Sussex team for Worcs

[Brovion]

Absolutely spot on Mona. Quite honestly, I cannot believe Gwylan started his reply with "don't be absurd" when there is nothing wrong with any of what you say. It was a shocking, needless, and shameful declaration by Sussex, especially given the fact that Worcs had been marginally the worse of the two sides up until that point. What possible motive did Sussex have of letting them have a bat while chasing a meagre 4 an over?

I think 'shocking needless and shameful' is a bit OTT, but nevertheless I agree with your point of view. I honestly thought this 'declaration bowling' and contrived result business had gone out with the three-day game and the old one-division county championship - I thought Luke Wright was genuinely batting well yesterday! (Hence my original post). I wonder if less points for a draw was the reason?

There was SO much scope for match-fixing yesterday. At the beginning of the day I might have thought there was no way Sussex would lose (I wonder what the odds were) so I might have had a bet on that. Then once it was obvious that Worcs weren't trying I might have had a bet on Wright getting a 100. For all we know they may have been sitting there watching the odds change on Betfair or whatever before maybe signalling to Wright to 'unfortunately' miss a straight one or to bat for another over to get his ton.

In real cricket, proper cricket (20/20, 50 over and Test) you play to win. If you can't win then you play to not lose (not possible in short formats obviously). If in the County Championship they actively encourage joke bowling and contrived results then by extension County cricket is a contrived, joke of a competition. To say "it's always happened" isn't good enough. Not any more.

 

[Gwylan]

At Glamorgan, both sides were desperate for a result as Derby wanted to avoid finishing bottom. So your comparison is actually ludicrous.

But it's still a contrived finish. I don't understand why you think Glamorgan would complain about contrived finishes have completed one themselves.

Despite what happened in this final round of matches, contrived county championship games are no longer common. You keep stating that they are. I suggest you check this particular point in recent Wisdens.

I have said no such thing. I said that contrived finishes have been around since the 19th century, they've been less common since the advent of 4-day cricket but they still happen. There were three yesterday alone so they're scarcely total rarities.

At the very least it was foolish-particularly as the club's most successful bowler of the season wasn't playing and all reports have stated that conditions for batting were favourable.

What reports? The BBC commentator at the game said it was a tough target and the odds favoured Sussex. Worcester News said "Worcestershire were set what seemed to be a tough 301 target in 70 overs". The Telegraph said "though a target of 301 in 70 overs appeared a stiff one on a pitch of variable bounce", Cricinfo said "the eventual requirement - 301 from 70 overs - still favoured Sussex. The pitch, twice used this season, offered variable bounce to the seamers and generous turn to the spinners. Worcestershire shouldn't really have even gone close."

In fact, there was pretty near universal agreement that the odds favoured Sussex - to state the conditions were favourable for batting is pure invention after the fact.

It might be quaint but I think sport should be about winning and avoiding defeat (within the rules).

So do I. That's precisely my point. But the priority should be winning rather than avoiding defeat

The priority today at New Road was to avoid defeat if a win was not possible.

But a win was possible - again, that's the point.

The game is first and foremost about winning and then, as 8Ace above says, the game is about entertainment - people pay to watch. Cricket teams that putting not losing above winning would attract few spectators. Cricket administrators have recognised the danger of teams playing not to lose by increasing the points for a win - that's why they increased the win bonus to 16 points this year and reduced the draw to 3 points.

I believe all six teams that contrived finishes yesterday did the game a service, in a week of bad weather, three out of four games ended in a win for one side. I think that's a fantastic achievement and the clubs should be congratulated on their endeavour, not be met by curmudgeonly slurs about their unwillingness to bat out bore draws. Cricket has really woken up in the past few years and has tried to improve its image as entertainment, I think yesterday was a wonderful advertisement for the game.

If Sussex had been in Glamorgan's position yesterday, I wouldn't have been moaning about the result. I'd have been pointing my finger at a team that, with four games to play, was 37 points ahead of Worcestershire in the table and had a run-in that included games against the bottom two clubs. Glamorgan were virtually home and dry but completely blew it. Just two batting points from their games against the likes of Surrey and Derbys was a terrible return. And why didn't Glamorgan set Sussex a gettable target in their game? Glamorgan were content to play for a draw rather than go for a win and risk losing. You see, that's what happens if teams play safe. Glamorgan should really be looking at themselves rather than pointing the finger.

