >
>> > Are you asking about batting or bowling?
>>
>> Should have been more clear. Some of our Indian friends who've been
>> here for ages claim Hadlee was hardly ever given out LBW as a BATSMAN
>> in NZ, even on plumb calls. Is this true? Was Hadlee likely to be
>> caught in front of the stumps often?
>
>He wasn't out lbw very often - only five times in 113 dismissals by bowlers
>(twice in 51 dismissals at home, three times in 62 dismissals away). The
>interesting statistic amongst all that is that Hadlee played 63 Tests
>against teams not named Australia without ever being dismissed lbw. The
>lucky bowlers were Max Walker, Greg Campbell, Bob Holland, David Gilbert and
>Peter Sleep.
Bit generous calling all five of these bowlers.
<snip>
Colin Kynoch
OraWiz
as a black mark for cricket.
Match :- RSA v/s India - 9/12/1992 - Port Elizabeth
Kapil Dev "mankaded" Kirsten, the non-striker, backing up too far
before the ball was delivered. Apparently, Kapil Dev had warned Kirsten
at least twice in the earlier matches. When the umpire declared Kirsten
out, Wessels showed two fingers to Kapil Dev and got into an argument
with the fielders. Kirsten refused to leave until the umpire signalled
him to leave the field. Kirsten alone was fined later, for dissenting
with the umpire's decision.
Wessels then hit Dev on the shin as he was turning for a run. It was
very clear to people who saw the telecast as to what had happened.
Later on Clive Llyod, match adjudicator, took Wessels "word" that the
striking of Dev by him on the shin was not deliberate and let him go.
Njoy...........
rkusenet
<gane...@gmail.com> wrote
> 1. SM Gavaskar - walked when he felt like it ( anyone remember
> Calcutta.Jan 84 against the Windies when he walked following an lbw
> appeal without waiting for the umpires decison) but if he felt it was
> in his interest to stay, did everything in is power to influence the
> umpire - pointing to his bat, arm guard, pads what have you.
Ind WI 1983-84 Calcutta test:-
SMG c dujon b marshall 0
SMG c dujon b holding 20
He walked on LBW, eh?
So it can be safely assumed that whatever you have written above
is a product of your shit plus GRV's shit.
rk-
ps: cced to you too.
Prabhu Rangarajan
Ind WI 1983-84 Calcutta test:-
SMG c dujon b marshall 0
SMG c dujon b holding 20
He walked on LBW, eh?
Dunno if Ganesh was talking about the Calcutta test. SMG was out first
ball of the test in first innings. In second innings, had 5 fours IIRC
in his 20 before he fell at the end of day, India 36-5.
Prabhu[finished my 2nd std exam next day and rushed home, only in
vain, MDM packed them off for 90 in less than 2 hrs :-)]
Phil.
to Marshall, in the the 2nd, 3rd & 4th Tests, none of which was at
Calcutta.
Phil.
Chuckles The Scary Clown
"Andrew Dunford" <adun...@artifax.net> wrote in message
news:3d5f07F...@individual.net...
>
>
> I'd be happy to nominate Crowe for being captain of the NZ team which
> played
> England at Eden Park in the 1991/92 Test match. That being the team which
> sneaked their own ball onto the field and swapped it for the official ball
> early in England's first innings, got caught doing it by the umpires and
> told not to do it again, then promptly did the same thing again in the
> second innings.
>
Is this documented anywhere?
Seems extraordinary?
Mike Holmans
tapped the keyboard and brought forth:
>But surely the number one spot has to go to Warwick Armstrong for
>bowling two consecutive overs in a Test match? That takes some doing
>and huge nerve.
Not for nothing is he sometimes considered Australia's answer to WG
Grace.
I can't see how Grace can be challenged for the number one spot.
Nobody has tried it on more, and certainly nobody has ever got away
with as much.
Cheers,
Mike
Andrew Dunford
> SMG was out three times lbw in that series, twice to Holding and once
> to Marshall, in the the 2nd, 3rd & 4th Tests, none of which was at
> Calcutta.
