Will the Roos throw the game ?

[Misty Bee]

Will you cricket typs f**k off? What does the history of that boring old fart passtime have to do with the upcoming Tri Nations clash?

Australia will flog the poms twice in 2 weeks. Then sports fans can sleep until Wests take on Bradford next Feb!

 

[Rich]

Not possible for you to flog us twice in 2 weeks

 

[Misty Bee]

True. No Hindmarsh, Grothe, Tahu, Vella, Ridell, Burt et al

OK, we'll win convincingly against GB and I twice in 2 weeks!

 

[ucantseeme]

If the Roos didnt f@#k around in that game against USA last years then this thread would exist. Fans arent stupid, we can tell when our team of superstars play bad on purpose.

 

[aussies1st]

If the Roos didnt f@#k around in that game against USA last years then this thread would exist. Fans arent stupid, we can tell when our team of superstars play bad on purpose.

This thread would still be around, NZ fans aren't happy with us in other sports cause we keep screwing them over hence they think our League team will do the same.

 

[Willow]

Pakistan? We can win this one? Would rather play them in the final?

What exactly are you talking about?

I'm obviously talking about another series. Cricket is an old game which was invented prior to 2005.
Ozbash remembers.

 

[El Diablo]

the 92 world cup farce

NZ have a bad history in cricket

 

[Willow]

Willow, Willow Willow.

Lets get some facts straight firstly. The series in question was South Africa, New Zealand, Australia - Pakistan weren't even here!

Secondly, from 8-130 after 40 overs they got through to 8 or 9 for 175 or so. 45 runs from 10 overs with 9 and 10 in, what a crime.

What were messrs Waugh and Bevan going to tell you? The go slow campaign at the '99 world cup where they deliberately tried to get to 150 odd in 50 or so overs to prevent New Zealand going through who took with them more points into the super 6 courtesy of their win.

LOL. You're easily excited. I can hear your sanctimonious sermon from miles away. Too bad you didn't check your own facts.

They were never 8/130 after 40 overs.

Their 5th wicket fell at 129 after 25.2 overs. They were 5/129.
They needed 142 runs off 24 overs but blocked, only managing 74. That's around 3 runs per over.... terrible in a ODI.

After that, NZ couldn't beat SAF.

In 99, Australia won. In 2002, NZ lost. Big difference.

But, lets not let facts stand in the way of a good story. Rebecca Wilson, eat your heart out!

Indeed....

not only did they not attempt to win but they lost by as much as possible to concede the bonus point.

And what's this 8/130 bullsh*t?

they were 8/161 and finished 8/203

NZ gave up after they lost their 5th wicket.

After 26 overs they were 5/129

they scored 74 runs off the last 24 overs.

You think they were trying to win?

What he said.

 

[Manu Vatuvei]

This thread is about Australia playing below their best for the sole purpose of eliminating NZ from sporting events.

NZ have never done anything of the sort. In the 2001/02 VB series NZ staged a go-slow to ensure THEIR OWN qualification. There's your big difference.

 

[Willow]

This thread is about Australia playing below their best for the sole purpose of eliminating NZ from sporting events.

Actually the thread poses the question "Will the Roos throw the game?" This being in regards to this weekend's Tri-Nations.
I think most people would treat it as a question said in jest. There's way Australia will be playing to lose.

NZ have never done anything of the sort.

LOL.

In the 2001/02 VB series NZ staged a go-slow to ensure THEIR OWN qualification. There's your big difference.

Pfft! Semantics.
They already qualified. Winning wasn't going to change that.
And they ultimately lost the series. Serves them right for playing with a dead bat.

 

[Manu Vatuvei]

Pfft! Semantics.
They already qualified. Winning wasn't going to change that.
And they ultimately lost the series. Serves them right for playing with a dead bat.

Incorrect. Your memory has failed you.

New Zealand had not qualified for the final. Scoring more quickly than they did would have seriously jeopardised their chances. They did what they could to ensure their own qualification.

 

[El Diablo]

They threw it. Fleming admitted it.

http://forums.leagueunlimited.com/showthread.php?p=1773661&post1773661

 

[Manu Vatuvei]

Yes, they did. In order to qualify.

 

[Willow]

Thierry, did NZ play with a dead bat to contrive an outcome?

They did what they could to ensure their own qualification.

And it sure worked a treat. LOL.
It obviously turned into a disaster, instilling a losing attitude. They lost, and lost again, and then again.

To reiterate...

This thread is about Australia playing below their best for the sole purpose of eliminating NZ from sporting events.

NZ have never done anything of the sort.

Do you still think this?

They threw it. Fleming admitted it.

http://forums.leagueunlimited.com/showthread.php?p=1773661&post1773661

Fleming flouted one of the most serious laws in cricket last Friday but seems set to escape scot-free.

Not only was the New Zealand captain's order to lose the game against South Africa a flagrant breach of the opening principle of the International Cricket Council's Code of Conduct, it also appeared to fly in the face of a section which deals with corruption.

Part C, section 10 of the code recommends a life ban for any player or team official who, among other things, "was a party to contriving or attempting to contrive the result of any match".

Fleming said afterwards that he deliberately conceded a bonus point to the South Africans in order to improve his team's chances of qualifying for the finals.

"Believe me, it was our last resort ... "

But in concentrating on the bonus point he had first to decide to throw the match completely.

Comparisons have been made with Australia's go-slow at Manchester in the 1999 World Cup, but the reality is that Steve Waugh's actions were not nearly as serious.

At the World Cup, Australia were comfortably beating the West Indies and although they decided to play defensively at the end, they still won, and therefore did little wrong.

Fleming's actions effectively predetermined the result of a match before it had taken its course, and encouraged his team-mates to underperform.

The code of conduct also recommends a life ban for any player who induces or encourages any other player not to perform on his merits.

 

[Misty Bee]

You know why bears hibernate in winter?

Cricket's on in Australia. Therefore 5 months to turn the telly on and zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

 

[douglasallen91]

riubbish

Australia won their game therefore doing nothing wrong.

NZ lost their game and lost by as much as possible as to concede the bonus point.

Fleming should of been banned for life. The ICC are gutless.

so as along as you win, you can do anything.

 

[El Diablo]

the object is to win. something kiwis seem to not know.

 

[Manu Vatuvei]

Willow, you still haven't shown where NZ contrived a result to harm another team's chances. NZ's motive was to ensure their own qualification. It's different to say, the World Cup 99 go-slow by Australia where they had already qualified, and were trying to eliminate New Zealand. Or the Solomon Islands draw where, again, Australia had already qualified but by failing to win they eliminated New Zealand.

You may think that anything is ok as long as you win. My opinion is that anything to ensure your own success is ok, but anything done for the sole purpose of eliminating another team is a pretty low act.

If New Zealand had scored more runs against South Africa, it would have cost us a place in the finals. Hence, Stephen Fleming "was a party to contriving or attempting to contrive the result of any match". However, if NZ had scored faster in what was essentially a lost cause, he would have been a party to the even more serious offence of contriving the entire series.....

 

[El Diablo]

By NZ throwing the match it harmed Aus. That's why Aus didn't make the final.

 

[Manu Vatuvei]

Yes. But New Zealand did it so that New Zealand could make the final. Someone had to miss out, NZ didn't give a sh*t who. New Zealand were playing for a place in the final. Isn't that what you do in tournaments?