 

[Gwylan]

Absolutely spot on Mona. Quite honestly, I cannot believe Gwylan started his reply with "don't be absurd" when there is nothing wrong with any of what you say.

I was referring to the idea that the ECB would mount an investigation into something that has been going on for so long. It's an absurd idea - not a single commentator or reporter has suggested that there was anything untoward about the result.

 

[Gwylan]

In real cricket, proper cricket (20/20, 50 over and Test) you play to win. If you can't win then you play to not lose (not possible in short formats obviously). If in the County Championship they actively encourage joke bowling and contrived results then by extension County cricket is a contrived, joke of a competition. To say "it's always happened" isn't good enough. Not any more.

What about SA v England in Centurion Park in 1999/2000 when the two captains got together and contrived a result? I don't understand how that's all right in test matches (because that's proper cricket) but not all right in CC?

It's certainly rarer now - better pitches and the 4-day format help CC but it does happen.

Quite honestly, I'm surprised at some of the reaction to this. If Sussex had batted out the afternoon at two or three an over (something that would inevitably have led to the same joke bowlers coming on) there would have been widespread condemnation: Sussex really were damned if they do and damned if they don't on this one.

Like I said, I think they did the right thing and a good crowd got some worthwhile entertainment.

The points you raise about match-fixing are more valid and must be worrying for the authorities but I don't believe that this game was a case of the bookies getting their claws in.

 

[Couldn't Be Hyypia]

If Sussex had been in Glamorgan's position yesterday, I wouldn't have been moaning about the result. I'd have been pointing my finger at a team that, with four games to play, was 37 points ahead of Worcestershire in the table and had a run-in that included games against the bottom two clubs. Glamorgan were virtually home and dry but completely blew it. Just two batting points from their games against the likes of Surrey and Derbys was a terrible return. And why didn't Glamorgan set Sussex a gettable target in their game? Glamorgan were content to play for a draw rather than go for a win and risk losing. You see, that's what happens if teams play safe. Glamorgan should really be looking at themselves rather than pointing the finger.

The Times notes that 301 was the highest score of the game reuired in a fourth innings - on an old pitch. Not a gimme by any means. In fact because Worcs had to go for the win, it was also Sussex best chance of winning the game.

Glamorgan blew a nailed on promotion themselves. Sussex handed Worcs nothing.

 

[KZNSeagull]

What about SA v England in Centurion Park in 1999/2000 when the two captains got together and contrived a result? I don't understand how that's all right in test matches (because that's proper cricket) but not all right in CC?

It's certainly rarer now - better pitches and the 4-day format help CC but it does happen.

Quite honestly, I'm surprised at some of the reaction to this. If Sussex had batted out the afternoon at two or three an over (something that would inevitably have led to the same joke bowlers coming on) there would have been widespread condemnation: Sussex really were damned if they do and damned if they don't on this one.

Like I said, I think they did the right thing and a good crowd got some worthwhile entertainment.

The points you raise about match-fixing are more valid and must be worrying for the authorities but I don't believe that this game was a case of the bookies getting their claws in.

The Centurion Test was the one that Hansie Cronje admitted to taking money from a Bookie to make an early declaration, so that definately was not "proper cricket".

My view is that contriving results is fine as long as they are not being fixed by outside agencies. In this time where yet again Cricket is under the spotlight for cheating/fixing, it may be wise for the ECB to issue a directive for next season to teams so that they do not contrive results. That would be sad but probably wise given the circumstances.

 

[Brovion]

What about SA v England in Centurion Park in 1999/2000 when the two captains got together and contrived a result? I don't understand how that's all right in test matches (because that's proper cricket) but not all right in CC?

Oh come on, that happened ONCE! And didn't the S.A. captain (Cronje) then get accused of match-fixing?

Quite honestly, I'm surprised at some of the reaction to this. If Sussex had batted out the afternoon at two or three an over (something that would inevitably have led to the same joke bowlers coming on) there would have been widespread condemnation: Sussex really were damned if they do and damned if they don't on this one.

Like I said, I think they did the right thing and a good crowd got some worthwhile entertainment.