Mere detail.
Andrew
Southpaw
rkusenet wrote:
> <gane...@gmail.com> wrote
> > 1. SM Gavaskar - walked when he felt like it ( anyone remember
> > Calcutta.Jan 84 against the Windies when he walked following an lbw
> > appeal without waiting for the umpires decison) but if he felt it
was
> > in his interest to stay, did everything in is power to influence
the
> > umpire - pointing to his bat, arm guard, pads what have you.
>
> Ind WI 1983-84 Calcutta test:-
>
> SMG c dujon b marshall 0
> SMG c dujon b holding 20
>
> He walked on LBW, eh?
BTW, the 1983-4 series was completed in the last few days of December
1983 itself. There was no test in January 1984 in India. I know this
because the 6th and last test of that series in Madras was the first
test I ever attended, and it was in the last week of December 1983.
-Samarth.
gane...@gmail.com
I have forgotten the details - but SMG did walk on an lbw appeal that
series. He was a selective walker , walked depending on his score, the
opposition, state of the match and above all if walking or not walking
would advance his own personal agenda.
At Madras who can forget SMG pointing to his arm guard and indicating
to the umpire that the ball had bounced off his arm guard and not his
bat.
( and pray which Indian umpire would give SMG out under these
circumstances). The entire windies team was convinced he was out and
out of disgust over his antics did not even applaud his record breaking
30th century.
Of course at the MCG against Lillee , SMG took a straight delivery on
the pads, tried to convince the umpire he nicked it and when that
did'nt work, instigated a walk out.
great batsmen but a selfish bastard and not a team player.
-Ganesh
Southpaw
Of course, he wore that same arm guard with the mark of the ball on it,
for years afterward... Maybe he was also a *devious* bastard who, after
the innings, went home and created the mark himself with his wife's
make-up kit.
-Samarth.
Andrew Dunford
"Chuckles The Scary Clown" <chuc...@thebigtop.net> wrote in message
news:RCxbe.20231$G8....@text.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
Yes, it does.
Excerpt from 'Alone in the Middle' by Steve Dunne & Brent Edwards, Penguin
Books, 2003, pp210-211. Copyright Steve Dunne & Brent Edwards 2003.
(the voice is that of Dunne)
+++++++
I have written elsewhere of ball-tampering but let me tell you about a case
of ball-swapping which remained unknown to the media and public. It was the
second test between New Zealand and England in Auckland on 30 January 1992,
and Martin Crowe won the toss. Brian Aldridge and I were putting the
finishing touches to our preparations when the New Zealand coach, Warren
Lees, came into our room and asked if he could take the box of 12 match
balls into the New Zealand dressing room so that the bowlers could select
the one they wanted. No problem, we said.
Ten minutes later Warren returned with the box, now containing 11 balls, and
handed us the ball the New Zealanders had chosen to bowl with first. The
track was dampish and doing a bit [AD: actually it was deliberately
underprepared in an effort to maximise NZ's chances of levelling the
series], and England was soon three wickets down with Chris Cairns and Danny
Morrison bowling well. The drinks break came after an hour's play and Brian
and I stepped aside to have a chat, a drink and a glance at the ball, as
umpires do.
Something wasn't right. I'm not sure which one of us twigged first, but in
our hands was a very dark burgundy-coloured ball. The common opinion was
that the darker the ball, the harder it was. It would therefore retain its
bounce longer and would also swing more than the lighter-coloured balls.
What was going through our minds was that the box of balls given to us by
New Zealand Cricket were of a very orange-red colour, as had been the balls
throughout that season. The ball in our hands was not one of the 12 that
had been in the box. The New Zealanders had substituted their own ball. It
was highly illegal, but to change it at that stage would have given the
media a field day and caused untold problems. We decided to handle the
problem ourselves, so all we did was let the New Zealand team know we knew
what had happened and that we were not happy about it.
The game continued and the time came for New Zealand to bowl at England in
the second innings. The box of balls went into the New Zealand dressing
room, came back, and we were given the one they had selected. Would you
believe it, they had done the same thing again!
