Andrew Strauss is a disgrace to cricket

Originally posted by trev33
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 all about conditioning. unfit, didn't prepare properly for the game? get cramp? suck it up.

You've never seen a player being assisted in a football match because of cramps? 😕

The play is not resumed until he receives assistance. If it takes long, he's stretchered out. This is true for any injury. If he's fit to continue or not, is again exactly the same as for any injury.

I don't know the rules of cricket, but if being replaced is allowed for other injuries then it seems it should also be for cramps.

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).

He'd be entitled to that treatment, but not necessarily to a runner.

Originally posted by Starrman
He'd be entitled to that treatment, but not necessarily to a runner.

But if he had another injury, would he be entitled to a runner?

Originally posted by Palynka
But if he had another injury, would he be entitled to a runner?

Only if that injury had occured during the game he was playing. Not in a previous game or in training.

Originally posted by Palynka
But if he had another injury, would he be entitled to a runner?

If it was sustained on the field and the umpires allowed it, yes. If the cramp is too serious to allow running, then it's possible that a runner can be called. Personally I don't think it should count, but basically it's the umpires' call.

There certainly is a consistency issue here, I'm not disputing that, there should be clear guidelines.

Originally posted by Starrman
If it was sustained on the field and the umpires allowed it, yes. If the cramp is too serious to allow running, then it's possible that a runner can be called. Personally I don't think it should count, but basically it's the umpires' call.

There certainly is a consistency issue here, I'm not disputing that, there should be clear guidelines.

Sounds fair. I definitely agree that the umpires should have had the balls to make that call themselves.

Originally posted by Starrman
If it was sustained on the field and the umpires allowed it, yes. If the cramp is too serious to allow running, then it's possible that a runner can be called. Personally I don't think it should count, but basically it's the umpires' call.

There certainly is a consistency issue here, I'm not disputing that, there should be clear guidelines.

This is the problem I have here.
If a game was going towards a definite conclusion, whether win, loss or draw, then the umpires would probably have said "No Problem Greame!", but because it was so close they chickened out and gave the decision to Strauss and he did The Deed.

Originally posted by Crowley
This is the problem I have here.
If a game was going towards a definite conclusion, whether win, loss or draw, then the umpires would probably have said "No Problem Greame!", but because it was so close they chickened out and gave the decision to Strauss and he did The Deed.

so what your saying is that it's the umpires who are actually the 'disgrace to cricket' and not strauss who just wanted the win. what would you do if the umpires didn't mind either way, give your opponents a runner and a better chance of winning a close game or not allowing a runner giving your team a better chance of winning?

it's not strauss's job to umpire the match that's what the umpires get paid for and what you should be complaining about.

Originally posted by trev33
so what your saying is that it's the umpires who are actually the 'disgrace to cricket' and not strauss who just wanted the win. what would you do if the umpires didn't mind either way, give your opponents a runner and a better chance of winning a close game or not allowing a runner giving your team a better chance of winning?

it's not strauss's job to um ...[text shortened]... the match that's what the umpires get paid for and what you should be complaining about.

Strauss should have looked at the umpires with the proper amount of disdain and given Smith the runner, like a good sportsman would have done.

Please, try to keep up.

HAHAHAHA


Hey English fans! Karma is a heartless bitch, eh?
Hopefully she'll continue to sodomize your useless team and captain for the rest of the tournament.

Today could only have been better if the whole English team was humiliatingly dismissed by New Zealand for less than Smith alone scored against your rabble.
It was damn close.

Originally posted by Crowley
HAHAHAHA


Hey English fans! Karma is a heartless bitch, eh?
Hopefully she'll continue to sodomize your useless team and captain for the rest of the tournament.

Today could only have been better if the whole English team was humiliatingly dismissed by New Zealand for less than Smith alone scored against your rabble.
It was damn close.

Whatever, we're still in the semis and your boys are packing their bags and flying home. Suck it up, spanky.

Originally posted by Starrman
Whatever, we're still in the semis and your boys are packing their bags and flying home. Suck it up, spanky.

We choke. It's what we do. At least we only lose, we don't get humiliated.

Like I said earlier, you English fans sure do have low standards these days.

Originally posted by Crowley
Strauss should have looked at the umpires with the proper amount of disdain and given Smith the runner, like a good sportsman would have done.

Please, try to keep up.

sportsman or sportschump if they lose because he allows the runner?

big bucks involved here don't forget, try talking to the english cricket board if they had lost due to that.

Originally posted by trev33
sportsman or sportschump if they lose because he allows the runner?

big bucks involved here don't forget, try talking to the english cricket board if they had lost due to that.

Which is why the fans want clearer guidelines. I don't want a Muppet like Strauss thinking about his future as captain of a struggling England side.
There needs to be definite rules and the decision should never ever be given to the opposing captain.

Originally posted by Crowley
Which is why the fans want clearer guidelines. I don't want a Muppet like Strauss thinking about his future as captain of a struggling England side.
There needs to be definite rules and the decision should never ever be given to the opposing captain.

i agree, which brings us back to the original sediment... you shouldn't be criticizing strauss when it was the umpires who were at fault. i've never seen such a potentially game changing decision like that be placed solely on one captain before, truly spineless umpiring.