Sussex team for Worcs

[The Great Cornholio]

Wright didn't necessarily deserve a ton because it was served up on a plate - so didn't really miss out. Just gets 94 easy runs onto his career stats. He won't be unhappy.

Not saying he did but if there was anything other than an agreement going on then he would have been allowed to try. Obviously the buffet bowling gave it away anyway but by declaring on a 300 lead with a player 6 away from a rare first class hundred, Goodwin might as well have held up a card with a confession. Does anyone know if there are any spirit of cricket style rules in place?

With all of the recent goings on, what was to stop a mass betting scam on Wright's performance if it was known before start of play that Worcs would serve up dollies? Or a spread bet on Sussex's total being exactly a lead of 300? Although the intent is vastly different, I can't see how captain's agreeing exactly what will happen in the Sussex innings before it has happened is that different than deciding beforehand when to bowl no balls.

 

[Couldn't Be Hyypia]

Wasn't really replying to you here TGC - was more towards those who felt sorry for Wright mising out on his ton. He didn't because there never really was a first class ton in the offing.

 

[The Great Cornholio]

Your analogy doesn't work as others have said. A better one is two football teams needing a draw to get promoted, and then colluding to produce a 0-0. None of us are happy about that going on (didn't it affect us once?) so I do see your point. Equally Sussex has nothing to gain from doing this, so we are favouring Worcs. Again in football terms, its like Man Utd fielding a weakened team last game of the season thus helping West Ham stay up. Thus you've convinced me this is not on.

If Worcs chase these runs down, and Glamorgan fight for a draw, Glamorgan would be well pissed off.

But Sussex have little or nothing to gain by agreeing other than helping Worcs out. As it stood, Worcs needed 8 more wickets when 138 behind. I would wager that if this was middle of the season, Sussex would have batted on until the game was safe and given themselves 40 overs or so to bowl Worcs out. So I still think my analogy stands as Sussex, in theory neutral in deciding who goes up, have given Worcs a good chance of winning the game from what was a very difficult scenario first thing. Maybe 12 goals was over the top but given that 300 to win from 70 overs is a lot better position than 138 behind with 8 wickets still to get and only a day remaining, Sussex have made the scenario easier for their opponents.

 

[Simster]

The biggest problem with this sort of collusion is that it makes a mockery of the past 3 days cricket.

And in this instance, I think Sussex could have driven a far harder "bargain" to be fair anyhow. As you say, they'd normally have batted on and had a bowl with 40/50 overs left with Worcs needing about 300-320. Seeing as 300 in 70 is *very* gettable, and seeing as Worcs didn't look like bowling out Sussex twice, I think Sussex might have been within their rights to demand Worcs chase nearer 350 in 65.

 

[Kalimantan Gull]

But Sussex have little or nothing to gain by agreeing other than helping Worcs out. As it stood, Worcs needed 8 more wickets when 138 behind. I would wager that if this was middle of the season, Sussex would have batted on until the game was safe and given themselves 40 overs or so to bowl Worcs out. So I still think my analogy stands as Sussex, in theory neutral in deciding who goes up, have given Worcs a good chance of winning the game from what was a very difficult scenario first thing. Maybe 12 goals was over the top but given that 300 to win from 70 overs is a lot better position than 138 behind with 8 wickets still to get and only a day remaining, Sussex have made the scenario easier for their opponents.

Oi, I was agreeing with you!

If we're going to argue over the analogy, I would say that letting your opponent score lots of goals to even the contest up would potentially run the risk of them beating you and knocking you out of whatever fictional cup this is. Whereas Sussex are champions regardless. Thus I refer you back to my second analogy, the premier league champions putting out a weakened team against the relegation strugglers, which would be 'unfair to the integrity of the competition' or something.

and I'm still agreeing with you

 

[Kalimantan Gull]

There are also the laws of 'Everyone does it', 'Its always been done like this' and 'They would do it in our position' to consider as a counter-arguments, of course.

 

[Left Footer]

Lets hope Sussex win so we won`t get accused of helping Worcestershire, personally i think Glamorgan deserve to go up as they`ve been in the top two pretty much all season. I thought we would set them a target as we would try and win the game.

 

[Gwylan]

I think collusion to set a result is fair enough, teams have always done it

But I do think the Sussex declaration is a slightly generous one - I'd have given them about 320 from about 66/67 overs

 

[Shropshire Seagull]

If the batsmen were aware of the declaration agreement, as seems to be confirmed by the match comentator, then it is Hodd's fault that Wright didn't make a ton.