We said nothing but, when no one was around, we quietly put the very dark
burgundy-coloured ball that we had been given back into the box, took out
the most orange one we could find and brought it out onto the field with us.
We threw the ball to the bowlers, they looked at it, talked amongst
themselves, looked at us in disbelief - but said nothing. We didn't need to
say a word. What the New Zealanders did didn't help them much in the end,
anyway. England won the test by 168 runs.
The ICC changed their rules on ball selection after this incident. From
then on, the selection of the balls had to be done in the umpires' room, and
the box of balls did not leave the umpires' sight.
+++++++
Andrew
Phil Wise
snip
>
> My memory of Hadlee the batsman is of him being on the back foot, giving
> himself a bit of room to slash anything slightly short through the
> off-side.
> He wasn't exactly famous for getting into line against short-pitched quick
> stuff.
That's true enough, although he's reported to have been complemented by
Lillee after a fighting 50+ against Aus in 1978; Lillee supposedly told
Hadlee that he was the only one that got into line against the quick stuff.
Mind you, the report comes from Hadlee himself.
Phil
>
> Andrew
>
>
Phil Wise
I don't recall any specific incidents of Hadlee surviving close LB calls,
although I do recall him being given caught at slip against India to a ball
that he didn't hit (it simply went to slip off the pitch, possibly off
Doshi). Umpire Goodall initally appeared to be unmoved, but gave him out
several seconds later when it occured to the Indian fielders that they could
try appealing.
Hadlee wasn't that happy and remembered the incident well enough to complain
about it in one of his books (not "Hadlee's Humour").
In an ideal world we would record "close calls" in the stats books (like
"errors" in baseball perhaps) and we could do some analysis of who tended to
benefit from them. Obviously defining the parameters could get pretty
contentious.
>
> Adtya
>> Andrew
>
rkusenet
<gane...@gmail.com> wrote
> I have forgotten the details - but SMG did walk on an lbw appeal that
> series. He was a selective walker , walked depending on his score, the
> opposition, state of the match and above all if walking or not walking
> would advance his own personal agenda.
actually given the fact that no batsmen is suppose to walk - that is
not their job - even selective walking is not something to be trashed.
This is assuming that your drivel above has semblance of truth.
But I don't expect this to penetrate your thick skull.
C'mon get over it:- SMG was a much better bat than GRV.
> At Madras who can forget SMG pointing to his arm guard and indicating
> to the umpire that the ball had bounced off his arm guard and not his
> bat.
> ( and pray which Indian umpire would give SMG out under these
> circumstances). The entire windies team was convinced he was out and
> out of disgust over his antics did not even applaud his record breaking
> 30th century.
let me get this straight. In this case you will chose to believe
the visiting team but not our own player. Praise GRV for this
mentality.
You can say that you felt like he was out at that time. But the way
you and your ilk pass it on as a 'fact' is simply disgusting.
C'mon get over it:- SMG was a much better bat than GRV.
Cicero
>>
>>He wasn't out lbw very often - only five times in 113 dismissals by
>>bowlers
>>(twice in 51 dismissals at home, three times in 62 dismissals away). The
>>interesting statistic amongst all that is that Hadlee played 63 Tests
>>against teams not named Australia without ever being dismissed lbw. The
>>lucky bowlers were Max Walker, Greg Campbell, Bob Holland, David Gilbert
>>and
>>Peter Sleep.
>
> Bit generous calling all five of these bowlers.
>
Bit generous calling any of them bowlers. Okay, Walker did okay. But if you
couldn't hit Sleep with the bat you deserved to be out. Somehow.
Kieran Dyke
"Mike Holmans" <mi...@jackalope.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:25at61dboviarirok...@4ax.com...
I don't think that Armstrong's feat was anything other than an accident. He
bowled the last over before a rain interruption and the first over after it.
Kieran
Mike Holmans
tapped the keyboard and brought forth:
>
>"Mike Holmans" <mi...@jackalope.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
>news:25at61dboviarirok...@4ax.com...