I think some of the reaction is because it wasn't a 'proper' contest, In almost any other sport you get people trying, at least in theory, to win. In county cricket it is apparently permissible for teams to be openly 'shit' in order to generate a result. And you think that's entertaining? When I go to cricket I like to see good players trying their best, but I dunno, maybe that just me. And it wasn'f if the game was in the balance for very long, the last hour or so it would have just been a matter of watching Worcs knock off the runs.

And in the current climate the fact that a win/loss result was so obviously contrived when a draw looked the most likey result is perhaps causing more concern that perhaps it would have last season.

 

[mona]

What about SA v England in Centurion Park in 1999/2000 when the two captains got together and contrived a result? I don't understand how that's all right in test matches (because that's proper cricket) but not all right in CC?

Obviously we agree to differ on this argument.

But that is a very unfortunate example to quote after what was later revealed.

 

[withdeanwombat]

A "sport" where results are "contrived" shouldn't be taken seriously.


Should be put on after the wrestling on Sky.

 

[Gwylan]

Oh come on, that happened ONCE! And didn't the S.A. captain (Cronje) then get accused of match-fixing?

And in the current climate the fact that a win/loss result was so obviously contrived when a draw looked the most likey result is perhaps causing more concern that perhaps it would have last season.

Yes. But I said the two captains - or are you suggesting that Hussain was in on it as well? There have been other examples in history of test match captains coming together and contriving a result but I admit it's rare.
However, this is because five-day games are less likely to need contrivances but also because test series are not real championships.

That could all be about to change. It will be interesting to see what happens under the proposed play-off system. For example, suppose England and India are playing a test series and by the last game they know if one of them wins, they're in the last four for the play-off but a draw means that Pakistan, say, snatch the last place. The game is hit by rain over the first four days, and only about 60 overs have been possible. My guess is that the two captains would get together and contrive a result rather than a bat out a draw - do you really think they'd be happy with a draw in those circumstances?

I thought at first that people were complaining that Sussex were being too generous with the declaration but it seems to have taken on a sinister turn. I have seen NO suggestion whatsoever that Sussex or Worcs have been involved in skulduggery here.

 

[KZNSeagull]

That could all be about to change. It will be interesting to see what happens under the proposed play-off system. For example, suppose England and India are playing a test series and by the last game they know if one of them wins, they're in the last four for the play-off but a draw means that Pakistan, say, snatch the last place. The game is hit by rain over the first four days, and only about 60 overs have been possible. My guess is that the two captains would get together and contrive a result rather than a bat out a draw - do you really think they'd be happy with a draw in those circumstances?

I thought at first that people were complaining that Sussex were being too generous with the declaration but it seems to have taken on a sinister turn. I have seen NO suggestion whatsoever that Sussex or Worcs have been involved in skulduggery here.

The fact that cricket is under investigation for match fixing makes anything like this take a sinister turn. I am absolutely certain that nothing untoward went on at Sussex, but to some it looks like it has. That is the issue as far as I am concerned.

As for the Test league, I have no doubt that there will be contrived results, all of which will look dodgy, even though they may not be. It is a sad state of affairs, but that is what happens once match fixing raises its head in a sport.

 

[Brovion]

Yes. But I said the two captains - or are you suggesting that Hussain was in on it as well? There have been other examples in history of test match captains coming together and contriving a result but I admit it's rare.
However, this is because five-day games are less likely to need contrivances but also because test series are not real championships.

That could all be about to change. It will be interesting to see what happens under the proposed play-off system. For example, suppose England and India are playing a test series and by the last game they know if one of them wins, they're in the last four for the play-off but a draw means that Pakistan, say, snatch the last place. The game is hit by rain over the first four days, and only about 60 overs have been possible. My guess is that the two captains would get together and contrive a result rather than a bat out a draw - do you really think they'd be happy with a draw in those circumstances?

I thought at first that people were complaining that Sussex were being too generous with the declaration but it seems to have taken on a sinister turn. I have seen NO suggestion whatsoever that Sussex or Worcs have been involved in skulduggery here.

In that 'Test Championship rain' situation you describe I would hope that rules would be put in place to stop a contrived result; it should be a Test championship and not decided by a glorified one-day game. But I think that's another argument for another day - it certainly doesn't happen now.