I've played in games batting last when you know the end target and if your partner is near a milestone [ton or half-century] you nudge one early ion tjhe over and block the last two balls in an over to give him maximum strike.

Hodd got 39, if hed, got 6 less and Wrigh 6 more that would be fine? But then there is the arguement that Hodd was only 11 short of a rare half-ton ...

I applaud the sportsmanship of the delclaration to avoid this 4 day game ending in a dull draw. If Glamorgan don't go up because of it, then tough. I'm sure Sussex would have done the same thing if the teams had been reversed.

James Cameron is my Club's contracted player this season - he's doing rather better for his county than he has for his club [Wellington CC play in the Birmingham Premier League prem div] - will have to ask him about spot betting I guess ;-[

 

[keaton]

NOthing wrong with making a game off, but I agree with the above, we're being too generous there's nothing in it for us

 

[Gwylan]

I applaud the sportsmanship of the delclaration to avoid this 4 day game ending in a dull draw. If Glamorgan don't go up because of it, then tough. I'm sure Sussex would have done the same thing if the teams had been reversed.
[

I believe that, going into the last two games, Glamorgan had a 25-point lead over Worcs and had their last two games against the bottom two counties. Worcs, on the other hand, had to play the top county. Your money would have on Glamorgan in that situation. If Worcs win and Glamorgan don't go up, they can look at their measly return of 14 points in their last two games as the reason.

 

[The Great Cornholio]

Oi, I was agreeing with you!

If we're going to argue over the analogy, I would say that letting your opponent score lots of goals to even the contest up would potentially run the risk of them beating you and knocking you out of whatever fictional cup this is. Whereas Sussex are champions regardless. Thus I refer you back to my second analogy, the premier league champions putting out a weakened team against the relegation strugglers, which would be 'unfair to the integrity of the competition' or something.

and I'm still agreeing with you

But woebetide anyone who challenges my analogies!

 

[8ace]

Nothing wrong with setting up a result, maybe a tad generous by Sussex, the game is staged for the spectators after all. Better they see a contest rather than Sussex batting practice and the game petering out to a draw.

 

[SurreySeagulls]

Nothing wrong with setting up a result, maybe a tad generous by Sussex, the game is staged for the spectators after all. Better they see a contest rather than Sussex batting practice and the game petering out to a draw.

This

 

[simmo]

Nothing wrong with setting up a result, maybe a tad generous by Sussex, the game is staged for the spectators after all. Better they see a contest rather than Sussex batting practice and the game petering out to a draw.

Yep, when we won the league in 2007 we thrashed Worcs? in 3 days. The Surrey v Lancs game was petering out into a draw in which we would have won the title but Butcher declared at about 3/4 wickets down setting Lancs 420+, which they were within a dozen or so runs of getting until Cork played on

Declarations are all part and parcel of the county game we are still going for a win. In any case I would rather Worcs go up, I think they will be worse than Glamorgan in the CC next season

 

[Barrel of Fun]

That was a fantastic day. I remember watching a ghastly 2-0 reverse against Yeovil and heading straight down to Hove to watch the scoreboard showing the Lancs/Surrey match. Marvellous scenes when the final wicket went.

I shared a hug with a random fan standing next to me.

Worcs 178/2 off 36 overs.

 

[CHAPPERS]

Worcs currently making a mockery of the declaration.

 

[Kalimantan Gull]

Turns out they are doing the same thing in the Glamorgan-Derbyshire game, so all concerns are off.

Glamorgan allowed to score 269 in 33(!) overs, setting Derbys 160 to win. Currently 16/2

 

[Simster]

Turns out they are doing the same thing in the Glamorgan-Derbyshire game, so all concerns are off.

Glamorgan allowed to score 269 in 33(!) overs, setting Derbys 160 to win. Currently 16/2

I don't see that at all. Derbys only have to hold out for 37 overs. The run chase we gave Worcs was far more generous.

Bottom line: Glamorgan will stay down because we've allowed Worcester an easy run chase. Absolute shite.

 

[ManOnTheRun]

NOthing wrong with making a game off, but I agree with the above, we're being too generous there's nothing in it for us

Maybe the deal is we let them win and they allow us to sign Gareth Andrew ... ?