>> On 25 Apr 2005 05:26:41 -0700, "Bob Dubery" <mega...@gmail.com>
>> tapped the keyboard and brought forth:
>>
>>
>> >But surely the number one spot has to go to Warwick Armstrong for
>> >bowling two consecutive overs in a Test match? That takes some doing
>> >and huge nerve.
>>
>> Not for nothing is he sometimes considered Australia's answer to WG
>> Grace.
>>
>> I can't see how Grace can be challenged for the number one spot.
>> Nobody has tried it on more, and certainly nobody has ever got away
>> with as much.
>I don't think that Armstrong's feat was anything other than an accident. He
>bowled the last over before a rain interruption and the first over after it.
If I could lay my hands on my copy of Gideon Haigh's excellent
biography of the Big Ship, I'd be able to quote Armstrong's own
opinion about how deliberate it was, which differs markedly from
yours.
Cheers,
Mike
Andrew Dunford
Although obviously an unusual feat at Test level, the bowling of two
successive overs occurred in first-class cricket occurred as recently as
2003/04, the deed being perpetrated by Bradley Scott, playing for Otago v
Wellington at Carisbrook. As with the Armstrong incident, there was a rain
delay followed by playing being abandoned for the day, thus Scott's overs
were bowled on different days.
I have a feeling the Marshall twins may have pulled a similar stunt under
the guise of "my brother bowled the previous over, not me".
Andrew
dechucka
"John" <jo...@home.com> wrote in message
news:426ae84a$0$24035$5a62...@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au...
> 1) Ian Healy for his 'stumping' of Brian Lara at the Gabba in 1992-93. He
> knew that it wasn't out, and you could see it in his eyes, but they needed
> a wicket so he went along with it...
Wasn't Healy involved in a very suss catch were he dropped the ball while
rolling over and scooped it up again. The umpires view was blocked but the
TV camera picked it up
gco0307
"dechucka" <dech...@spew.com.uk> wrote in message
news:l8Wbe.31$_96...@nnrp1.ozemail.com.au...
I think you may mean Greg Dyer (short term Aus WK) who dropped a catch to
his left and then picked it up while rolling over and claimed the catch.
There was no third umpire etc and the camera behind Dyer (ie. behind the
sight screen) picked it up.
Dyer did not play many first class matches after that.
Garry
stuart.f...@gmail.com
9. Raul Dravid
10. Waqar
...atherton...
Bob Dubery
Mike Holmans wrote:
> On Thu, 28 Apr 2005 08:35:33 +1000, "Kieran Dyke" <tig...@idx.com.au>
> tapped the keyboard and brought forth:
> >I don't think that Armstrong's feat was anything other than an
accident. He
> >bowled the last over before a rain interruption and the first over
after it.
>
> If I could lay my hands on my copy of Gideon Haigh's excellent
> biography of the Big Ship, I'd be able to quote Armstrong's own
> opinion about how deliberate it was, which differs markedly from
> yours.
It also wasn't anything to do with a rain break.
This special moment in Test cricket came during the 1921 Ashes series
in which Armstrong was in splendid form. The series consisted of 3-day
Tests, and the 4th, at Manchester, began late and was thus a 2-day
match. As an aside, the match was also notable for a snail-paced knock
by Mead, and it was suspected that Armstrong had deliberately advanced
the slow-scoring Mead's case for selection by allowing him to accrue
runs against Australia when they played Hampshire. Mead was such a
habitually slow scorer that his own county captain once sent a telegram
out into the middle when Mead was at the crease. The telegram read "Get
on or get out". Armstrong was certainly not unhappy to see Mead picked,
realising that plodders were not what was required in a 3-day Test.
But now this match, with no play possible on the first day, was a
2-dayer and England barely got above 2 runs per over on the first
morning. Under the laws at the time, law 54 (the declaration) had to be
applied as if for a 2-day match, and this meant that England could
declare no later than 100 minutes before the scheduled close.
Armstrong, who was keen to not have Australia beaten on this tour, was
reminded of this by his side's veteran Hanson Carter.
