Comments on: England, thanks for ruining cricket for my son

By: Laurence

Laurence — Thu, 21 Jan 2010 14:45:08 +0000

I have to say I do feel for your son and none of what I have to say is a good example for kids as we should be encouraging kids to play not to get embroiled in technicalities, but the rules and players actions are ruining this game for future generations. I hope he will grow and learn by it.
To say England are at fault is a little harsh as South Africa have an appalling record over the years and controversy has followed them around ever since their re-introduction into international cricket…Strauss was well within his rights not to allow Smith the use of a runner. Even at grass routes levels you are only allowed runners if the injury has been caused during the match and not by fatigue.
Even more recently in the test match at the Wanderers we have seen Smith not walk on a blatant edge behind, the constant sledging and barrage of abuse that seems to go hand in hand with South African cricket is certainly against the “Spirit of the game”.
If you cast your mind back even further Hansie Cronje, national stalwart, captain of your national team…exposed as a cheat for match fixing. Do you think that’s a good example to set for your son as for Gentleman’s game and ruining the game…I think you may want to look a little closer to home.
I am not having a pop at South African in general as Pakistan have a history, as do Australia of pushing the boundaries of what’s right and what’s wrong in the game.

By: Justin Hartman

Justin Hartman — Wed, 30 Sep 2009 12:00:39 +0000

@vincent I agree that we probably would have lost anyway but up until that decision there was hope. You could see it in the camp, it was diminishing quickly but Mickey Arthur and Smith had a sense that there may be a chance.

After the decision, Graham got angry and despondent and Mickey Arthur sat with his head in his hands for almost the rest of the game. When the coach is hopeless the impact that has on players who still have to come out to bat is immense.

The game was well and truly lost after that decision.

By: Justin Hartman

Justin Hartman — Wed, 30 Sep 2009 11:56:39 +0000

@Craig, sure you have a point but these decisions need to be taken into context. Strauss’ decision was calculated and based on bad sportsmanship in my opinion. He is quoted as saying “Being tired does not qualify batsmen for a runner under the laws of the game”.

By contrast Vettori is quoted as saying that “According to the laws of the game, it was probably out, but of late we have discussed a lot about the spirit of the game.” after the recall of Collingwood.

See the differences in attitude?

By: vincent

vincent — Wed, 30 Sep 2009 10:58:02 +0000

Yeah I was astounded at Strauss’ decision, his dismissal of Smith’s pain was purely strategic rather than empathetic. It showed a lack of character on his behalf.

I don’t believe that it was a turning point in the match though, Strauss’ england had us by the short and curlies, our bowling attack was shit and our top order batsmen – barring Smith of course – didn’t perform.

By: Craig

Craig — Wed, 30 Sep 2009 10:55:44 +0000

While I support almost everything you do say, I must say that I support Strauss’ decision not to grant Smith a runner. Cramps is not an injury, and to be quite honest, if runners keep getting meted out for any old reason whatsoever, then fat batsmen the world over will be grinning from ear to ear. Perhaps Smith should have taken a fall and ‘hurt’ himself? That would have worked, but then we’d be right back on the ‘breaching the gentleman’s code’ now wouldn’t we?

Shame, do feel for you son though…