I don't think anyone IS suggesting for a moment that there was any skulduggery going on yesterday - just a bit of 'honest' collusion. All the same at the moment cricket doesn't need it. In addition Withdeanwombat's comment about county cricket being on a par with professional wrestling isn't as far off the mark as we'd like it to be. I can't think of another sport where 'deliberately being shit' is accepted.

 

[Gwylan]

In that 'Test Championship rain' situation you describe I would hope that rules would be put in place to stop a contrived result; it should be a Test championship and not decided by a glorified one-day game. But I think that's another argument for another day - it certainly doesn't happen now.

It doesn't happen now because the competition is different: you're not comparing like with like. It would be interesting to see what rules could be put in place to stop contrived results. I really don't see how it could be stopped. And nor would I want it - the point I keep making is that sport is (or should be) winning. I'd much rather two teams tried to win a game rather than trying to avoid defeat.

The test match mindset has changed in the last 15 years (led by Australia, it must be said) where it's better to risk losing in going for a win rather than accepting the draw. I think virtually every cricket fan believes that this a good thing and great for the sport. I'm fully in agreement - even if it means some declarations are rather more generous than others.

 

[KZNSeagull]

It doesn't happen now because the competition is different: you're not comparing like with like. It would be interesting to see what rules could be put in place to stop contrived results. I really don't see how it could be stopped. And nor would I want it - the point I keep making is that sport is (or should be) winning. I'd much rather two teams tried to win a game rather than trying to avoid defeat.

The test match mindset has changed in the last 15 years (led by Australia, it must be said) where it's better to risk losing in going for a win rather than accepting the draw. I think virtually every cricket fan believes that this a good thing and great for the sport. I'm fully in agreement - even if it means some declarations are rather more generous than others.

I totally understand what you are saying and I agree. I wish all sport was like that, but sadly, for whatever reason, most are not like that anymore.

This Test Championship idea is a great one, but it will be hugely open to abuse. I hate to think what would happen if a sub-continent team was stopped from winning the championship (and no doubt denied their huge win bonuses) by a contrived result. It should not be like that but I am rather afraid that it will happen. Contrived results in cricket are usually pretty obvious (each side forfeits an innings, for example or gives a generous declaration). Everybody praised Cronje for doing it in 2000 so that the fans got to see a result but as it turns out, he only did it because he got paid.

I think that contriving results in cricket is a good thing if done in the spirit of competition and not in the spirit of lining ones pockets. I just think that in the current climate it is somewhat unwise. Like I said before, it should not be like that, but that is the situation cricket finds itself in.

I too wish that all sport was played in a spirit of fair competition, but for whatever reason, far too many sports have been tainted by corruption. I wish cricket was not one of them, but what's done is done. Being rather cynical, my first reaction to whomever wins the Tour de France or whomever breaks the World 100m record, is "what are they on then". Sad, but true.

Sport should definately be about winning and losing. Fairly.

 

[Gwylan]

I think that contriving results in cricket is a good thing if done in the spirit of competition and not in the spirit of lining ones pockets. I just think that in the current climate it is somewhat unwise. Like I said before, it should not be like that, but that is the situation cricket finds itself in.
...
Sport should definately be about winning and losing. Fairly.

Totally agree. And I'd love to see all cheats drummed out of cricket (and all sports).

But you can get too paranoid about cricket. People are talking about Worcs v Sussex but what about Yorkshire's collapse against a relegated county on a good batting wicket? Isn't that suspicious? Or Lancashire losing 3 wickets in under 5 overs when Notts just happened to need 3 wickets?

I don't think there was anything untoward in any of those BTW but if you're going to talk about the situation that cricket finds itself in, then everything comes under suspicion. A dropped catch here, a wild shot there, where does it stop?

I think we have to accept that everything in cricket is fair (which it is 99.99% of the time) and that includes the odd contrived result.

 

[KZNSeagull]

Totally agree. And I'd love to see all cheats drummed out of cricket (and all sports).

But you can get too paranoid about cricket. People are talking about Worcs v Sussex but what about Yorkshire's collapse against a relegated county on a good batting wicket? Isn't that suspicious? Or Lancashire losing 3 wickets in under 5 overs when Notts just happened to need 3 wickets?

I don't think there was anything untoward in any of those BTW but if you're going to talk about the situation that cricket finds itself in, then everything comes under suspicion. A dropped catch here, a wild shot there, where does it stop?