So after tea Armstrong and his side kept a very close eye on the clock,
and the big man was relieved to see the deadline passed.
Then England declared at 17:50. With stumps scheduled at 18:30 this was
clearly too late,but England seemed unaware of the detail of the Laws
that Armstrong was wise to.
Armstrong had bowled the last over before the declaration. He now told
his fielders to stay put, warned the groundsman not to roll the pitch
and went off to have a word with England. 20 minutes later, during
which interval Armstrong had enjoyed a puff on his pipe, Fender and
Tyldseley came back on to the field and resumed batting.
Once the umpires had informed the confused crowd that England's
declaration had been rescinded, Armstrong took the ball and bowled an
over - thus breaking law 14.
Mike refers to Gideon Haigh's excellent biography of Armstrong "The Big
Ship". Haigh recalls that Percy Fender later asked Armstrong whether he
had deliberately bowled two consecutive overs. It is recalled that "he
would not answer this, but smiled and looked away."
I must also concur with comment's that Mike made some time ago - "The
Big Ship" is a very fine read. Armstrong was larger than life in all
ways.
He was certainly capable of skulduggery. In one match on that tour he
was out of his ground and within a yard of a fielder who was about to
throw the ball to the 'keeper, only to receive a blow to the right arm.
The fielder, Gilligan, turned around and found Armstrong back in his
ground and asking "do you think I did that on purpose?"
Mal
"gco0307" <gco...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:4271d911$0$27860$61c6...@un-2park-reader-01.sydney.pipenetworks.com.au
...
the guy can testify - although smartarse Ch9 mob with axes to grind never
bothere to find out - he was not appealing the catch, he genuinely had no
idea what happened and asked the square leg umpire for a ruling. That umpire
nodded OK
Don't believe every bit of media hyped crap that's pumped out
Andrew Dunford
"Mal" <m...@privacy.net> wrote in message
news:42794f94$0$287$cc9e...@news-text.dial.pipex.com...
Yes, the notion that Dyer was summarily banished as a result of this
incident doesn't really stack up, as he went on to play further Test matches
that season against England and Sri Lanka, and a further season of
first-class cricket. If anyone was banished after that match, it was Dick
French.
Dyer has always been given the blame for this incident. If he didn't know
what had happened, I find it difficult to imagine that nobody else in the
fielding side did either. Rather a shame given that in the previous Test,
Border had been given out caught when on 66, but was recalled when one Crowe
claimed a catch but was told by the other that the ball hadn't carried,
going on to score 205.
Andrew
Mal
no-one could see clearly and only a square leg fielder would have had any
view and that no better than the umpire. Talking to him later he was very
distressed that his honesty had been questioned and thought hard about a
formal complaint to Ch9 before realising the futility of that given the
close links between them and ACB at the time. A very articulate and
intelligent man - an actuary by profession - he wasn't an angel, being quite
happy to fight fire with fire but fairly.
Mal
Kieran Dyke
Dyer was relieved of captaincy (and first class cricket) after an incident
with a very young Darren Lehmann. Lehmann tripped over the bowler's foot
(Lawson) and was run out. Lawson tried to have Boof called back but Dyer
insisted. In subsequent interviews, Dyer said something along the lines of
cheating like this is part of the game. I don't think he played FC cricket
again.
Kieran
kenh...@hotmail.com
And in stark contrast to the numerous revisions of the Healy incidents,
where we've been told repeatedly on rsc that it all happened quickly,
Healy didn't actually know if he had the ball in his hand at the times
and all he was really doing was asking for confirmation from the
umpire. I think one bright spark (Galbraith?) suggested that it was
actually Lara's fault for walking.
Interestingly enough, in an interview a few years back, Healy was asked
if he'd do the same again, and he replied that he would. He explained
his behaviour on the need to be extremely competitive in Test cricket,
for which he made no excuses.
It's a myth that Dyer was found to have cheated and was therefore
drummed out because that sort of behaviour simply isn't tolerated in
Australian cricket. Given the longevity of the careers of the likes of
Healy and Waugh, one would have to assume that it's probably
encouraged.
Higgs