155.6

[El Duque]

Indeed it does and thats why NZ lost by heaps as to give Sth Africa the bonus point.

Fleming is one of the most disgraceful cricketers to have played the game.

The ICC should've banned him. Bloody toothless tigers.

 

[imported_JoeD]

Willow, if you are still reading this thread

, i'd like to hear your thoughts on a situation that occurred a couple of years back ina bledisloe match involving the AB's (and I can't remember the other team) The AB's were down by 8 with time virtually up on the clock and were awarded a penalty in front of the sticks. No chance of a victorybecause a converted try is only worth 7 but a penalty (3 points) would have earned them a bonus point for losing by 7 or less. Anton Oliver took the tap and gave up the bonus point when they failed to score a try before the end of the game. Would you have supported his decision to play positively in that situation?

El: are you saying there is a difference between deciding to lose by a little and deciding to lose by a lot and if so what is that difference?

 

[El Duque]

In the case we're talking about I've already answered that question.

 

[SpaceMonkey]

Joe:
That situation you referred to with Oliver proved why he should not be captain in my opinion. The ABscould not win, but the bonus point would have helped us in the series; Oliver simply had a brain explosion under pressure.

 

[imported_JoeD]

"El, are you saying it is alright to lose on purpose if its only by a little amount? No, I wasn't saying that at all."

From that exchange I determined that you think it is not alright to lose regardless of the losing margin.

"IMO once you decide you are going to lose the game does it really matter how much you lose by? Indeed it does and thats why NZ lost by heaps as to give Sth Africa the bonus point."

Here you seem to say that it does matter how much you lose by. I'm not trying to be particular, i just want toclarify what your opinion is.

 

[El Duque]

Yo've lost me, Joe.

What is it you want?

 

This message has been deleted by the manager or assistant manager.

 

[El Duque]

<table class=ThmBgStandard cellspacing=0 cellpadding=10 width="100%" border=0> <tbody> <tr> <td> Joe, seeing you seem to be condoning losing tactics can I as you a question.

If Fleming had decided to delibreatley lose on purpose but only lose by 15-20 runs and therfore not give Sth Africa the bonus point should he have been fined, banned or sacked as captain?

Bare in mind that if he'd done this NZ would've missed the finals.
</td></tr></tbody></table>

 

[Willow]

Joe:
I have no background knowlegde on the ABs match you refer to in post # 242.
But from what you're saying they couldn't win no matter what. But you say he could have got the bonus point with a goal? Then perhaps the captain forgot this and that rare scenario, he erred.

Not sure what the point is because it still happened in thefinal seconds and wasnt premediated early in the match.

I believe I covered this in my previous post (# 235) and as I said, Fleming's decision to block was made with plenty of time on the clock. For over after over, he showed his team mates how to lose.
Completely different from a spur of the moment decision.

 

[El Duque]

Joe, where have you gone?

 

[imported_JoeD]

Right here, don't worry.

Yo've lost me, Joe.

What is it you want?

Well, alot of things hehe. Seriously not much. I went through and read the posts over to see where I started from and I guess it is mostly to do with the fact that I think there are some double standards being shown by some people in regards to the Steve Waugh WC incident and the Fleming VB incident. I think both situations are similar, you do not. I've tried to explain my point, you disagreed. Thats fine. Difference of opinion is good.

 

[ozbash]

no,no,no joe. stick to your guns mate.
they are wrong and you are right, i know these blokes. they will keep chipping away at you till even you think your wrong.....

never say never, joe.

 

[El Duque]

Winning and losing are not remotley similar.

Can you answer my question I asked in #248 please.

 

[Willow]

Ozbash: "...i know these blokes. they will keep chipping away at you till even you think your wrong....."
Damn... our secret is out !

 

This message has been deleted by the author.

 

[imported_JoeD]

Ok El I will answer your question if you answer mine.

If Fleming had decided to delibreatley lose on purpose but only lose by 15-20 runs and therfore not give Sth Africa the bonus point should he have been fined, banned or sacked as captain?

In this situation you would have to seriously ask yourself why Fleming would lose on purpose without any clear long term benefit to the team. If he was being paid to lose by a 3rd party then he should be banned. However in the actual case he was not being paid to lose, he did it to benefit the team. I blame the rules of the tournament that allow such a situation to occur.

Now heres my question for you: Did Steve Waugh instruct his batsmen to bat slowly in order to artificially inflate the West Indies nett run rate?

 

[El Duque]

So are you saying it was not OK to lose in that scenario??

My stance is it was NEVER OK to lose on purpose but you seem to have different rules.

In your football scenario it was OK to lose by a little but not in the cricket.

Joe, Steve Waugh was batting at the time and I never recall him saying anything to Bevan but then I don't have bionic ears.

How can you even try to compare two seperate games anyway?

Australia WON and New Zealand LOST.

 

[El Duque]

Nobody has even made mention that South Africa went out basically to lose in the next game. Anyone who says they were every going for the 280 odd set by Australia is kidding themselves. They were only ever going for the 230 or so they had to get to get the bonus point and go through to the finals. They finished about 250 for 5. They never even looked like going for victory but they had plenty of wickets in hand and could've gone for it.

South Africa were guaranteed of going through to the finals regardless of the result

 

[imported_JoeD]

El, mate, take it easy. I answered your question as honestly as I could. Maybe I didn't word mine as well asI might've. So maybeyou'll be so kind as to answer another question:

Doyou think that the australians batted slowlyin order to artificially inflate the West Indies run rate?

Here is my position as simply as I can put it. In situations where during the course of a gameit appears likely a team is going to lose, I think that it is OK for them to alter the losing margin if it is beneficial to the team's standing in the greater competition.

 

[El Duque]

I believe they batted slower than normal but have no dramas with that because they won. I dont know any rules that say you must get the runs ASAP.

There are rules against throwing matches however.