Andrew Strauss is a disgrace to cricket

Not allowing Greame Smith a runner was seriously bad form, old chap.
How an opposing captain is allowed to be such an ass, not allowing help for a player in obvious distress is something that seriously should be looked at by the ICC. The umpires should be allowed to overrule.

Jeez, it's not my fault Andrew doesn't have a clue what an innings of such magnitude takes out of a player. Was he merely jealous? Probably.
It cost SA a place in the next round of the competition, but that at least is par for the course these past 17 years - it doesn't even bother us anymore...

People will forget SA choking yet again, but the stink of bad sportsmanship will hang around Mr. Strauss for years.

According to the laws, the umpires have the right to allow a runner. The opposing captain doesn't have a say. If the injury is a valid injury sustained during the game.

The fact that Strauss was asked shows that the umpires didn't think Smith was entitled to a runner. So he was doing nothing wrong. There's never been an established convention that cramp counts as a valid injury.

Strauss showed a couple of days ago he understand sportsmanship - recalling a player who'd been run out when there was no real reason to, because he'd been accidentally obstructed by a fielder.

Originally posted by mtthw
According to the laws, the umpires have the right to allow a runner. The opposing captain doesn't have a say. If the injury is a valid injury sustained during the game.

The fact that Strauss was asked shows that the umpires didn't think Smith was entitled to a runner. So he was doing nothing wrong. There's never been an established convention tha ...[text shortened]... t when there was no real reason to, because he'd been accidentally obstructed by a fielder.

well said sir.
calling geting cramp an injure- what a bunch of P*** the south africans are😵

..and no i am not even talking about that 800m runner😵😵

Smith said: "I was cramping quite badly and I requested a runner. Andrew spoke with the umpires and turned it down. He felt that if you score a hundred, you're going to be tired. From my perspective, it felt a touch inconsistent. Guys have got runners for cramps in the past, so there needs to be a degree of consistency there. This is the frustration that we have."

Strauss said: "He asked me for a runner because he was cramping. The umpires were not particularly keen to give him one. I felt that at the end of a long game, after a long innings, you're going to be tired. Cramping to a certain extent is a preparation thing. To a certain extent, it's a conditioning thing. I didn't feel that he merited having a runner at that stage."

Nothing like hearing a losing South African captain complain. Music to my ears. Smith is just an arrogant to$$er.

Consistency is all I (we) ask for.
Strauss doesn't keep his wicket long enough to know what an innings of this magnitude takes out of a player in a match like this, so why should he be allowed to have a say on a cramping batsman? His nickname of Muppet seems quite apt.


So, debilitating cramp is not enough reason to get a runner, but some hacker who gets hit in the nuts by a great seaming fast ball is? Not on.


Anyway, England played great cricket, too bad the game will now be remembered for Strauss' bad sportsmanship.

Originally posted by Crowley
Consistency is all I (we) ask for.
Strauss doesn't keep his wicket long enough to know what an innings of this magnitude takes out of a player in a match like this, so why should he be allowed to have a say on a cramping batsman? His nickname of Muppet seems quite apt.

As I said before - he doesn't get a say. It's the umpires' decision. They didn't think Smith deserves a runner, otherwise they would never have asked Strauss.

Originally posted by Crowley
Consistency is all I (we) ask for.
Strauss doesn't keep his wicket long enough to know what an innings of this magnitude takes out of a player in a match like this, so why should he be allowed to have a say on a cramping batsman? His nickname of Muppet seems quite apt.


So, debilitating cramp is not enough reason to get a runner, but some hacker who ge ...[text shortened]... played great cricket, too bad the game will now be remembered for Strauss' bad sportsmanship.

too bad the game will now be remembered for Strauss' bad sportsmanship

Maybe in SA, it won't be remembered that way in England.

Originally posted by Proper Knob
[b]too bad the game will now be remembered for Strauss' bad sportsmanship

Maybe in SA, it won't be remembered that way in England.[/b]

😵😵😵😵😵😵😵😵😵😵😵

Originally posted by Proper Knob
Maybe in SA, it won't be remembered that way in England.

English fans seem to have understandably low standards these days.

Originally posted by mtthw
As I said before - he doesn't get a say. It's the umpires' decision. They didn't think Smith deserves a runner, otherwise they would never have asked Strauss.

Strauss saw the game slipping away, so he made a call after the umpires were too yella to make a decision.

It was a farce and flies against the spirit of our beautiful game.

Originally posted by Crowley
Strauss saw the game slipping away, so he made a call after the umpires were too yella to make a decision.

It was a farce and flies against the spirit of our beautiful game.

Normally you and I are on the same page, but this is one instance where you're talking rubbish. After three hours of batting you're tired, cramp sets in because you've not prepared properly or aren't fit. Runners are for injuries sustained on the field, not for poor physical fitness or lack of preparation. Two additional points: It's the umpires' decision, not Strauss's he was only consulted, so clearly the umpires didn't think Smith was in need of a runner and secondly if the tables were turned, Smith would have done exactly the same thing and you know it. Lets not forget that Smith has been punished several times for gamesmanship and behavioural issues, so don't pretend he's an offended innocent, the man doesn't know the meaning of 'Spirit of the Game'. Strauss is a man of balance and fairness and always has been.

Sure, it's a matter of consistency, but it's a matter for umpires and cricketing boards to set clear rules on.

So suck it up, big boy. War is war, loser 😛

Originally posted by Crowley
Strauss saw the game slipping away, so he made a call after the umpires were too yella to make a decision.

No. The umpires made a decision - it was "no".

Cramps are usually treated like injuries in most sports (play possibly halted - immediately or at first stop - for the player to receive assistance).

Originally posted by Palynka
Cramps are usually treated like injuries in most sports (play possibly halted - immediately or at first stop - for the player to receive assistance).

funny i've never seen an in-game leg transplant in a soccer match 😕

i'm sure he as given a little time to stretch (pretty much all they do in soccer) but being replaced by another guy to run for you just because you have cramp is unfair imo. test cricket sees people batting for well over 3 hours and you rarely see them having cramp problems.

i used to suffer from cramp, it's all about conditioning. unfit, didn't prepare properly for the game? get cramp? suck it up.