I think we have to accept that everything in cricket is fair (which it is 99.99% of the time) and that includes the odd contrived result.

Indeed. Cricket is 99.99% fair, as is most sport.

Do you think that contriving results gives more opportunities for players to be corrupted though? If that is the case, should steps be put in place to stop contrived results which may help to drive away those that do the corrupting?

Of course the only infallible way to stop corruption is to make the punishments so severe that no-one would want to do it, but maybe the authorities should look at areas where they can make corruption harder. Once the corruption has gone, then contrived results can come back in. Having said that though, I would never have thought that people would place huge bets, or bookies would accept huge bets, on bowling no-balls!! Allegedly.

 

[Gwylan]

Indeed. Cricket is 99.99% fair, as is most sport.

Do you think that contriving results gives more opportunities for players to be corrupted though? If that is the case, should steps be put in place to stop contrived results which may help to drive away those that do the corrupting?

Of course the only infallible way to stop corruption is to make the punishments so severe that no-one would want to do it, but maybe the authorities should look at areas where they can make corruption harder. Once the corruption has gone, then contrived results can come back in. Having said that though, I would never have thought that people would place huge bets, or bookies would accept huge bets, on bowling no-balls!! Allegedly.

Nor me.

Part of the problem is that these bookies are illegal in Asian countries. It's less of a problem here as bookies are open and are very adept at spotting irregular betting patterns. As long as Asian bookies remain underground and unregulated, there's going to be a problem. I agree with tougher sentences, it's laughable that many of the Pakistan cricketers identified by the Quayyam report are still involved in cricket, for example.

It should be noted that gambling was big in English cricket in the 18th and 19th century with some very dodgy characters involved in the game - so this is nothing new.

 

[Lord Bracknell]

On Wednesday evening, I started a thread about the potential for a bit of corrupt betting by captains of teams involved in the Division 2 race for promotion. But I wasn't being serious.

Because things turned out as they did at Worcester (and Cardiff), we can still keep that debate going. But nobody should be pointing the finger at Murray Goodwin or Sussex. It was the Worcestershire captain who decided to use 10 bowlers and concede easy runs to Sussex. The target set (301 in 70 overs) was a real challenge. Worcestershire reached it because they had two batsmen who scored quick centuries against decent bowling - one of them a rookie who had never scored a first class century in his entire first class career. Once these two had been dismissed, wickets started to fall quickly.

If the two century makers had got no more than 70 each, there is a very good chance that Sussex would have won, and nobody would be thinking that Sussex had stitched things up to deny Glamorgan promotion.

As Gwylan says ... an entertaining contest, played fairly. Worcestershire won, because they played well enough to do so.

 

[HAILSHAM SEAGULL]

I was at Worcester all 4 days and talking to Robbo on day 1, he told us it was a result wicket, that had been used twice this season and would be a result and 250 looked a good 1st innings total.
There was uneven bounce and spin on the 1st day and having to bat last would be tricky.
Yes the captains agreed to make a match of it by agreeing a total and a set amount of overs on the final day.
The declaration bowling was the first I had witnessed in a CC game and cheapened the efforts of the teams on the previous days, and Luke's mock celebration on reaching fifty was testament to this, Luke actually declared himself by walking off before he was attributed to a CC century and I admire that.
I would have rather seen Worcs bowl properly, and us try to set them 260 in 40 overs, thus making it a proper contest.
With the pitch deteriating, two spinners that bowled well in their 1st innings, you would have fancied Sussex getting all 10 wkts in 40 overs because they would have to go for their target if they were to gain promotion.
The fact that we bowled some absolute crap, fielded poorly, set strange defensive fields thus allowing them to nudge singles at ease was the main factor, plus two very good innings by Ali and Cameron, who both batted beautifully.

At no time was the result contrived, we were probably a bit too generous, 4.2 an over isnt massive, but credit for Worcs for achieving the highest score of the match on the last day.
Any talk of betting scams or fixing is absolute bullshit.

 

[glasfryn]

I don't know enough about cricket to argue any points on this thread
it is sad that Glamorgan have missed out, but on a personal point I will not have to sit through hours of programmes on BBC1/BBC2 about Glamorgans season and boring discussions about how good or bad they were.

while in Cheltenham I went to a match between Sussex and and the locals

I FELL ASLEEP BEFORE THE FIRST BALL