-
Join the MyBroadband community
South Africa’s biggest forum. Discuss, discover, and connect with thousands of members.
-
Question of the Day: What is the ultimate French toast topping?
Cricket: Test Cricket
- Thread starter Ou grote
- Start date
2CentsWorth
Senior Member
- Joined
- Dec 1, 2008
- Messages
- 674
- Reaction score
- 2
That's a part of cricket. England adopted a similar ideology in 1932/33 to counter Donald Bradman - it was even called the bodyline tour. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bodyline
Although laws were introduced to curb this, these laws were relaxed somewhat since the advent of new improved padding and helmets.
mercurial
MyBB Legend
Yeah but should it be tolerated? In soccer you get a red card. Why should cricket be any different? This influences matches entirely, as could be the case in this match. I'm not saying Smith was purposely targeted, but surely they can introduce a substitution system. It happens in every other sport. Why not cricket?
feo
Honorary Master
Well, even so, MacDonald's helmet got hit straight OFF in his first ball batting.
killadoob
Honorary Master
Merc it's cricket it has been like this forever, i would imagine if this was hayden you would not be bringing the topic up 
We must go and either win or lose tomorrow, drawing this test match will feel like a loss, its time to gamble, win or lose.
We must go and either win or lose tomorrow, drawing this test match will feel like a loss, its time to gamble, win or lose.
mercurial
MyBB Legend
Merc it's cricket it has been like this forever, i would imagine if this was hayden you would not be bringing the topic up
We must go and either win or lose tomorrow, drawing this test match will feel like a loss, its time to gamble, win or lose.
What does that mean, "it's cricket"? The point is injured players should be allowed to be substituted and played. My point stands - it happens in all other sports, so why is cricket excluded?
I have to agree with merc, only problem would be when players(especially bowlers) suddenly get injured in the second bowling innings and get swapped for a batsman...
but somebody should be able to have a decent solution for this....
but somebody should be able to have a decent solution for this....
chiskop
Executive Member
Merc it's cricket it has been like this forever, i would imagine if this was hayden you would not be bringing the topic up
I don't remember too many complaints when Lee was injured in the second test.
feo
Honorary Master
Well the strategic subs were actually trialled by the ICC in 2005 and almost all players were against it. Checking up on wiki, you'll find cases of teams that substituted weaker fielders with specialist fielders when it was time to field and that actually detracts from the spirit that the game is meant to be played in.
For example, Ricky Ponting even got fined 75% of his match fee for dissent after being run out by a strategic sub.
I doubt substitutions will find their way into Test cricket any time soon.
For example, Ricky Ponting even got fined 75% of his match fee for dissent after being run out by a strategic sub.
I doubt substitutions will find their way into Test cricket any time soon.
mercurial
MyBB Legend
Each team should be allowed one batsman, bowler and wicket keeper. How does that sound?
I agree if somebody has a 100 knock and some good support we can do this.
It won't be easy though....
Because soccer is for ghay boys
(Just joking) In cricket you have all these nice body armour parts and a big wooden thing called a bat to protect yourself
No really that is what makes cricket so great; batting for 8 hours in Calcutta in 40 degr Celcius and loosing 3kg in water, being on the receiving end of a red leather ball traveling at around 150km/h. I agree 100% with the comment that that is why its called Test-cricket
mercurial
MyBB Legend
In cricket you have all these nice body armour parts and a big wooden thing called a bat to protect yourself
No really that is what makes cricket so great; batting for 8 hours in Calcutta in 40 degr Celcius and loosing 3kg in water, being on the receiving end of a red leather ball traveling at around 150km/h. I agree 100% with the comment that that is why its called Test-cricket
And in soccer you have shinguards (sp?) to protect yourself. Your point?
I am in favor of the subs replacing injured players. The problem is how to implement it to make it fair. With cricket having many different roles for different types of players it makes it very diffcult.
Ahhh but you are missing the big wooden thingy, the helmet, elbow gaurd, padded gloves etc etc etc
Also They know what they are going to get so if they were scared of getting hurt then they should rather go play soccer where they can act like they get hurt
2CentsWorth
Senior Member
- Joined
- Dec 1, 2008
- Messages
- 674
- Reaction score
- 2
I don't really get the whining here... Graeme Smith was injured thanks to the pitch behaving badly and not the bowler trying to inflict injury.
It's part of the game. It's not exactly a new game either...
It's part of the game. It's not exactly a new game either...
mercurial
MyBB Legend
Ahhh but you are missing the big wooden thingy, the helmet, elbow gaurd, padded gloves etc etc etc
Also They know what they are going to get so if they were scared of getting hurt then they should rather go play soccer where they can act like they get hurt
So? Soccer players only need protection for their shins, that's why they only wear shin guards. Cricketers have to tend with a hard ball being bowled at an incredible speed and need more areas to protect. Your point holds no water.
mercurial
MyBB Legend
It's not whining. Why is it so hard to want to implement a sub system? Whether or not he was purposely injured, is that really the issue? Is the issue not the fact that players get injured and their teams have to try and play a fair game without their co-operation?
2CentsWorth
Senior Member
- Joined
- Dec 1, 2008
- Messages
- 674
- Reaction score
- 2
It's just not really possible to implement a sub system.
Apart from the obvious replacing a specialist bowler with a specialist batsman to strategically gain the upper hand, there are other issues as well. The selection process is a very important part of a game - matches have been won and lost on selection before.
And what about when more than one player is injured and forced to retire hurt (or even dead)? It's not far fetched.... in 1975/76 five Indian players were retired hurt when playing the West Indies in the fourth Test in Jamaica: http://content-rsa.cricinfo.com/ci/engine/match/63162.html
What do you do then?
You said the bowler should be getting something akin to a red card if he intentionally tries to inflict injury to the batsmen, I responded by saying that it is a different sport with different rules and the players know what could happen. Ask Kallis when his box was broken by a ball, ask kirsten when he got a bloody nose (Cullinan also suffered the same fate). These players play hard and roll with the punches. Its like saying that in rugby if a player tackles the other player to hard he should be red carded.
But it was more meant in a jokeing sense so sorry if I caused any offence